hollande beats sarkozy

[brigadista]

please could someone in france give us the lowdown?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Basically a bourgeois liberal or social democrat. Carry on as usual.

[the zizekian]

It is good to see that France, contrary to the US, is not frightened by the very word socialism.

[brigadista]

is hollande a socialist???? not a social democrat?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

is hollande a socialist?
No.

[RedAnarchist]

He and his party are socialist in name only. Hollande is no more left-wing than Ed Milliband.

[brigadista]

He and his party are socialist in name only. Hollande is no more left-wing than Ed Milliband.

that is what i thought but would like to hear from france...:):)

[Blanquist]

Sorry-my-space-bar-is-broken-but-Hollande-has-proposed-a-75%-tax-on-income-ober-1million-he-is-not-the-same-as-sarkozy-one-bourgeios-politicion-does-not-equal-another-bourgeios-politican.

[ed miliband]

he's also proposed a cut to corporation tax

not that i think we should be concerned with tax, but the idea his populist stance on income tax is representative of him being a different beast to sarkozy is easily disproved when you look at other things

[LeftAtheist]

Sorry-my-space-bar-is-broken-but-Hollande-has-proposed-a-75%-tax-on-income-ober-1million-he-is-not-the-same-as-sarkozy-one-bourgeios-politicion-does-not-equal-another-bourgeios-politican.

So what? Upping tax on personal wealth is not socialism, it's social democracy at best. Reformist, capitalist dead end.

[Blanquist]

So what? Upping tax on personal wealth is not socialism, it's social democracy at best. Reformist, capitalist dead end.

And where exactly did I say it is socialism?

'So what?' So a 75% tax on income over 1m, if implemented and I have my doubts, would be extraordinary.

One bourgeois politician =/= another bourgeois politician.

To say they are all the same and it doesn't matter is the method used by fascists and fools. Not Marxists.

As Trotsky said in a similar case, "learn to think"

[RedAnarchist]

Sorry-my-space-bar-is-broken-but-Hollande-has-proposed-a-75%-tax-on-income-ober-1million-he-is-not-the-same-as-sarkozy-one-bourgeios-politicion-does-not-equal-another-bourgeios-politican.

Bourgeois is bourgeois. Like Bakunin said, "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"". Things might (and I stress might) be slightly better in a France led by Hollande than it was under Sarkozy where the working class is concerned, but it will be a long, long way away from what we on the revolutionary left want to see for the French working class (and indeed, every other working class human).

[Blanquist]

Bourgeois is bourgeois. Like Bakunin said, "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"". Things might (and I stress might) be slightly better in a France led by Hollande than it was under Sarkozy where the working class is concerned, but it will be a long, long way away from what we on the revolutionary left want to see for the French working class (and indeed, every other working class human).

That is a very unscientific way of looking at things. 'Bourgeois is bourgeois' is no more true than 'socialist is socialist' 'communist is communist' 'dictator is dictator' 'war is war' etc//

[Le Socialiste]

Hollande's election can best be understood as a reflection of the reaction(s) against austerity and the rightward trajectory of the French ruling parties. However, Hollande's victory entails only further cuts and devastation to the French working-class. At best Hollande and the whole of the Socialist Party can be described as social democrats, devoted to the dictates of foreign and domestic markets. As noted above, they're socialist in name only.

[RedAnarchist]

That is a very unscientific way of looking at things. 'Bourgeois is bourgeois' is no more true than 'socialist is socialist' 'communist is communist' 'dictator is dictator' 'war is war' etc//

I don't think you're understanding my point. Yes, there are differences between Hollande and Sarkozy, but they both have the interests of the ruling classes at heart.

[LeftAtheist]

And where exactly did I say it is socialism?

Fair enough, you didn't


'So what?' So a 75% tax on income over 1m, if implemented and I have my doubts, would be extraordinary.

I too have very strong doubts but even if it does happen, I don't think it'd be "extraordinary". Why do you think it would be? Taking a bit more money from millionaires doesn't automatically improve the lot of the workers.


One bourgeois politician =/= another bourgeois politician.

To say they are all the same and it doesn't matter is the method used by fascists and fools. Not Marxists.

They're similar enough so it's not much difference.


As Trotsky said in a similar case, "learn to think"

What do you mean by this?

[Blanquist]

I don't think you're understanding my point. Yes, there are differences between Hollande and Sarkozy, but they both have the interests of the ruling classes at heart.

Can't argue that.

[the last donut of the night]

lol can't say hollande is any better but

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110410&t=2&i=383885082&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-04-10T205945Z_01_BTRE7391M9Y00_RTROPTP_0_JAPAN-SARKOZY

sad sarko est sad

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Interesting development. Now lets see if he keeps his promise to the Queer community and legalizes gay marriage.

[Agathor]

George Orwell defined pacifism as a decision that you object to taking life and prefer not to follow your thoughts beyond that point. The attitude of great portions of the marxish left to bourgeois elections is very similar. They object to voting for bourgeois politicians and don't want to think too hard about it.

If you force them to think they reliably resort to sarcasm, condescension, and endless ducking and diving, because there is no rational source to their position: it's all emotion. Only an ignorant person can believe that there is no difference between Sarkozy and Hollande.

[ed miliband]

you're probably the best troll on here agathor

[Tim Cornelis]

What people have yet to realise is that Hollande in his election campaign rarely addressed the issue of the present economic crisis. People voted for Hollande because they oppose austerity measures, but Hollande will be compelled to impose austerity measures to save the capitalist economy.

This will spark outrage amongst the working people, leading to a rise in revolutionary consciousness. I saw a report on this exactly where protesters, unionists, etc. said that if Hollande was going to impose austerity measures, there would be "social unrest" and he would be ousted.

On the other hand we see far-right LePenne attempting to reform her party to become more appealing to workers. The cheap idea of "only jobs for workers of French descent" may certainly be attractive to many unemployed.

We will thus see an intensification on the margins of the political spectrum. The far-left and far-right will continue to grow.

[Agathor]

I switch between trolling and sincerity as the mood takes me, but at the moment I'm being mostly serious.

I think it's funny that the site weirdos are given license to throw their crap around when someone insinuates that Mao might have made some mistakes here and there or that or maybe a few dozen of the so-called Kulaks massacred were just that, but whenever I say that this politician is marginally better than that politician or that Yankee imperialism is probably less of a threat to the general well-being than global warming I'm told to take it to 4chan.

[NotTooOldEither]

" People voted for Hollande because they oppose austerity measures, but Hollande will be compelled to impose austerity measures to save the capitalist economy.

This will spark outrage amongst the working people, leading to a rise in revolutionary consciousness. I saw a report on this exactly where protesters, unionists, etc. said that if Hollande was going to impose austerity measures, there would be "social unrest" and he would be ousted."

I don't quite understand the meaning of "revolutionary consciousness" here in relation to the debate on "austerity". We're still talking about the State here and anger against 'austerity' is simply an attempt to have a State provide one with capitalist trappings. No? I'm new to Revleft and am curious to follow these and other threads in politics to learn more about the general consensus here.

[kuriousoranj]

As much as I struggle with the word "socialist" used in describing Hollande, perhaps a positive can be taken from the acceptability of the term, even though he doesn't, actually or in any way, represent it.

[RedAnarchist]

As much as I struggle with the word "socialist" used in describing Hollande, perhaps a positive can be taken from the acceptability of the term, even though he doesn't, actually or in any way, represent it.

I think it's only being accepted because Hollande's idea of socialism is so watered down compared to what our idea of socialism is that it isn't considered to be much of a threat to the rich and powerful in France.

[the zizekian]

As much as I struggle with the word "socialist" used in describing Hollande, perhaps a positive can be taken from the acceptability of the term, even though he doesn't, actually or in any way, represent it.

Here’s why a name matters a lot :

Zizek wrote : Recall the old Polish anti-Communist joke: “Socialism is the synthesis of the highest achievements of all previous historical epochs: from tribal society, it took barbarism, from Antiquity, it took slavery, from feudalism, it took relations of domination, from capitalism, it took exploitation, and from socialism, it took the name…” Does the same not hold for the anti-Semitic image of the Jew? From the rich bankers, it took financial speculations, from capitalists, it took exploitation, from lawyers, it took legal trickery, from corrupted journalists, it took media manipulation, from the poor, it took indifference towards washing one’s body, from sexual libertines it took promiscuity, and from the Jews it took the name… Or take the shark in Spielberg’s Jaws: from the foreign immigrants, it took their threat to the small US town daily life, from natural catastrophes, it took their blind destructive rage, from big capital, it took the ravaging effects of an unknown cause on the daily lives of ordinary people, and from the shark it took its image… In all these cases, the “signifier falls into the signified” in the precise sense that the name is included into the object it designates.

http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=347 (http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=347)

[Sendo]

So what? Upping tax on personal wealth is not socialism, it's social democracy at best. Reformist, capitalist dead end.

Revolutionaries should never become unpaid volunteers for establishment bourgeois politicians, but we should all welcome the presidential results quite warmly.

It says a lot about the French electorate (over half of the 80% who voted are not scared by the word "socialism"). It also means real changes for the country. Minor, superificial changes, but changes nonetheless.

This isn't like a Blue Dog Democrat Senator versus a moderate Republican Senator. Sarkozy had been steering his party towards fascism. I don't mean to be alarmist, but how else do you define an ideology that got so much support from the petty-bourgeois (who have since become disillusioned), supported big capital, and demonized foreigners and foreign-born residents?

[the zizekian]

Revolutionaries should never become unpaid volunteers for establishment bourgeois politicians, but we should all welcome the presidential results quite warmly.

It says a lot about the French electorate (over half of the 80% who voted are not scared by the word "socialism"). It also means real changes for the country. Minor, superificial changes, but changes nonetheless.

This isn't like a Blue Dog Democrat Senator versus a moderate Republican Senator. Sarkozy had been steering his party towards fascism. I don't mean to be alarmist, but how else do you define an ideology that got so much support from the petty-bourgeois (who have since become disillusioned), supported big capital, and demonized foreigners and foreign-born residents?

Yes, close elections can be revolutionary if only the losing candidate don’t behave like Al Gore, december 13, 2000.

[Geiseric]

I don't think you're understanding my point. Yes, there are differences between Hollande and Sarkozy, but they both have the interests of the ruling classes at heart.

Well obviously, but if these demands from the working class are getting through at all it's a sign that things are progressing in terms of class consciousness. If bourgeois politicians are afraid enough that they're doing these kinds of things to deal with crisis, that means that the working class knows that its efforts are bringing results, thus it's good for at some point radical social democrats to be in power to teach the working class through experiance that more has to and can be done to bring around their demands, which is a step in class consciousness.

By the way that peoples stick thing is completely un scientific. If in the Paris Commune, it actually didn't phase out because of bourgeois pacifism but it spread and happened to take over a large portion of land owned by capitalists and oppressors of the working class, isn't "the peoples stick," being a good thing? What you said is completely un revolutionary and it basically denies any kind of authority being used by the proletariat to bring about a revolution.

[the zizekian]

Holland made his victory speech at Place de la Bastille which is the icon of the French revolution :

http://www.leparisien.fr/election-presidentielle-2012/candidats/en-direct-les-resultats-du-second-tour-de-la-presidentielle-a-partir-de-20-heures-06-05-2012-1986801.php (http://www.leparisien.fr/election-presidentielle-2012/candidats/en-direct-les-resultats-du-second-tour-de-la-presidentielle-a-partir-de-20-heures-06-05-2012-1986801.php)

[Sendo]

What people have yet to realise is that Hollande in his election campaign rarely addressed the issue of the present economic crisis. People voted for Hollande because they oppose austerity measures, but Hollande will be compelled to impose austerity measures to save the capitalist economy.

This will spark outrage amongst the working people, leading to a rise in revolutionary consciousness. I saw a report on this exactly where protesters, unionists, etc. said that if Hollande was going to impose austerity measures, there would be "social unrest" and he would be ousted.

On the other hand we see far-right LePenne attempting to reform her party to become more appealing to workers. The cheap idea of "only jobs for workers of French descent" may certainly be attractive to many unemployed.

We will thus see an intensification on the margins of the political spectrum. The far-left and far-right will continue to grow.

I'm not going to give Hollande carte blanche here and I will keep up on the happenings, but many capitalists think he's sincere in his austerity roll-back promises--take a look at some the stock markets in places like Japan. A minor hit, but still indicative.

[Sendo]

Yes, close elections can be revolutionary if only the losing candidate don’t behave like Al Gore, december 13, 2000.

Judging by your sarcasm, I take it that you think that Sarkozy and Hollande are like two peas in a pod. Al Gore in 2000 was very close to Bush. I'm no fan of him. His whole "I'm an environmentalist" thing he started doing pisses me off as he flies around in his private jet to collect Nobel Prizes. That you compare this presidential election the Bush/Gore one of 2000 boggles my mind. What do voter-caging, blacklists, Florida state corruption and Supreme Court corruption, and vote splitting in 2000 have to do with the 2012 French election?

(Actually, I think I like the 2000 Gore better because he didn't pretend to be a saint)

We can applaud the fact that a true majority (not plurality) of French voters (in an election with 80% participation) elected someone who could very well roll back the austerity measures. I'm happy for the French. If Europe can get a bit of relief, then they should go for it. I don't know how anyone could fail to see that there is a difference between Hollande and Sarkozy.

This is what the board has become now:

Person A : Glad to see the city government bought new fire trucks. They really needed new trucks. As a matter of fact, some of the old models had ladders so short that they couldn't save some people in that apartment building that caught on fire last year. I'm glad to see those protests and letters to the city council paid off.

Person B : REACTIONARY! There is nothing revolutionary about a bourgeois city government buying fire trucks in a marketplace that will end up rescuing private property!

Person A : Well, obviously we should work towards a government and a state which represents the workers and wouldn't let a problem go unattended for so long. I'm not going to campaign for the mayor's re-election or anything, of course.

Person B : You're not a real socialist!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry-my-space-bar-is-broken-but-Hollande-has-proposed-a-75%-tax-on-income-ober-1million-he-is-not-the-same-as-sarkozy-one-bourgeios-politicion-does-not-equal-another-bourgeios-politican.While I agree that it's crude to just say that the election of one bourgeois politician has the same connotations and meaning as any other bourgeois politician - if the right was rallying around Palin in the US and the mainstream legitimizing far-right politics, it wouldn't make Obama "on our side" but it obviously would be meaningful in the sense that it shows that there is a lot of momentum for the right and the liberal voting base is demoralized.

I think in this case though, that the social-dems did move more to the left than they have for a while is revealing not in their politics, but in the polarization in French politics right now. Both center-left and center-right candidates in this election had difficulties in motivating their usual voters while the Nationalists and Socialist parties gained more enthusiastic support. No doubt the social-dems had to put on a more aggressive face in regards to economic equality and defense of reforms because of the social polarization and challenge from the left.

[Delenda Carthago]

Tsipras in Greece and Hollande in France! A brand new era of humanity has rised!

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't quite understand the meaning of "revolutionary consciousness" here in relation to the debate on "austerity". We're still talking about the State here and anger against 'austerity' is simply an attempt to have a State provide one with capitalist trappings. No? I'm new to Revleft and am curious to follow these and other threads in politics to learn more about the general consensus here.

Austerity measures will hurl France into an economic depression, this will give rise to the consciousness that capitalism may need to be binned. If a social-democrat/social-capitalist such as Hollande is unable to prevent austerity measures and will roll back social security, then both the moderate left and right-wing will be unable to do this, more people will realise. These people will in all likeliness move to the far-left, i.e. develop a revolutionary consciousness.


I'm not going to give Hollande carte blanche here and I will keep up on the happenings, but many capitalists think he's sincere in his austerity roll-back promises--take a look at some the stock markets in places like Japan. A minor hit, but still indicative.

I just heard Hollande wants to both invest in social investments (pensions, welfare, etc.) as well as reduce the government deficit to 0-3% (European norm) which requires intensive austerity measures.

I do think France, which has a strong labour history and present, will see a rise in the consciousness as a result of the idea that "if a left-wing candidate cannot even prevent social decomposition of welfare, then maybe we need to move further to the left."

On the other hand, Le Pen is reinventing her party (to become the "Rassemblement Bleu Marine"*, egoistically named after herself) to address more left-wing topics. We will thus see a further rise and radicalization of the far-left and far-right as a consequence of disillusionment in the moderate left and the far-right masquerading as "pro-worker".

*wikipedia:
Le 24 mars, Marine Le Pen annonce le lancement du « Rassemblement bleu Marine » (a également été envisagée l'appellation « Alliance pour un rassemblement national »36), étiquette sous laquelle se présenteront, « des candidats du FN, des candidats du Siel, mais aussi des candidats individuels qui nous ont rejoints, de partout, de la droite et de la gauche »

March 24, Marine Le Pen launches the "Gathering Blue Marine" (was also considered the name "Alliance for a national gathering" 36), label under which present themselves, "the National Front candidates, candidates of Siel but also individual candidates who have joined us from everywhere, from the right and left "

She is thus entertaining the notion of syncrentic politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_politics), which will draw away workers from the left.

[ed miliband]

oh ffs sake, mugs going on about this showing how the french "aren't scared of the word socialism" - why the fuck would they be scared of the word socialism when it represents one of the two major parties in the french political system?! if anything, the fact that socialism is associated with their tepid neoliberal-social-democracy is an awful thing...

[Hit The North]

Interesting development. Now lets see if he keeps his promise to the Queer community and legalizes gay marriage.

Why not? It would be a thoroughly bourgeois policy.

[ed miliband]

hahahaha: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140427/French-presidential-election-results-2012-France-votes-Francois-Hollande-ruinous-spending.html

if only...

edit: if you look at the pictures of hollande's victory rally you'll notice quite a few pcf flags - what a surprise.

[MotherCossack]

is hollande a socialist???? not a social democrat?

yeah but hey there is a thing here... that you are ignoring....the french voted for a named socialist.....
they put the cross by the guy who was labelled......
A SOCIALIST
whether or not he is a like-minded individual with bona-fide intentions, well.... we shall see....
i tell ya though....
in blighty a dude claiming to be a socialist would get precisely nowhere in an election..... in fact would very likely die of humiliation if he tried to stand

[ed miliband]

yeah but hey there is a thing here... that you are ignoring....the french voted for a named socialist.....
they put the cross by the guy who was labelled......
A SOCIALIST
whether or not he is a like-minded individual with bona-fide intentions, well.... we shall see....
i tell ya though....
in blighty a dude claiming to be a socialist would get precisely nowhere in an election..... in fact would very likely die of humiliation if he tried to stand

ah yes, of course, because the labour party, a party whose constitution claims that they are a "democratic socialist" party, a party whose key figures (ed balls, the millibands, etc) all claim to be socialist, wasn't in government for 13 years and isn't one of the two main political countries in the country.


edit:

cZNXfXtH96A

ahhhh, look! they all call themselves "socialists" and it means precisely nothing. (ugh, tony benn has awful politics.)

[MotherCossack]

look i just read the recent posts....
fuck me sideways......
i would be happy witth hollande right now and it would be a f...ing miracle if anyone like that.... even remotely leftish... had any luck in this manor...

shit!!!!!! some of you lot are more than a little mean-spirited...... you make me sick.....
i bet if fucking marx and engels themselves won a return visit and stood for election.... you would snivel and grumble like a bunch of spoilt cowards...
"NOOOO!! we dont wanna play.... these old farts arnt real socialists..... noooo!
they are wet liberals... they are...."

come on you lot... we gotta start somewhere....what are you scared of..... change?

[Manic Impressive]

look i just read the recent posts....
fuck me sideways......
i would be happy witth hollande right now and it would be a f...ing miracle if anyone like that.... even remotely leftish... had any luck in this manor...

shit!!!!!! some of you lot are more than a little mean-spirited...... you make me sick.....
i bet if fucking marx and engels themselves won a return visit and stood for election.... you would snivel and grumble like a bunch of spoilt cowards...
"NOOOO!! we dont wanna play.... these old farts arnt real socialists..... noooo!
they are wet liberals... they are...."

come on you lot... we gotta start somewhere....what are you scared of..... change?

Look you seem like a nice lady and all but you show a complete lack of knowledge of what we are actually about. This isn't about making things slightly better. It's about fundamentally changing society and freeing people from the exploitation of a market system. Not about grannys central heating or extra bus lanes.

I think you need a bit of Ian Bone
xtm82b2zpws

[ed miliband]

i like your post without the ian bone bit, i really don't think bone's and mothercossack's politics are that different in their fetishism of "doing something" whether that something is actually beneficial or not.

[Manic Impressive]

i like your post without the ian bone bit, i really don't think bone's and mothercossack's politics are that different in their fetishism of "doing something" whether that something is actually beneficial or not.
I know I agree completely, Ian Bone is populist and fights for reformist causes. But it's still an inspiring speech and I thought it might help Mother Cossak a little bit which is why I included it. Not as an endorsement of Bone's politics or strategy. ;)

[ed miliband]

fair play, i used to love that speech.

bone seems to like your lot...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Keep in mind it was the "Socialist" (soc-dems) in Spain that won off of discontent with Spain's support for the US "war on terror" and yet this government pushed austerity and was the subject of the protest movement last year.

A reformist or social-democrat winning on a wave of popular revolt and movements may indicate a broader shift leftward where even the mainstream has to make concessions to the demands and anger from below. But in the case of a soc-dem party coming to power now on the basis of "throw the other guy out" and relatively passive support, the basis of their votes is that "we can manage this crisis better". While the Dem-Soc's have made concessions to the left due to anger in France, they also are not proposing any radical departures aside from maybe a small departure from being blatantly pro-neoliberalism as most soc-dem parties have been over the last couple of decades.

This is actually a dangerous situation for workers and the left. If the radical left can't create a visible opposition to the new government and these new officials preside over the kind of austerity that the entire ruling class of Europe fully supports (and they will unless there is massive unrest and their hands are tied) then people are likely to see "socialism" as no real defense and alternative at all - without a mainstream or left alternative, what's left for people to choose: kicking out the north Africans :( blaming immigrants?

This kind of social polarization, lack of real organized working class alternatives, and a discredited mainstream might result in some spontaneous leftward shift in the population (as people realize they have no other option than to start taking things into their own hands) but it can just as easily lead to people being drawn to the far-right and even fascism.

So overall, that the soc-dem candidate had to try and win people back from a left alternative and offer better promises shows some potential and at least dissatisfaction with the staus-quo, but the tasks of revolutionaries remains the same: try and organize, build working class consciousness and confidence to fight, and try and promote a working class alternative to ruling class austerity.

[LeftAtheist]

Revolutionaries should never become unpaid volunteers for establishment bourgeois politicians, but we should all welcome the presidential results quite warmly.

It says a lot about the French electorate (over half of the 80% who voted are not scared by the word "socialism"). It also means real changes for the country. Minor, superificial changes, but changes nonetheless.

This isn't like a Blue Dog Democrat Senator versus a moderate Republican Senator. Sarkozy had been steering his party towards fascism. I don't mean to be alarmist, but how else do you define an ideology that got so much support from the petty-bourgeois (who have since become disillusioned), supported big capital, and demonized foreigners and foreign-born residents?

Obviously I'm not a fan of Sarkozy's but Hollande is going to support big capital and demonise foreigners as well. He's said he'll uphold the burqa ban and vowed that schools will not serve any halal meat as long as he's in power; obvious anti-Muslim chauvinism and scapegoating. Also, he's promised to "balance the budget" by 2017, which is just going to mean further attacks on the working class and huge spending cuts. He's simply another bourgeois, capitalist leader whose government will be largely identical to Sarkozy's.

This article's been posted in another thread, but it's quite good on the subject: http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/pers-m05.shtml

[the zizekian]

Judging by your sarcasm, I take it that you think that Sarkozy and Hollande are like two peas in a pod. Al Gore in 2000 was very close to Bush. I'm no fan of him. His whole "I'm an environmentalist" thing he started doing pisses me off as he flies around in his private jet to collect Nobel Prizes. That you compare this presidential election the Bush/Gore one of 2000 boggles my mind. What do voter-caging, blacklists, Florida state corruption and Supreme Court corruption, and vote splitting in 2000 have to do with the 2012 French election?

(Actually, I think I like the 2000 Gore better because he didn't pretend to be a saint)

We can applaud the fact that a true majority (not plurality) of French voters (in an election with 80% participation) elected someone who could very well roll back the austerity measures. I'm happy for the French. If Europe can get a bit of relief, then they should go for it. I don't know how anyone could fail to see that there is a difference between Hollande and Sarkozy.

This is what the board has become now:

Person A : Glad to see the city government bought new fire trucks. They really needed new trucks. As a matter of fact, some of the old models had ladders so short that they couldn't save some people in that apartment building that caught on fire last year. I'm glad to see those protests and letters to the city council paid off.

Person B : REACTIONARY! There is nothing revolutionary about a bourgeois city government buying fire trucks in a marketplace that will end up rescuing private property!

Person A : Well, obviously we should work towards a government and a state which represents the workers and wouldn't let a problem go unattended for so long. I'm not going to campaign for the mayor's re-election or anything, of course.

Person B : You're not a real socialist!

I’m not sarcastic: close elections can be revolutionary if only the losing candidate don’t behave like Al Gore, december 13, 2000.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now I think there are no excuses for at least a critical vote for the Left Front in the June legislative elections. Those who wavered from switching to Hollande at the last minute in the first round have no justification voting "Socialist" in June, assuming of course that the legislative elections are somewhat proportional.

[the zizekian]

Now I think there are no excuses for at least a critical vote for the Left Front in the June legislative elections. Those who wavered from switching to Hollande at the last minute in the first round have no justification voting "Socialist" in June, assuming of course that the legislative elections are somewhat proportional.

Strange reasoning and assumption!

[Geiseric]

In the 1920s, the "Socialist," writer and journalist of the book "The Jungle" named Upton Sinclair went to california and tried to run for governor on a strictly socialist platform and he got around 400,000 votes.

The word "Socialism," to most people has the same conontations as anything else that would possibly unbalance things, and as soon as we real socialists can explain what it is and that there's an alternative to capitalism that would benefit everybody (except the bourgeois of course) and why it (revolution) has to be done, we'll start changing the culture around "socialism" and how we carry out politics. Bill Maher and liberals always say that "Socialism is more government to benefit everybody," but we need to counter this and establish Marxism as the sole definition in peoples minds of what "Socialism" is.

[LeftAtheist]

we need to counter this and establish Marxism as the sole definition in peoples minds of what "Socialism" is.

Brings to mind Chomsky once pointing out that for half a century, the world's two most powerful propaganda machines (the USA and USSR) were shouting to the whole world that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc was an actual example of socialism. Because of that, I often wonder if the word's been permanently damaged.

[SacRedMan]

Hollande is a what our people call a 'caviarsocialist': saying he's a socialist but acting like a capitalist.

[ed miliband]

well... eating caviar (or drinking champagne) doesn't mean that one is acting like a capitalist - if anything it should be encouraged. as i've said before, proletarian decadence ftw.

[SacRedMan]

well... eating caviar (or drinking champagne) doesn't mean that one is acting like a capitalist

It's more a stereotype for the bourgeois according to our people.

[Brosip Tito]

Yes, Hollande and Sarkozy represent the class interests of the bourgeoisie. As does the NDP in Canada, Democrats in the USA, etc.

However, slightly better living standards, is much better than slightly less.

Why do people try to to make a case that it's stupid, or pointless to elect a social democrat over a conservative?

There is no viable oppositionist workers' party to vote for. There is no pre-1914 SPD. No RSDLP, SDKPiL. Why should we abstain?

So, seriously, who here wants to argue that:

Minimum wage stagnation is not better than a minimum wage decrease.

Military cuts is the same as militarism/invasions.

That gay marriage is the same as no gay marriage.

Any takers?

[ed miliband]

i bet you're a chomsky fan, kid.

as has already been said by manic impressive, we're not about making sure things are ever so slightly better, we're about fundamentally changing society. simple as that.

at the same time, if you look at the acts of social democratic governments both recently and historically not only are they often much the same as their right-wing opponents, they can get away with being worse by draping themselves in red. to quote a union bureacrat after the 1945 election of the labour party:


"The workers in the pits to adopt a new attitude ... Hitherto the policy of the Union had been to get what they could out of the owners. Now they had taken on the responsibility of assisting in running the industry they must accept new methods. They must take a more active part in assisting greater technical efficiency and increasing output."

finally, there's an argument that capitalism is beyond reform; that the balance of class forces and other economic and social conditions that existed in the early/mid twentieth century make any dream of a return to reformist social democracy just that... a dream.

oh, but things might be slightly better...

[Leo]

Here (http://fr.internationalism.org/ri432/avec_les_elections_les_dirigeants_changent_mais_la _crise_l_austerite_l_exploitation_et_le_capitalism e_demeurent.html)'s what communist revolutionaries from France have to say about it, obviously in French.

[Brosip Tito]

i bet you're a chomsky fan, kid.You're condescension is very becoming, comrade. I am, in fact, not a Chomsky "fan".


as has already been said by manic impressive, we're not about making sure things are ever so slightly better, we're about fundamentally changing society. simple as that. Yes, we are all quite aware what we strive for as Marxists. However, it doesn't fall like a rain drop from the heavens, carefully laid out and perfect as you may believe. It isn't going to happen in the next 5 years, the next 10, or the next 20 years.

So, as you and Manic suggest, it is irrelevant that the working class should suffer under a conservative government. It's not an issue to you. Those making minimum wage can suck it up when their wages get cut, the LBGQT community can sit tight and suffer, those Afghans and Iraqis suffering from the invasions should just bare the pain, because socialism is right around the corner!

I'm not, as you are quite obviously suggesting, that we only fight for reforms (or for a "slightly better" living standard, as you put it), and forget the fundamentals of class struggle, and our role as class conscious workers.

However, to idea that these little gains, these little victories amount to nothing, and we shouldn't want them, is fucking absurd. This is one of the issues I have had trouble with, when it comes to the Left Communists.

Tell me, how will you get the support of the working class when this is your stance:

Worker: "Who should we vote for in this election?"

You: "Nobody!!! They're all evil bourgeois demons!"

Worker: "But the one candidate will make my life easier, they are promising universal healthcare, and the other guy is promising to cut minimum wage!"

You: "No, no, no! We are fighting to make life better for the worker, by transforming society! We want the worker in charge!!! Voting will do nothing!"

Worker: "But I can just afford to pay rent, if they cut minimum wage, I won't be able to pay rent!"

How will you answer him?


at the same time, if you look at the acts of social democratic governments both recently and historically not only are they often much the same as their right-wing opponents, they can get away with being worse by draping themselves in red. to quote a union bureacrat after the 1945 election of the labour party:CAN is the point you make, but seem to ignore.

However, there are blatant, fundamental differences when we look at electing a president, or party, in this century. There are no fascist parties that are hiding so cleverly, and so well, that everyone is blind to them.

Yes, that social democrat may break his promises. That Democrat centrist (Obama) may break his promises.

Unlike you, I'd rather live in shitpile A, which has pretty flowers next to it, than shitpile B which has more shit next to it.


finally, there's an argument that capitalism is beyond reform; that the balance of class forces and other economic and social conditions that existed in the early/mid twentieth century make any dream of a return to reformist social democracy just that... a dream.

oh, but things might be slightly better...Tell me more! I'm sure reforms in the way of universal healthcare, increased wages, lower retirement age, etc etc. ARE ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL IMPOSSIBLE NOW!

Well, you sit around with your abstentionist views, and tell that worker that it's too fucking bad that he has to get evicted, "SOCIALISM IS A COMING !!!!!!"

I'll be over here, making sense.

May I ask, are you aware of who Jules Guesde is?

[Manic Impressive]

Worker: "Who should we vote for in this election?"

You: "Nobody!!! They're all evil bourgeois demons!"

Worker: "But the one candidate will make my life easier, they are promising universal healthcare, and the other guy is promising to cut minimum wage!"

You: "No, no, no! We are fighting to make life better for the worker, by transforming society! We want the worker in charge!!! Voting will do nothing!"

Worker: "But I can just afford to pay rent, if they cut minimum wage, I won't be able to pay rent!"

How will you answer him?

Well I'd probably say something like this

Legislative reforms may have helped to improve the conditions of life for wage and salary earners, but the main factor in this has been the struggle of workers in trade unions to gain pay increases and improved conditions. Before considering whether it is worth working for reforms, the question it is relevant to ask is why do governments bring them in? Is it through concern for people's well being? Is it through pressure from groups of committed people outside Parliament? Is it through a combination of the two? Or is it for some other reason?
It may at first sight seem that certain reforms are motivated by humanitarian concern on the part of governments.The 'welfare state' legislation, for example, brought in after World War Two, provided state pensions and medical treatment for almost the whole population. It may seem that public agitation for reforms also does a lot to help, as when abortion was legalised in 1967 after many years of campaigning by members of the Abortion Law Reform Association.
Yet if we look closely at the mass of laws governments have passed over the years, we find not only measures which seem to have a humane motive, but others which are just the opposite.Labour's 1965 and 1969 Immigration Acts, for example, caused heartbreak for many would-be Commonwealth immigrants including some with British passports, while in 1980 some of the poorest among Britain's population were made poorer still by a Conservative Social Security Act which cut benefits for unemployed people and invalidity pensioners by five per cent. And if we look closely at the history of reform legislation, we find that sometimes governments seem to take notice of relatively small-scale campaigns (such as with the 1967 law change on homosexuality) while at other times very large reform movements -such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - produce no alteration in government policy at all.
Why then do some of the reforms governments bring in seem to mark social progress while others are clearly backward and oppressive? Why does a government appear on one issue to listen to appeals from reform campaigners and on another to be completely deaf to them? The answer to these questions is that the attitude of governments does not depend on the good-heartedness or otherwise of particular parties or politicians, or on the special ability of any particular pressure group outside parliament to influence them. The answer lies in an understanding of the function of governments.
Governments are not there to solve the problems of those who elect them. Nor are they impartial. Governments are there to administer in the most smooth and efficient way possible a system whose whole economic mechanism is governed by the search for profits. Priority has to be given to profits since they are, as it were, its lifeblood. The single-minded pursuit of profit is the system's economic logic, the driving force of capital, and imposes itself on governments whether they like it or not. Governments can try to resist it - as some have done for a short while - but in the end they are forced to accept the logic of the system that puts profits first. The capital and the profits are owned by that small class of people who possess the land, the factories, farms, offices and communications systems - society's means of living. Governments, therefore, exist to serve the interests of this minority class.
It follows that all reforms are brought forward within the economic limitations of capitalism and generally have the aim of creating the best conditions possible for profits to be made. They cannot allow the interests of the wage and salary earners to obstruct this. This explains why a government can pass some laws that are unambiguously detrimental to workers' interests and others that are of some benefit.The point is that any benefit is always incidental, never central, to a law's purpose.
This also explains the seemingly inconsistent attitude of governments to pressure from reform campaigners.If a campaign is proposing a certain reform that happens to be in line with, or at least not contrary to, a government's own plans for administering the capitalist system, the government will not be averse to lending an ear and indeed not be particularly upset if the campaign takes credit for any legislation passed.Campaigns are, in fact, sometimes whipped up by governments themselves to gain support for unpopular, but from the point of view of a section of the capitalist class, essential measures, as for example the Labour Party's campaign in the 1975 referendum to get people to vote 'yes' to staying in what was then the EEC. If, however, a campaign is out of line with the profit- making needs of the system, then no amount of protest or public pressure has any effect. The recent campaign against nuclear weapons was doomed to failure because it ignored the fact that the British government, like others, has to have at its disposal the most up-to-date weapons available to protect the interests of the British owning class in potential disputes, and deter foreign owning classes interfering with the power structures, markets, trade routes and sources of raw materials which are essential to the continued making of profits.
In the same way a well-intentioned organisation like Shelter cannot succeed in its aim of obtaining decent housing for everyone. The housing problem could of course be solved tomorrow if production were allowed to be carried on simply to satisfy human needs. What prevents it is the rigidity of the economic system that insists that profits must be made out of producing things. As there is no profit to be made in producing decent houses for people who cannot afford them, a government cannot pass laws ordering houses to be built for them without making someone pay the bill.
This is not to say that governments can never be influenced by protest campaigns. The outcry in the trade union movement in 1969 caused the Labour government to drop its plan to introduce an industrial Relations Act ('In Place of Strife') and the campaign by Welsh nationalists in 1980 persuaded the Tones to keep their election promise to set up a television channel in Welsh (S4C). Similarly, in the early 1990's the campaign against the Community Charge ('Poll Tax') helped get that tax replaced by another, although in this instance the campaigners were helped by the gross inefficiency of the Poll Tax as well as by popular discontent.
Despite the hopes of reform campaigners everywhere, governments will only bend to such pressure on issues of either minor importance or which are causing them social, political or financial problems. They are not, as many people think, free agents who can do whatever they want. They operate within a definite economic and social framework that severely limits their options.
Governments - all governments - must constantly bring in reforms. The continuously changing industrial, economic and social situation produced by the systems dynamic, competitive nature dictates this. These reforms, however, must be broadly in line with the overall interests of the owning, profit-making minority.Let us take a few examples from the history of reform legislation to see how this has operated.
The 1870 Education Act, supported by both Liberals and Tories in Parliament, began the process whereby basic educational facilities were to be provided by the state for all children regardless of their parent's means. This was not done, however, with the idea that workers' children should as of right have a decent education, but to ensure the turning out of more literate, better trained workers for an industrial society that was becoming increasingly complex.
The first modern-style social security legislation was brought in by the Liberals with the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 when pensions started to be paid to the state to some over-seventies. Here the government was not acting out of compassion for old people suffering poverty, but was following up a Cabinet paper of December 1906 which pointed out that pensions for the old would mean large savings in Poor Law costs.
The introduction of the 'welfare state' in Britain under a Labour government after the Second World War brought in a comprehensive system of 'free' health care, unemployment benefits, state pensions and family allowances. However, contrary to popular belief, this legislation was not wanted for humanitarian reasons. It resulted from the realisation by politicians and industrialists that an all-embracing scheme of social security would be cheaper to run than the existing piecemeal system and, above all, that healthier, more contented workers would make a more efficient, and therefore cheaper, labour force. Sir William Beveridge, who drew up the original plan, constantly argued in his Report that his proposals would be more economical to administer than previous methods, and in February 1943 Samuel Courtauld, millionaire Tory industrialist, said of the Report: "Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nations' workers: it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs" (Manchester Guardian, 19 February 1943). Most other employers were apparently of the same opinion, for in a poll conducted at the time, 75 per cent of them agreed that the Beveridge Report should be adopted (Susanne MacGregor, The Politics of Poverty, p.21.)
In 1956 the Clean Air Act, brought in by the Tories, introduced smokeless zones and got rid of London's smog. But the Acts driving force was not the desire that people should have a clean environment to live and work in, but the findings of the government Beaver Committee that the cost of pollution to Britain (and therefore a loss in profits) was in the order of £250 million annually, then a huge sum.
The 1969 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, a Labour Private Member's Bill which gained all-party support, had provision for services and facilities to improve living conditions for disabled people. But, even in this case, the expense had to be justified on economic grounds: its sponsor, Alf Morris MP, stressed the saving that would result from providing disabled people with facilities to live at home rather than institutionalising them.
It should be clear to everyone that all the political parties that have held office are reforming parties. No one party, 'left' or 'right', holds a monopoly on reforms. Although the Labour Party has always posed as the champion of reforms and is thought of as such by many people, reforms which have been of some apparent benefit to workers have no less often been brought in by Liberal and Conservative governments. Even the set of reforms the Labour Party is fond of parading as its showpiece, the 'welfare state', was accepted in principle by the wartime coalition of Liberal, Labour and Tory parties. Its first stage, the 1945 Family Allowances Act, was a measure agreed by the Coalition government and actually became law during the short Conservative ministry of May-July 1945.
Furthermore, when the needs of the system have dictated it, Labour has shown itself to be just as ruthless as the other parties in introducing reforms that have been openly harmful to the working class. Its National Health Service Amendment Act of 1949 provided for a charge for prescriptions from family doctors, and in 1951 it introduced charges for dentures and spectacles. This was after Aneurin Bevan, Labour Health Minister, had already stated in a press conference that the government had 'set its face against' the whole idea of NHS charges. Labour's 1964-70 measures included a wage freeze, increases in prescription charges, the abolition of free milk in secondary schools and the 'four-week rule' under which any single unskilled worker under the age of 45 would be granted supplementary benefit for only four weeks if work was considered to be available in the area. In 1977 a Labour government again cut back on the National Health Service and also made drastic cuts in resources allocated to education.
The claims of the Labour Party to be the reforming party par excellence are simply not backed up by experience. Nor, given the nature of the system it commits itself to administer, can this be any different in the future. Whatever the levels of state benefits may be, the overall income of workers in real terms tends to adjust to the amount necessary to maintain themselves as workers and to bring up their children in a similar condition. And if any further evidence of this is needed, we need only look at the total failure of Labour's counterparts abroad - in France under Mitterrand, Australia under Hawke and Keating, and in Clinton's America, to name but a few. All these administrations with great reforming intentions were able to do was run the system according to its own economic logic - profits first, wage and salary workers a poor second.
There cannot be such a thing as a humane reforming party. Moreover, even when reforms of incidental benefit to workers are brought in, in practice they often turn out to be less beneficial than people expect.Labour's post-war nationalisation reforms are in a case in point. Many people had great hopes for nationalisation. These hopes were reflected by Will Paynter of the National Union of Mineworkers in his book British Trade Unions and the Problems of Change, where nationalisation was referred to as "the dawn of a new era" in which "workers were moving forward to the control of their own destinies". But it quickly became clear to people that neither 'public ownership' of the nationalised industries nor working in them made any fundamental difference at all to their conditions of life or work. Paynter, who had been secretary of the NUM, realised this and went on to say "The relationship between management and workers remained the same; the union still had to fight hard to get improvements in wages and conditions and little in the daily lives of the men reflected the change that had taken place".
Another example is Labour's 1965 Rent Act. It was widely thought that the setting up of tribunals to allow appeals against rent charges would lead to a lower level of rents. Its effect was the opposite. Many landlords applied for increases while few tenants applied for reductions. The reason for this was that to apply for a reduction was likely to be the equivalent of signing one's own eviction notice.
There are many examples from capitalist history of reforms that promised much but delivered little. Indeed, the very nature of capitalism and the conflicting interests within it make the outcome of reform legislation uncertain and unpredictable, however well-intentioned it may be. Governments constantly need to revise and modify reforms to fit in with new circumstances that they did not or could not foresee. In the long run only those measures that 'pay their way' in the sense of maintaining or increasing the productive efficiency of the workforce, are useful to the system. If, either through miscalculation or changed circumstances, a reform turns out to be over-generous then the situation is sooner or later corrected by the reform being drastically cut back or whittled away. In recent years we have seen many examples of this in countries the world over - in health, education, social security, transport and other fields too. The expenditures of the state have become too burdensome for the profitable sectors of industry to carry, so changes have had to be made. Funds have been cut, privatisation introduced and commercialisation pursued in essential services.
The question the reformers of all parties must consider is, after decades of activity, was all their reform campaigning really worth it? And today, is there any point in spending so much time running fast to simply stand still?

[ed miliband]

the way you talk about the "working class" and "workers" as if it/they are this mass that you are not part of is very interesting, and you're paternalism is just lovely. those poor, ignorant workers who still hold illusions in the labour party or the democrats - let's not shatter their dreams. but what of the millions who don't side with the left-wing of capital and instead vote for conservative or far-right parties? because not all workers assume their interests are best represented by social-democratic, "reforming" parties.

it's hard to address all of your ramble but:

1. i don't think socialism is "around the corner" and have never said so.
2. i would never say this:


You: "Nobody!!! They're all evil bourgeois demons!"

i don't think the bourgeoisie do things because they are evil. actually, that's closer to your position - their are an enlightened, friendly bourgeosie who will do nice things for the working class. the conservatives are the horrible ones who do things because they are evil.

3.
Tell me more! I'm sure reforms in the way of universal healthcare, increased wages, lower retirement age, etc etc. ARE ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL IMPOSSIBLE NOW!



3 Social Democracy as the New Utopia (#labourutopians)
It’s a conversation we first referred to when talking about student demands (http://deterritorialsupportgroup.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/freegrati/)during last year’s Tuition Fees protests, but it’s worth expanding into all aspects of a mainstream political conversation which focus on what is left of the social partnership built between labour and capital in the post-war years.


Put simply, whilst we oppose attacks on the welfare state as an attack on our class, a return to social-democratic social models is simply unfeasible – not for economic reasons (although such an argument holds considerable weight) but for socio-political reasons. What built and sustained the welfare state was a model of social-democratic political organisation which simply does not exist anymore. A large part of its dismemberment was undertaken by the neoliberal market reforms after 1979, but we have yet to accept that it was also being eroded by demands coming from within the working-class – demands of social liberalisation, increased personal autonomy and a rejection of the fetishisation of work, or indeed work itself – which traditional structures of class organisation could not deliver without breaking up their own bureaucratic structures.


Can we really expect a return to the glory-days of the social partnership through a series of rearguard actions? No – social-democracy can only be built through a progressive vision of a certain form of (limited) social transformation, and in reality that unformulated vision today is the new utopianism of the British political imagination. To rework that oft-quoted maxim of late capitalism – ‘It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism- but it is easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the restoration of social democracy’.


and there is a huge difference between something like higher wages and universal healthcare. struggles over wages may still be possible, but i can confidently say that we will never see universal healthcare in the united states for as long as capitalism exists, and what does still exist of universal healthcare in europe will not exist in ten or twenty years time. and i'll put money on that.

[the zizekian]

Hollande will name his prime minister May 15, Martine Aubry may very well be his choice.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2012/20120507.OBS4824/en-direct-presidentielle-victoire-de-francois-hollande.html (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2012/20120507.OBS4824/en-direct-presidentielle-victoire-de-francois-hollande.html)

[shaneo]

George Orwell defined pacifism as a decision that you object to taking life and prefer not to follow your thoughts beyond that point. The attitude of great portions of the marxish left to bourgeois elections is very similar. They object to voting for bourgeois politicians and don't want to think too hard about it.

If you force them to think they reliably resort to sarcasm, condescension, and endless ducking and diving, because there is no rational source to their position: it's all emotion. Only an ignorant person can believe that there is no difference between Sarkozy and Hollande.

pacifism = wasting your time voting when you know both options are the same.
If you point this out to people, they resort to insults.

You claim that only the ignorant would claim there is no difference between them, so what is the difference between them?
It's the same everywhere... In the US, "anyone is better than Bush" and in the uk, we've " got to stop the Tories". But the official opposition is just the same.

If you vote, and encourage a corrupt political system, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you.

[Brosip Tito]

Well I'd probably say something like this

Legislative reforms may have helped to improve the conditions of life for wage and salary earners, but the main factor in this has been the struggle of workers in trade unions to gain pay increases and improved conditions. Before considering whether it is worth working for reforms, the question it is relevant to ask is why do governments bring them in? Is it through concern for people's well being? Is it through pressure from groups of committed people outside Parliament? Is it through a combination of the two? Or is it for some other reason?
It may at first sight seem that certain reforms are motivated by humanitarian concern on the part of governments.The 'welfare state' legislation, for example, brought in after World War Two, provided state pensions and medical treatment for almost the whole population. It may seem that public agitation for reforms also does a lot to help, as when abortion was legalised in 1967 after many years of campaigning by members of the Abortion Law Reform Association.
Yet if we look closely at the mass of laws governments have passed over the years, we find not only measures which seem to have a humane motive, but others which are just the opposite.Labour's 1965 and 1969 Immigration Acts, for example, caused heartbreak for many would-be Commonwealth immigrants including some with British passports, while in 1980 some of the poorest among Britain's population were made poorer still by a Conservative Social Security Act which cut benefits for unemployed people and invalidity pensioners by five per cent. And if we look closely at the history of reform legislation, we find that sometimes governments seem to take notice of relatively small-scale campaigns (such as with the 1967 law change on homosexuality) while at other times very large reform movements -such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - produce no alteration in government policy at all.
Why then do some of the reforms governments bring in seem to mark social progress while others are clearly backward and oppressive? Why does a government appear on one issue to listen to appeals from reform campaigners and on another to be completely deaf to them? The answer to these questions is that the attitude of governments does not depend on the good-heartedness or otherwise of particular parties or politicians, or on the special ability of any particular pressure group outside parliament to influence them. The answer lies in an understanding of the function of governments.
Governments are not there to solve the problems of those who elect them. Nor are they impartial. Governments are there to administer in the most smooth and efficient way possible a system whose whole economic mechanism is governed by the search for profits. Priority has to be given to profits since they are, as it were, its lifeblood. The single-minded pursuit of profit is the system's economic logic, the driving force of capital, and imposes itself on governments whether they like it or not. Governments can try to resist it - as some have done for a short while - but in the end they are forced to accept the logic of the system that puts profits first. The capital and the profits are owned by that small class of people who possess the land, the factories, farms, offices and communications systems - society's means of living. Governments, therefore, exist to serve the interests of this minority class.
It follows that all reforms are brought forward within the economic limitations of capitalism and generally have the aim of creating the best conditions possible for profits to be made. They cannot allow the interests of the wage and salary earners to obstruct this. This explains why a government can pass some laws that are unambiguously detrimental to workers' interests and others that are of some benefit.The point is that any benefit is always incidental, never central, to a law's purpose.
This also explains the seemingly inconsistent attitude of governments to pressure from reform campaigners.If a campaign is proposing a certain reform that happens to be in line with, or at least not contrary to, a government's own plans for administering the capitalist system, the government will not be averse to lending an ear and indeed not be particularly upset if the campaign takes credit for any legislation passed.Campaigns are, in fact, sometimes whipped up by governments themselves to gain support for unpopular, but from the point of view of a section of the capitalist class, essential measures, as for example the Labour Party's campaign in the 1975 referendum to get people to vote 'yes' to staying in what was then the EEC. If, however, a campaign is out of line with the profit- making needs of the system, then no amount of protest or public pressure has any effect. The recent campaign against nuclear weapons was doomed to failure because it ignored the fact that the British government, like others, has to have at its disposal the most up-to-date weapons available to protect the interests of the British owning class in potential disputes, and deter foreign owning classes interfering with the power structures, markets, trade routes and sources of raw materials which are essential to the continued making of profits.
In the same way a well-intentioned organisation like Shelter cannot succeed in its aim of obtaining decent housing for everyone. The housing problem could of course be solved tomorrow if production were allowed to be carried on simply to satisfy human needs. What prevents it is the rigidity of the economic system that insists that profits must be made out of producing things. As there is no profit to be made in producing decent houses for people who cannot afford them, a government cannot pass laws ordering houses to be built for them without making someone pay the bill.
This is not to say that governments can never be influenced by protest campaigns. The outcry in the trade union movement in 1969 caused the Labour government to drop its plan to introduce an industrial Relations Act ('In Place of Strife') and the campaign by Welsh nationalists in 1980 persuaded the Tones to keep their election promise to set up a television channel in Welsh (S4C). Similarly, in the early 1990's the campaign against the Community Charge ('Poll Tax') helped get that tax replaced by another, although in this instance the campaigners were helped by the gross inefficiency of the Poll Tax as well as by popular discontent.
Despite the hopes of reform campaigners everywhere, governments will only bend to such pressure on issues of either minor importance or which are causing them social, political or financial problems. They are not, as many people think, free agents who can do whatever they want. They operate within a definite economic and social framework that severely limits their options.
Governments - all governments - must constantly bring in reforms. The continuously changing industrial, economic and social situation produced by the systems dynamic, competitive nature dictates this. These reforms, however, must be broadly in line with the overall interests of the owning, profit-making minority.Let us take a few examples from the history of reform legislation to see how this has operated.
The 1870 Education Act, supported by both Liberals and Tories in Parliament, began the process whereby basic educational facilities were to be provided by the state for all children regardless of their parent's means. This was not done, however, with the idea that workers' children should as of right have a decent education, but to ensure the turning out of more literate, better trained workers for an industrial society that was becoming increasingly complex.
The first modern-style social security legislation was brought in by the Liberals with the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 when pensions started to be paid to the state to some over-seventies. Here the government was not acting out of compassion for old people suffering poverty, but was following up a Cabinet paper of December 1906 which pointed out that pensions for the old would mean large savings in Poor Law costs.
The introduction of the 'welfare state' in Britain under a Labour government after the Second World War brought in a comprehensive system of 'free' health care, unemployment benefits, state pensions and family allowances. However, contrary to popular belief, this legislation was not wanted for humanitarian reasons. It resulted from the realisation by politicians and industrialists that an all-embracing scheme of social security would be cheaper to run than the existing piecemeal system and, above all, that healthier, more contented workers would make a more efficient, and therefore cheaper, labour force. Sir William Beveridge, who drew up the original plan, constantly argued in his Report that his proposals would be more economical to administer than previous methods, and in February 1943 Samuel Courtauld, millionaire Tory industrialist, said of the Report: "Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nations' workers: it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs" (Manchester Guardian, 19 February 1943). Most other employers were apparently of the same opinion, for in a poll conducted at the time, 75 per cent of them agreed that the Beveridge Report should be adopted (Susanne MacGregor, The Politics of Poverty, p.21.)
In 1956 the Clean Air Act, brought in by the Tories, introduced smokeless zones and got rid of London's smog. But the Acts driving force was not the desire that people should have a clean environment to live and work in, but the findings of the government Beaver Committee that the cost of pollution to Britain (and therefore a loss in profits) was in the order of £250 million annually, then a huge sum.
The 1969 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, a Labour Private Member's Bill which gained all-party support, had provision for services and facilities to improve living conditions for disabled people. But, even in this case, the expense had to be justified on economic grounds: its sponsor, Alf Morris MP, stressed the saving that would result from providing disabled people with facilities to live at home rather than institutionalising them.
It should be clear to everyone that all the political parties that have held office are reforming parties. No one party, 'left' or 'right', holds a monopoly on reforms. Although the Labour Party has always posed as the champion of reforms and is thought of as such by many people, reforms which have been of some apparent benefit to workers have no less often been brought in by Liberal and Conservative governments. Even the set of reforms the Labour Party is fond of parading as its showpiece, the 'welfare state', was accepted in principle by the wartime coalition of Liberal, Labour and Tory parties. Its first stage, the 1945 Family Allowances Act, was a measure agreed by the Coalition government and actually became law during the short Conservative ministry of May-July 1945.
Furthermore, when the needs of the system have dictated it, Labour has shown itself to be just as ruthless as the other parties in introducing reforms that have been openly harmful to the working class. Its National Health Service Amendment Act of 1949 provided for a charge for prescriptions from family doctors, and in 1951 it introduced charges for dentures and spectacles. This was after Aneurin Bevan, Labour Health Minister, had already stated in a press conference that the government had 'set its face against' the whole idea of NHS charges. Labour's 1964-70 measures included a wage freeze, increases in prescription charges, the abolition of free milk in secondary schools and the 'four-week rule' under which any single unskilled worker under the age of 45 would be granted supplementary benefit for only four weeks if work was considered to be available in the area. In 1977 a Labour government again cut back on the National Health Service and also made drastic cuts in resources allocated to education.
The claims of the Labour Party to be the reforming party par excellence are simply not backed up by experience. Nor, given the nature of the system it commits itself to administer, can this be any different in the future. Whatever the levels of state benefits may be, the overall income of workers in real terms tends to adjust to the amount necessary to maintain themselves as workers and to bring up their children in a similar condition. And if any further evidence of this is needed, we need only look at the total failure of Labour's counterparts abroad - in France under Mitterrand, Australia under Hawke and Keating, and in Clinton's America, to name but a few. All these administrations with great reforming intentions were able to do was run the system according to its own economic logic - profits first, wage and salary workers a poor second.
There cannot be such a thing as a humane reforming party. Moreover, even when reforms of incidental benefit to workers are brought in, in practice they often turn out to be less beneficial than people expect.Labour's post-war nationalisation reforms are in a case in point. Many people had great hopes for nationalisation. These hopes were reflected by Will Paynter of the National Union of Mineworkers in his book British Trade Unions and the Problems of Change, where nationalisation was referred to as "the dawn of a new era" in which "workers were moving forward to the control of their own destinies". But it quickly became clear to people that neither 'public ownership' of the nationalised industries nor working in them made any fundamental difference at all to their conditions of life or work. Paynter, who had been secretary of the NUM, realised this and went on to say "The relationship between management and workers remained the same; the union still had to fight hard to get improvements in wages and conditions and little in the daily lives of the men reflected the change that had taken place".
Another example is Labour's 1965 Rent Act. It was widely thought that the setting up of tribunals to allow appeals against rent charges would lead to a lower level of rents. Its effect was the opposite. Many landlords applied for increases while few tenants applied for reductions. The reason for this was that to apply for a reduction was likely to be the equivalent of signing one's own eviction notice.
There are many examples from capitalist history of reforms that promised much but delivered little. Indeed, the very nature of capitalism and the conflicting interests within it make the outcome of reform legislation uncertain and unpredictable, however well-intentioned it may be. Governments constantly need to revise and modify reforms to fit in with new circumstances that they did not or could not foresee. In the long run only those measures that 'pay their way' in the sense of maintaining or increasing the productive efficiency of the workforce, are useful to the system. If, either through miscalculation or changed circumstances, a reform turns out to be over-generous then the situation is sooner or later corrected by the reform being drastically cut back or whittled away. In recent years we have seen many examples of this in countries the world over - in health, education, social security, transport and other fields too. The expenditures of the state have become too burdensome for the profitable sectors of industry to carry, so changes have had to be made. Funds have been cut, privatisation introduced and commercialisation pursued in essential services.
The question the reformers of all parties must consider is, after decades of activity, was all their reform campaigning really worth it? And today, is there any point in spending so much time running fast to simply stand still?

In which he's likely to respond,

"Why thank you, I now understand the issues with reforms, and why I shouldn't believe in supporting just reforms, and trusting in the bourgeois system! However, I still need to pay my rent, so, with this knowledge, I will still vote for the candidate who will allow me to pay my rent!"

Pretty basic, that educating the proletariat is great! Especially with the limitations of reform, and why some reform occurs, etc. So that when they vote for this candidate with reforms, they understand that they must go further!


the way you talk about the "working class" and "workers" as if it/they are this mass that you are not part of is very interesting, and you're paternalism is just lovely. those poor, ignorant workers who still hold illusions in the labour party or the democrats - let's not shatter their dreams. but what of the millions who don't side with the left-wing of capital and instead vote for conservative or far-right parties? because not all workers assume their interests are best represented by social-democratic, "reforming" parties.Yes. I am clearly paternalizing with my use of a single analogy of a single worker. Do go on to explain my paternalism in greater depth, with quotes, and everything. I can't wait!


it's hard to address all of your ramble but:

1. i don't think socialism is "around the corner" and have never said so.
2. i would never say this:Then you have to explain to me, and everyone else, why we should suffer cuts in our wages, why we should be evicted, go without, etc. when we can elect another, who will leave our wages alone.



i don't think the bourgeoisie do things because they are evil. actually, that's closer to your position - their are an enlightened, friendly bourgeosie who will do nice things for the working class. the conservatives are the horrible ones who do things because they are evil.Yes, because you fully understand my position.


and there is a huge difference between something like higher wages and universal healthcare. struggles over wages may still be possible, but i can confidently say that we will never see universal healthcare in the united states for as long as capitalism exists, and what does still exist of universal healthcare in europe will not exist in ten or twenty years time. and i'll put money on that.Regardless, you're point is still wrong, let's take it away from healthcare, and point it to militarism.

You're telling me that we shouldn't vote against a war monger.

Regardless.

You position is that a slightly better life, is no different than a slightly worse life.

That, a worker should be evicted, because voting for in one bourgeois candidate doesn't make a difference.

Obviously it does for this worker.

You've been avoiding this point. The two of you. All you have managed to do is explain why we shouldn't rely on reforms alone, even though your point was to show why we shouldn't rely on them at all.

It isn't an either or coin here.

" Can [communists] be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the [communists] an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." - Rosa Luxemburg

I'll ask once more. Do you know of Jules Guesde?

[the zizekian]

Hollande will name his prime minister May 15, Martine Aubry may very well be his choice.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2012/20120507.OBS4824/en-direct-presidentielle-victoire-de-francois-hollande.html (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2012/20120507.OBS4824/en-direct-presidentielle-victoire-de-francois-hollande.html)


We have to recall that Sarkozy was first elected with as his main slogan “work creates work”, a slogan explicitly geared against the then prevailing Audry’s 35-hour workweek legislation.

[ed miliband]

In which he's likely to respond,

"Why thank you, I now understand the issues with reforms, and why I shouldn't believe in supporting just reforms, and trusting in the bourgeois system! However, I still need to pay my rent, so, with this knowledge, I will still vote for the candidate who will allow me to pay my rent!"

Pretty basic, that educating the proletariat is great! Especially with the limitations of reform, and why some reform occurs, etc. So that when they vote for this candidate with reforms, they understand that they must go further!

Yes. I am clearly paternalizing with my use of a single analogy of a single worker. Do go on to explain my paternalism in greater depth, with quotes, and everything. I can't wait!

Then you have to explain to me, and everyone else, why we should suffer cuts in our wages, why we should be evicted, go without, etc. when we can elect another, who will leave our wages alone.


Yes, because you fully understand my position.

Regardless, you're point is still wrong, let's take it away from healthcare, and point it to militarism.

You're telling me that we shouldn't vote against a war monger.

Regardless.

You position is that a slightly better life, is no different than a slightly worse life.

That, a worker should be evicted, because voting for in one bourgeois candidate doesn't make a difference.

Obviously it does for this worker.

You've been avoiding this point. The two of you. All you have managed to do is explain why we shouldn't rely on reforms alone, even though your point was to show why we shouldn't rely on them at all.

It isn't an either or coin here.

" Can [communists] be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the [communists] an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." - Rosa Luxemburg

I'll ask once more. Do you know of Jules Guesde?

sorry but it's really simple and comes down to this question:

when has voting for a "reforming", social-democratic or centrist candidate as opposed to a conservative one meant that wages haven't been cut or war hasn't been waged? study the history of "socialist international" (the grouping that inc. the british labour party and the french socialist party, amongst others) parties in government and they have been just as brutal to the working class at home and abroad as parties to their right. read this for starters:

http://libcom.org/library/labouring-vain

and that was written before the new labour years. not a very pretty picture.

and oh my fucking god - there is a difference between workers organising to struggle for reforms, which the luxemburg quote addresses, and voting for "reformist" politicians. actually, this is something you completely ignore, and it's strange for somebody who claims to align themselves with the iww... the working class only appear in your posts as passive actors who vote for politicians to save their wages, or bring in healthcare, or stop wars: in the past reforms were made only because of the power of the working class; you seem to think reforms happen because of an enlightened bourgeoisie.

but yeah, read that text i linked you to, i'm interested (genuinely) as to what you think

[Brosip Tito]

sorry but it's really simple and comes down to this question:

when has voting for a "reforming", social-democratic or centrist candidate as opposed to a conservative one meant that wages haven't been cut or war hasn't been waged? study the history of "socialist international" (the grouping that inc. the british labour party and the french socialist party, amongst others) parties in government and they have been just as brutal to the working class at home and abroad as parties to their right. read this for starters:

http://libcom.org/library/labouring-vainYour picking my analogy apart, and ignoring the premise.

Let's look at the recent conservative budget in Canada, for another example.

The retirement age of every worker went up 2 years.

The retirement age of every public worker went up 5 years.

100 000 public sector job cuts.

$15-30 billion towards fighter jets (not complete, but promised by conservatives to happen). Which could have been spent on universal day care.

Had the liberals or New Democrats been elected, this is extremely unlikely to have happened. As Canada's involvement in Iraq didn't happen because the conservatives weren't in power.

I Definitely AGREE THAT ORGANIZING STRIKES AND PROTESTS AGAINST THIS IS LIKELY A MUCH BETTER ROUTE THAN VOTING IN A DIFFERENT BOURGEOIS CANDIDATE, HOWEVER, IN THE WAKE THAT THIS DOESN'T OCCUR, WHICH IT HASN'T, ONE HAS TO RESORT TO VOTING.

Organizing the workers for unified class conscious action is definitely > voting for bourgeois politicians and small reforms. However, you have to acknowledge that the working class in Canada and the USA are not openly waging class struggle, as they were in the early 20th century.


and oh my fucking god - there is a difference between workers organising to struggle for reforms, which the luxemburg quote addresses, and voting for "reformist" politicians. actually, this is something you completely ignore, and it's strange for somebody who claims to align themselves with the iww... the working class only appear in your posts as passive actors who vote for politicians to save their wages, or bring in healthcare, or stop wars: in the past reforms were made only because of the power of the working class; you seem to think reforms happen because of an enlightened bourgeoisie.You're correct about the Luxemburg quote, but you are knocking voting for these politicians, because of these reforms. You've been targeting the idea of reforms, since the start. That these reforms are no good because they come form the bourgeois. Regardless of where they come from.

I'll ask again, since you ignore it, do you know who JULES GUESDE is?

I certainly acknowledge the fact that reforms, especially from bourgeois parties, are not particularly large, and it takes much more, for the most part, to get those major reforms. I also acknowledge that they aren't intended as some magical gift to the proletariat from the glorious enlightened bourgeoisie. It takes strikes, protests, mass action, etc. Of course! However, what I am talking about, are those reforms for which the organization of the working class isn't necessary needed to achieve. Those reforms which the bourgeois parties already represent. The social democratic platform compared to the conservative for example. The slightly better living standard, vs the slightly worse. The liberal pacifism vs the conservative militarism.

I'm not talking about blindly voting for a bourgeois politician, and thinking everything is honkyfuckingdory, no.

I'm talking about a worker, voting for his immediate needs. You haven't addressed this at all, except for saying "oh, when have wages been attacked!?". Let's make the analogy back to militarism again:

Should we suggest that the not class conscious working class vote for the candidate who opposes war, or should we suggest not voting, and risking the victory of someone who promises to invade Iran?

or perhaps universal childcare:

Should I, as a working class parent, who can barely afford a babysitter, vote for the NDP in Canada since universal child care is completely possible and they support it, or should I not vote at all?

I fully support the formation, and election of a revolutionary Marxist oppositionist party. As was the German SDP, SDKPiL, RSDLP, etc. as opposed to voting for bourgeois candidates. As well as mass action, class organization, etc etc. I support these things far above voting for bourgeois politicians, however, I acknowledge the reality here, you do not. That we don't have these things at our disposal atm.

Address all of what I'm saying, not just parts, as well.

I'll ask again, in case you missed it again, DO YOU KNOW WHO JULES GUESDE IS?


but yeah, read that text i linked you to, i'm interested (genuinely) as to what you thinkI'm getting ready for travel for a few hours, so I will definitely check it out when I get to where I'm going.

[Manic Impressive]

I know who Guesde was, he was a reformist.

[the zizekian]

Now I think there are no excuses for at least a critical vote for the Left Front in the June legislative elections. Those who wavered from switching to Hollande at the last minute in the first round have no justification voting "Socialist" in June, assuming of course that the legislative elections are somewhat proportional.

The legislative elections are uninominal in France.

[ed miliband]

Your picking my analogy apart, and ignoring the premise.

Let's look at the recent conservative budget in Canada, for another example.

The retirement age of every worker went up 2 years.

The retirement age of every public worker went up 5 years.

100 000 public sector job cuts.

$15-30 billion towards fighter jets (not complete, but promised by conservatives to happen). Which could have been spent on universal day care.

Had the liberals or New Democrats been elected, this is extremely unlikely to have happened. As Canada's involvement in Iraq didn't happen because the conservatives weren't in power.

I Definitely AGREE THAT ORGANIZING STRIKES AND PROTESTS AGAINST THIS IS LIKELY A MUCH BETTER ROUTE THAN VOTING IN A DIFFERENT BOURGEOIS CANDIDATE, HOWEVER, IN THE WAKE THAT THIS DOESN'T OCCUR, WHICH IT HASN'T, ONE HAS TO RESORT TO VOTING.

Organizing the workers for unified class conscious action is definitely > voting for bourgeois politicians and small reforms. However, you have to acknowledge that the working class in Canada and the USA are not openly waging class struggle, as they were in the early 20th century.

You're correct about the Luxemburg quote, but you are knocking voting for these politicians, because of these reforms. You've been targeting the idea of reforms, since the start. That these reforms are no good because they come form the bourgeois. Regardless of where they come from.

I'll ask again, since you ignore it, do you know who JULES GUESDE is?

I certainly acknowledge the fact that reforms, especially from bourgeois parties, are not particularly large, and it takes much more, for the most part, to get those major reforms. I also acknowledge that they aren't intended as some magical gift to the proletariat from the glorious enlightened bourgeoisie. It takes strikes, protests, mass action, etc. Of course! However, what I am talking about, are those reforms for which the organization of the working class isn't necessary needed to achieve. Those reforms which the bourgeois parties already represent. The social democratic platform compared to the conservative for example. The slightly better living standard, vs the slightly worse. The liberal pacifism vs the conservative militarism.

I'm not talking about blindly voting for a bourgeois politician, and thinking everything is honkyfuckingdory, no.

I'm talking about a worker, voting for his immediate needs. You haven't addressed this at all, except for saying "oh, when have wages been attacked!?". Let's make the analogy back to militarism again:

Should we suggest that the not class conscious working class vote for the candidate who opposes war, or should we suggest not voting, and risking the victory of someone who promises to invade Iran?

or perhaps universal childcare:

Should I, as a working class parent, who can barely afford a babysitter, vote for the NDP in Canada since universal child care is completely possible and they support it, or should I not vote at all?

I fully support the formation, and election of a revolutionary Marxist oppositionist party. As was the German SDP, SDKPiL, RSDLP, etc. as opposed to voting for bourgeois candidates. As well as mass action, class organization, etc etc. I support these things far above voting for bourgeois politicians, however, I acknowledge the reality here, you do not. That we don't have these things at our disposal atm.

Address all of what I'm saying, not just parts, as well.

I'll ask again, in case you missed it again, DO YOU KNOW WHO JULES GUESDE IS?

I'm getting ready for travel for a few hours, so I will definitely check it out when I get to where I'm going.


ffs, where did you get the idea i'm "knocking reforms because they come from the bourgeoisie" or whatever you're suggesting? i've explictly stated that i don't think reforms are possible at a state level, that they might have been in the past, but that they aren't anymore. it doesn't matter who they come from.

and yes, i know who jules guesde is and i don't see where you are going with that.

[the zizekian]

ffs, where did you get the idea i'm "knocking reforms because they come from the bourgeoisie" or whatever you're suggesting? i've explictly stated that i don't think reforms are possible at a state level, that they might have been in the past, but that they aren't anymore. it doesn't matter who they come from.

and yes, i know who jules guesde is and i don't see where you are going with that.

France is not famous for its reforms but for its Revolution.

[Manic Impressive]

and yes, i know who jules guesde is and i don't see where you are going with that.
I know where he's going with that. ;)

If they are Marxists.........

[the zizekian]

I know where he's going with that. ;)

If they are Marxists.........

Robespierre didn’t wait after Marx to get elected and make the revolution happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know who Guesde was, he was a reformist.

Lenin would beg to differ on this attitude toward pre-WWI Guesde. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

Lenin would beg to differ on this attitude toward pre-WWI Guesde. :rolleyes:
Like I give a fuck about what Lenin thought :rolleyes:

But as I see you do

When nobody else would publish the Bolsheviks message the SPGB did.

A DECLARATION TO THE LONDON CONFERENCE Comrades, – Your Conference calls itself a conference of the Socialist parties of the allied belligerent countries, Belgium, England, France and Russia.
Allow me first of all to draw your attention to the fact that the Social-Democracy of Russia, as an organised body, as represented by its Central Committee and affiliated to the International Socialist Bureau, has received no invitation from you. The Russian Social-Democracy, whose views have been expressed by the members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Group in the Duma, now arrested by the Tsar’s Government (Petrovsky, Muranoff, Badaoff, Samoiloff representing the workers of Petrograd, Yokaterinoslaff, Kharkoff, Kastroma and Vladimir districts) have nothing in common with your conference. We hope that you will state so publicly, as otherwise you may be accused of distorting the truth.
Now allow me to say a few words with regard to your conference, i.e., to tell you what the class-conscious Social-Democratic workers of Russia would expect from you.
We believe that before entering upon any deliberations with regard to the reconstruction of the International, before attempting to restore international bonds between Socialist workers, it is our Socialist duty to demand:
(1) That Vandervelde, Guesde and Sembat immediately leave the Belgian and French bourgeois ministries.
(2) That the Belgian and French Socialist parties break up the so-called “block national” which is a disgrace to the Socialist flag and under cover of which the bourgeoisie celebrates its orgies of chauvinism.
(3) That all Socialist parties cease their policies of ignoring the crimes of Russian Tsarism and renew their support of that struggle against Tsarism which is being carried on by the Russian workers in spite of all the sacrifices they have to make.
(4) That in fulfillment of the resolutions of the bale conference we hold out our hands to those revolutionary Social-Democrats of Germany and Austria who are prepared to carry on propaganda for revolutionary action as a reply to war. The voting for war credits must be condemned without any reserves.
The German and Austrian Social-Democrats have committed a monstrous crime against Socialism and the International by voting war credits and entering into domestic truce with the Junkers, the priests and the bourgeoisie, but the action of the Belgian and French Socialists has by no means been better. We fully understand the conditions are possible when Socialists as a minority have to submit to a bourgeois majority, but under no circumstances should Socialists cease to be Socialists or join in the chorus of bourgeois chauvinism, forsake the workers’ cause and enter bourgeois ministries.
The German and Austrian Social-Democrats are committing a great crime against Socialism when, after the example of the bourgeoisie they hypocritically assert that the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgs are carrying on the war of liberation “against Tsarism.”
But those are committing a crime no less stupendous who assert that Tsarism is becoming democratised and civilized, who are passing over in silence the fact that Tsarism is strangling and ruining unhappy Galicia just as the German Kaiser is strangling and ruining Belgium, who keep silent about the facts that the Tsar’s gang has thrown into gaol the parliamentary representatives of the Russian working class, and only the other day condemned to six years penal servitude a member of Moscow workers for the only offence of belonging to our party, that Tsarism is now oppressing Finland worse than ever, that our Labour press and organisations in Russia are suppressed, that all the milliards necessary for the war are being wrung by the Tsar’s clique out of the poor workers and starving peasants.
On behalf of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party,
London, February 14th, 1915. M. MAXIMOVICH.*

* The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, also known as the Bolshevik Party, later changed its name to Communist Party.

“ M. Maximovich” who signed the statement is Maximovich Litvinoff, Commissar for Foreign Affairs 1930-1939.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like I give a fuck about what Lenin thought :rolleyes:

Given your slander of Jules Guesde:

http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/journal/online-articles/kautsky-as-marxist-data-base

I have the relevant files, but note


The topics included are: the meaning of Lenin’s coinage kautskianstvo (translated in the English-language Collected Works as “Kautskyism”); Lenin’s view of the Second International as a whole; Lenin’s view of Kautsky as a person after 1909; Lenin’s view of other “renegades” such as Jules Guesde.

[the zizekian]

Today Hollande was with Sarkozy to mark France victory against Germany in WW2.

[Hit The North]

Isn't the simple, minimum point that the working class of France has rejected the austerity program which is nothing but the bourgeoisie's attempt to make the workers pay for the crisis and that this, in itself, is a step forward?

The election of Hollande, providing he doesn't instantly sell out, should be welcomed by socialists because it puts the cat amongst the pigeons in Europe, will make it harder for the bourgeoisie to push through its austerity program and will deepen the impasse European capitalism finds itself in.

I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing against the fact that the working class must step forward as an independent power in order to push the process towards a terminal conclusion. The question is whether Hollande's election will enable the bourgeoisie to dampen working class resistance and hold it in abeyance, which has been the historical function of social democracy. But this will largely depend on what the workers do.

Whether Brosip Tito's optimism that Hollande will make life easier for workers is correct or not (and the idea that reforms are impossible in modern capitalism is dogmatic rubbish - and bourgeois dogma at that!) isn't really the point. The real point is that Hollande's victory is a symptom of the increasing polarization that the unsolved crisis of capital is creating in European society. In that, it should be welcomed by revolutionaries but, obviously, with a clear critical sense of its limitations and an argument of how workers should relate to it.

[Manic Impressive]

Given your slander of Jules Guesde:

http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/journal/online-articles/kautsky-as-marxist-data-base

I have the relevant files, but note
Very interesting but it doesn't change the fact that Guesde and his followers were reformist. They campaigned for and won reforms through parliament and Guesde then went on to serve in the French war cabinet. Don't get me wrong I like Guesde but that doesn't change the fact that he was a reformist. They eventually were swallowed up by the SFIO which later became the French Socialist party who retained a Guesdist faction until a few years ago.

[Hit The North]

Today Hollande was with Sarkozy to mark France victory against Germany in WW2.

Well, of course! He is a loyal servant of the French nation. He's also the president in waiting and it would be unthinkable for him to not attend such a state occasion.

I hesitate to ask, because you very rarely seem to have one, but what is your point?

[the zizekian]

Isn't the simple, minimum point that the working class of France has rejected the austerity program which is nothing but the bourgeoisie's attempt to make the workers pay for the crisis and that this, in itself, is a step forward?


Hollande’s election means that the middle class doesn’t want to look like the working class (Front National).

[Brosip Tito]

I know who Guesde was, he was a reformist.Clearly, you do not.

Actually, he was the opposite of a reformist. He was actually anti-reform, altogether. It was his attitude toward reform which led to Marx's famous phrase in a letter to Bernstein: "I am not a Marxist".

Guesde attitude was that reforms would pull the proletariat from radicalism.

Marx accused Guesde of "Revolutionary phrase-mongering" in his rejection of reforms within the framework of capitalism.

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5)


ffs, where did you get the idea i'm "knocking reforms because they come from the bourgeoisie" or whatever you're suggesting? i've explictly stated that i don't think reforms are possible at a state level, that they might have been in the past, but that they aren't anymore. it doesn't matter who they come from.

and yes, i know who jules guesde is and i don't see where you are going with that.Why, though?

As well, why should we not vote against things such as militarist action? You keep avoiding that as well.

Guesde was against reform altogether, which is the point you are coming across as being in line with. Though, you make it clear here that it is because you believe, wrongly so, that reform (or the prevention of the breakdown of reform) is no longer possible through the bourgeois government. I would go further, in one sense, and say that major reforms, such as the 8-hour day, were not and are not possible via voting in bourgeois elections. It's those small gains, which are possible in this manner.


Like I give a fuck about what Lenin thought :rolleyes:

But as I see you doLenin was quite an important figure, and one of the biggest influences on Marxist thought, and action, in the 20th century.

His party, and the working class, was dealt a shit plate in Russia, and had to deal with trying to build a proletarian dictatorship, in a backward peasants country. He then had to contend with the remnants of feudal economy, civil war, famine, growing bureaucratic malformations, etc.

It would be absolutely absurd to believe he could achieve the purest proletarian democracy, or what have you, with the material conditions given.

To discount, or to oppose Lenin and his ideas in totality, or to even refer to him as reformist, as comrades of mine have, is absurd. This is another area in which I break with left communists.


I know where he's going with that. ;)

If they are Marxists.........
I'm comparing you to the anti-reform Guesde. My reasoning for that is you seem to be going against Marx's line on reform.

Though, do tell me, where has Marx stated that this reform was limited to organized workers' action, and not voting in elections?

We know, at least in a parliamentary system, perhaps it's different in America, that electing a centre left party, over a centre right party, is certainly beneficial to the well-being of the proletariat.

[the zizekian]

Isn't the simple, minimum point that the working class of France has rejected the austerity program which is nothing but the bourgeoisie's attempt to make the workers pay for the crisis and that this, in itself, is a step forward?

The election of Hollande, providing he doesn't instantly sell out, should be welcomed by socialists because it puts the cat amongst the pigeons in Europe, will make it harder for the bourgeoisie to push through its austerity program and will deepen the impasse European capitalism finds itself in.

I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing against the fact that the working class must step forward as an independent power in order to push the process towards a terminal conclusion. The question is whether Hollande's election will enable the bourgeoisie to dampen working class resistance and hold it in abeyance, which has been the historical function of social democracy. But this will largely depend on what the workers do.

Whether Brosip Tito's optimism that Hollande will make life easier for workers is correct or not (and the idea that reforms are impossible in modern capitalism is dogmatic rubbish - and bourgeois dogma at that!) isn't really the point. The real point is that Hollande's victory is a symptom of the increasing polarization that the unsolved crisis of capital is creating in European society. In that, it should be welcomed by revolutionaries but, obviously, with a clear critical sense of its limitations and an argument of how workers should relate to it.

With your old-fashioned rose-coloured glasses, you miss that the workers are voting for the extreme-right.

[Hit The North]

With your old-fashioned rose-coloured glasses, you miss that the workers are voting for the extreme-right.

Yes, some of "the workers" voted extreme right, but if you think this represents the French working class as a whole then either you're just trolling or you have a very limited view of what comprises the French working class.

Should have gone to Specsavers :rolleyes:

[the zizekian]

Yes, some of "the workers" voted extreme right, but if you think this represents the French working class as a whole then either you're just trolling or you have a very limited view of what comprises the French working class.

Should have gone to Specsavers :rolleyes:

There is a hole in the whole (working class).

[Alf]

The article from the ICC's French section which leo linked to earlier is now in English:


http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201205/4884/french-elections-leaders-change-austerity-and-exploitation-remain

[the zizekian]

Yes, some of "the workers" voted extreme right, but if you think this represents the French working class as a whole then either you're just trolling or you have a very limited view of what comprises the French working class.

Should have gone to Specsavers :rolleyes:

A class never coincides with itself.

[the zizekian]

Yes, some of "the workers" voted extreme right, but if you think this represents the French working class as a whole then either you're just trolling or you have a very limited view of what comprises the French working class.

Should have gone to Specsavers :rolleyes:

“Class as a whole” is a contradiction in terms.

[Hit The North]

There is a hole in the whole (working class).


A class never coincides with itself.


“Class as a whole” is a contradiction in terms.

Has Nanny forgot to give you your medication tonight?

I'm worried about you, Zizekian, I fear you may be surrendering yourself to the terror.

[the zizekian]

Yes, some of "the workers" voted extreme right, but if you think this represents the French working class as a whole then either you're just trolling or you have a very limited view of what comprises the French working class.

Should have gone to Specsavers :rolleyes:

A whole means totalitarianism.

[Krano]

Even if Hollande was actually a Socialist and instituted Socialist policies, so what? when hes time as president is finished and another person is elected as president then that person will just bring back Capitalist policies and all the progress will be lost. You can't bring Socialism thru bourgeois democracy.

[the zizekian]

Even if Hollande was actually a Socialist and instituted Socialist policies, so what? when hes time as president is finished and another person is elected as president. And that person will just bring back Capitalist policies and all the progress will be lost. You can't bring Socialism thru bourgeois democracy.

All types of democracy have a revolutionary potential.

[ckaihatsu]

Even if Hollande was actually a Socialist and instituted Socialist policies, so what? when hes time as president is finished and another person is elected as president then that person will just bring back Capitalist policies and all the progress will be lost. You can't bring Socialism thru bourgeois democracy.


Thank you -- !!

If this was *any other* job position the employer would be looking over resumes, weighing the pros and cons of each applicant, and then seeing how well they performed the *duties* of that position.

But when it comes to *politics* we're supposed to *fawn* over this-or-that official, expected to expect different and better things from the new one, as if they would take on superhuman qualities and somehow transcend the limitations and prescriptions of the position they're put into.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Why not? It would be a thoroughly bourgeois policy.

...and yet it has yet to be legalized in America, home of the most powerful bourgeoisie... bourgeois politicians do not have a record of keeping their bourgeoisie promises, is what I am saying.

To be honest I am wondering what,if anything, he will do for the transgender community.

[Hit The North]

...and yet it has yet to be legalized in America, home of the most powerful bourgeoisie... bourgeois politicians do not have a record of keeping their bourgeoisie promises, is what I am saying.


David Cameron supports gay marriage and, anyway, marriage is a bourgeois institution.


To be honest I am wondering what,if anything, he will do for the transgender community.


Well if he gives them the legal right to be wed he will be giving them precious little.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

David Cameron supports gay marriage and, anyway, marriage is a bourgeois institution.

I am well aware but since such people live under bourgeois governments legalization is an important step if only for semantics.


Well if he gives them the legal right to be wed he will be giving them precious little.

Transgender people already have the right to marry as when they undergo the sex change procedure they legally become members of the opposite sex.Their oppression is slightly different as I was alluring to more anti-discrimination measures.

[the zizekian]

Thank you -- !!

If this was *any other* job position the employer would be looking over resumes, weighing the pros and cons of each applicant, and then seeing how well they performed the *duties* of that position.

But when it comes to *politics* we're supposed to *fawn* over this-or-that official, expected to expect different and better things from the new one, as if they would take on superhuman qualities and somehow transcend the limitations and prescriptions of the position they're put into.

Expect anything from a position allowing charisma!

[Hit The North]

I am well aware but since such people live under bourgeois governments legalization is an important step if only for semantics.


If it's for semantics' sake it's a poor excuse. If it's for reasons of taxation then at least there is a material pay-off.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If it's for semantics' sake it's a poor excuse. If it's for reasons of taxation then at least there is a material pay-off.

Semantics can be important as it leads to material pay off in terms of financial benefits which heterosexual couples receive. I fail to see what you are getting at.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sorry-my-space-bar-is-broken-but-Hollande-has-proposed-a-75%-tax-on-income-ober-1million-he-is-not-the-same-as-sarkozy-one-bourgeios-politicion-does-not-equal-another-bourgeios-politican.

Taxing the rich is a bunch of nonsense (yes, I said it). All they're doing is taxing normal income which most CEO types do not collect and instead it's mainly capital gains and so on. It's a convenient way to avoid taxes which is why Warren Buffet is currently facing a pretty big tax evasion case. It literally solves nothing, the rich get richer, capital lives on and the proletariat continue to feel the burden.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Clearly, you do not.

Actually, he was the opposite of a reformist. He was actually anti-reform, altogether. It was his attitude toward reform which led to Marx's famous phrase in a letter to Bernstein: "I am not a Marxist".

Guesde attitude was that reforms would pull the proletariat from radicalism.

Marx accused Guesde of "Revolutionary phrase-mongering" in his rejection of reforms within the framework of capitalism.

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5)

Why, though?

As well, why should we not vote against things such as militarist action? You keep avoiding that as well.

Guesde was against reform altogether, which is the point you are coming across as being in line with.

Not quite. "Radicalism" should be spelled in upper case, as in the progressive-reformist Radicalist movement in France.

Guesde may have been against reform, but he was not against reform sloganeering to lure workers away from Big-R "Radicalism."


I'm comparing you to the anti-reform Guesde. My reasoning for that is you seem to be going against Marx's line on reform.

Again, both Marx and Guesde were for reforms. It was Guesde who wrote the minimum program in the Program of the French Workers Party. It was their attitude towards actively using reform sloganeering and such that distinguished the two.

[the zizekian]

With Hollande, the era of European presidents filthily married may come to an end.

[ckaihatsu]

Semantics can be important as it leads to material pay off in terms of financial benefits which heterosexual couples receive.


Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

I shudder to recall the politics of the archetypal liberal types who live their political lives according to the balance sheet of wins and losses in the realm of the cultural-symbolic.








Some types one may run into either live in -- and/or are hawking -- a world composed solely of symbols and semantics, where wordplay is their order of the day, detached from the real world as it is. This is fine for artistic explorations and fictional fantasies, but can really cut against the grain and irritate when real-world political matters are at hand.

[the zizekian]

Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism*

Only by comparing humans with chimpanzees, it is easy to understand that there is nothing gradual with symbols.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

Which makes sense if you are battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system.No one is talking about revolution in regards to this little sub-thread about whether he will legalize gay marriage, so, much like the previous poster, I fail to see your point.

[the zizekian]

Which makes sense if you are battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system.No one is talking about revolution in regards to this little sub-thread about whether he will legalize gay marriage, so, much like the previous poster, I fail to see your point.

Here's a nice example of Marx's revolutionary use of dialectics:

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
— Karl Marx

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Here's a nice example of Marx's revolutionary use of dialectics:

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
— Karl Marx



Yes, every queer revolutionary understands that and fights for that but so as long as queers are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry it is a cause worth fighting for.Equality first than one can fight for the banishment of the system once the queer segment of society realizes that they missed out on nothing.

[the zizekian]

Yes, every queer revolutionary understands that and fights for that but so as long as queers are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry it is a cause worth fighting for.Equality first than one can fight for the banishment of the system once the queer segment of society realizes that they missed out on nothing.

I’m quite sure Hollande will see that opening up the marriage institution is a socialist cause.

[ckaihatsu]

Only by comparing humans with chimpanzees, it is easy to understand that there is nothing gradual with symbols.


Despite your attempts at dissembling, *yes*, *everything* about symbols, symbolics, and semantic-mindedness -- as distinct from a *class*-based politics -- is gradual, ephemeral, reversible, and even insulting.





Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

I shudder to recall the politics of the archetypal liberal types who live their political lives according to the balance sheet of wins and losses in the realm of the cultural-symbolic.





Which makes sense if you are battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system.


You're sounding downright *heroic* in your defense of "the little guy" here, but an identity-based politics is necessarily going to be reformist in its outlook, as for legalizing gay marriage.

"Battling within a bourgeois system" says it all here, as distinct from 'battling a bourgeois system'.





No one is talking about revolution in regards to this little sub-thread about whether he will legalize gay marriage, so, much like the previous poster, I fail to see your point.


Again, *exactly* -- why even *hesitate* to segue the discussion into that of revolution here on a revolutionary leftist discussion board -- ?

[the zizekian]

Despite your attempts at dissembling, *yes*, *everything* about symbols, symbolics, and semantic-mindedness -- as distinct from a *class*-based politics -- is gradual, ephemeral, reversible, and even insulting.

Only by looking at past's priests and today's computer experts, we can see that the dominant class is a symbolic one.

[ckaihatsu]

Only by looking at past's priests and today's computer experts, we can see that the dominant class is a symbolic one.


Do you really believe this?? I'll agree with you to some extent on the priests part since access to knowledge was monopolized by the church in centuries past, but today computers have proven to be liberating, and *not* elitist.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he dominant class is a symbolic one.


What's your definition of 'class' anyway -- ?

[the zizekian]

Do you really believe this?? I'll agree with you to some extent on the priests part since access to knowledge was monopolized by the church in centuries past, but today computers have proven to be liberating, and *not* elitist.

Only by looking at Bill Gates we can see that capitalism would not be able to reproduce itself if he was not donating his fortune to “charity”.

[ckaihatsu]

Only by looking at Bill Gates we can see that capitalism would not be able to reproduce itself if he was not donating his fortune to “charity”.


This is ludicrous, of course -- to equate all of capitalism to only Microsoft, within the entire computer / IT industry, within the entire world's production and economic output.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You're sounding downright *heroic* in your defense of "the little guy" here, but an identity-based politics is necessarily going to be reformist in its outlook, as for legalizing gay marriage.

Who am I defending? ...and identity based politics, why on earth are you talking about that?


"Battling within a bourgeois system" says it all here, as distinct from 'battling a bourgeois system'.

Within this manner,assuming you go back and read what I previously read, the two here are one in the same.


Again, *exactly* -- why even *hesitate* to segue the discussion into that of revolution here on a revolutionary leftist discussion board -- ?

Because it was a fact of his rise to power and I wanted to throw in my two cents on the subject. You and that other user were the ones to take this to such illogical extremes.

[ckaihatsu]

Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

I shudder to recall the politics of the archetypal liberal types who live their political lives according to the balance sheet of wins and losses in the realm of the cultural-symbolic.





Which makes sense if you are battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system.





You're sounding downright *heroic* in your defense of "the little guy" here, but an identity-based politics is necessarily going to be reformist in its outlook, as for legalizing gay marriage.





Who am I defending? ...and identity based politics, why on earth are you talking about that?


You were talking about "battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system." This means you're defending those people who are trapped under a bourgeois system -- the "little guy", to use a colloquialism.

Identity-based politics is any kind of defense of a segment of the population based on a demographic definition, instead of on that segment's relation to the means of mass production (the definition of 'class').





"Battling within a bourgeois system" says it all here, as distinct from 'battling a bourgeois system'.





Within this manner,assuming you go back and read what I previously read, the two here are one in the same.


What you said was this:





Which makes sense if you are battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system.No one is talking about revolution in regards to this little sub-thread about whether he will legalize gay marriage, so, much like the previous poster, I fail to see your point.


And that was in response to this:





Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

I shudder to recall the politics of the archetypal liberal types who live their political lives according to the balance sheet of wins and losses in the realm of the cultural-symbolic.


So, again:





Within this manner,assuming you go back and read what I previously read, the two here are one in the same.


You're saying that "battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system" is the same as 'battling a bourgeois system'. I'm maintaining that there *is* a distinction between the two -- a substantive one, and not merely a semantic turn-of-phrase.

Fighting *within* the system means that one is necessarily cooperating with the premise of bourgeois rule to some extent, as would happen by focusing on gaining reforms like gay marriage. I'm not *dismissing* any reforms here, but rather questioning where one's focus and efforts are placed -- is it more beneficial for working class people (the vast majority of humanity) if they / we play by the rules of the ruling class system, or might we more readily realize gains like gay marriage and social equality if we *refuse* to cooperate within the parameters set out for us by the ruling class -- ?

As revolutionaries we should know by now that our strength is in our ability to organize around our *labor* power, and it does *not* reside in our social identity/identities, whatever they may be. It is in our best interests as a class to *overcome* any trivial social distinctions that may be divisive and to see ourselves as the ones who make the world go 'round. It is within our discretion to control our own labor power collectively, and we should do exactly that, collectively, on a class basis -- even withholding it in an organized way in order to prove that point. Only by doing things on *this* political basis will we ever gain the general respect and standing so sought-after by any given per-identity perspective.





Because it was a fact of his rise to power and I wanted to throw in my two cents on the subject. You and that other user were the ones to take this to such illogical extremes.


I take exception to your characterization of *any* of my words here as being "[at an] illogical extreme" -- you may want to elaborate on why you say that, and which meanings of mine you find to be this way.

[shaneo]

All types of democracy have a revolutionary potential.

Bold statement!

Democracy is government by the people, for the people. I know students like to sit around in Starbucks (sometimes for weeks on end) discussing whether or not solialism and communism are different things, but lets call it a given:
Socialism, communism, democracy are the same thing. They all mean power in the hands of the many, rather than in the hands of a wealthy few.

What type of democracy do they have in France?

I think you'd struggle to name any country, that has democracy, in any form.

[ed miliband]

Whether Brosip Tito's optimism that Hollande will make life easier for workers is correct or not (and the idea that reforms are impossible in modern capitalism is dogmatic rubbish - and bourgeois dogma at that!) isn't really the point. The real point is that Hollande's victory is a symptom of the increasing polarization that the unsolved crisis of capital is creating in European society. In that, it should be welcomed by revolutionaries but, obviously, with a clear critical sense of its limitations and an argument of how workers should relate to it.

lol you what?

lol

[ed miliband]

also brosip tito kept making a "point" about left-wing candidates not being militaristic or something, and then accused me of dodging said "point". my only response is again, lol.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You're saying that "battling within a bourgeois system to improve the lives of people trapped under such a system" is the same as 'battling a bourgeois system'. I'm maintaining that there *is* a distinction between the two -- a substantive one, and not merely a semantic turn-of-phrase.

The "one in the same" as I meant was that one can advocate revolution within a bourgeois system while relying on "identity politics."


Fighting *within* the system means that one is necessarily cooperating with the premise of bourgeois rule to some extent, as would happen by focusing on gaining reforms like gay marriage. I'm not *dismissing* any reforms here, but rather questioning where one's focus and efforts are placed -- is it more beneficial for working class people (the vast majority of humanity) if they / we play by the rules of the ruling class system, or might we more readily realize gains like gay marriage and social equality if we *refuse* to cooperate within the parameters set out for us by the ruling class -- ? Depends on what kind of gains you desire...


As revolutionaries we should know by now that our strength is in our ability to organize around our *labor* power, and it does *not* reside in our social identity/identities, whatever they may be. It is in our best interests as a class to *overcome* any trivial social distinctions that may be divisive and to see ourselves as the ones who make the world go 'round. It is within our discretion to control our own labor power collectively, and we should do exactly that, collectively, on a class basis -- even withholding it in an organized way in order to prove that point. Only by doing things on *this* political basis will we ever gain the general respect and standing so sought-after by any given per-identity perspective. And yet so as long as the working class is so divided that one segment of the population cannot even effectively work alongside another member who is attracted to a member of the same sex,such is unlikely right now.Some measure of equality must first be attained (if your immediate goal is bourgeois marriage).


I take exception to your characterization of *any* of my words here as being "[at an] illogical extreme" -- you may want to elaborate on why you say that, and which meanings of mine you find to be this way.You started this entire sub-thread along such bizarre routes how on earth was I to say it is anything but illogical? When I intend to defend my words to the end of the earth I will elaborate on meaning but seeing as how I do not see every facet of the world through a Marxist lens, I do not have to do as much right now. There might be a time when I see things as you do but right now I am perfectly comfortable organizing around "identity politics." My focus is in the Queer community so I narrow in on them and do what I am able to to help; sometimes that means taking the slow route and working within the system but that is exactly the thing: helping minorities to attain a bourgeois goal is not the same,per se,as advocating for straight up Marxist revolution.

One can conflate the two but such wasn't the topic at discussion.The very topic of this thread was reformism; ergo, I argue in regards to reforms.

[ckaihatsu]

The "one in the same" as I meant was that one can advocate revolution within a bourgeois system while relying on "identity politics."


If you mean that 'one can advocate revolution *while* within a bourgeois system...' then I agree.

I'll contend that *relying* on identity politics only leaves this kind of situation unaddressed and festering:





And yet so as long as the working class is so divided that one segment of the population cannot even effectively work alongside another member who is attracted to a member of the same sex,such is unlikely right now.Some measure of equality must first be attained (if your immediate goal is bourgeois marriage).


It may *seem* like a gradualist approach is the sound one, with social gains towards social equality providing a foundation for a further-left, revolution-directed organizing, but in reality it's simply taking the long way around.

People who have any kind of hang-ups can quickly learn to overcome them if there's something substantive in front of them to fight for. If the issue is some other person's identity-based rights and privileges, though, that only encourages divisiveness and separatism, and worse. While such limited gains may be positive for that one group it's political separatism in terms of the larger proletariat and its inherent interests for workers power.

An organizing that's based on achieving workers power will be substantive to *all* workers, not just those of one sub-group or another -- this means that all involved will have an active interest in putting trivial counterproductive attitudes such as prejudices aside, for the sake of working in common towards the goal-in-common.

[the zizekian]

This is ludicrous, of course -- to equate all of capitalism to only Microsoft, within the entire computer / IT industry, within the entire world's production and economic output.

Microsoft is only the tip of the iceberg.

[the zizekian]

Bold statement!

Democracy is government by the people, for the people. I know students like to sit around in Starbucks (sometimes for weeks on end) discussing whether or not solialism and communism are different things, but lets call it a given:
Socialism, communism, democracy are the same thing. They all mean power in the hands of the many, rather than in the hands of a wealthy few.

What type of democracy do they have in France?

I think you'd struggle to name any country, that has democracy, in any form.

Many countries like to call themselves democracy. A revolutionary doesn’t need more than that to go forward.

[shaneo]

Many countries like to call themselves democracy. A revolutionary doesn’t need more than that to go forward.

Surely there is a big difference between democratic, and calling yourself democratic?

[the zizekian]

Alexis Tsipras to meet with François Hollande (http://www.grreporter.info/en/alexis_tsipras_meet_fran%C3%A7ois_hollande/6836)
09 May 2012 / 14:05:38

http://www.grreporter.info/en/alexis_tsipras_meet_fran%C3%A7ois_hollande/6836 (http://www.grreporter.info/en/alexis_tsipras_meet_fran%C3%A7ois_hollande/6836)

[ckaihatsu]

Semantic / symbolic victories -- of any kind -- are the very definition of *reformism* and at best only refocus towards pressing domestic issues, away from *worse* official policy trajectories, as towards warmongering foreign policy.

I shudder to recall the politics of the archetypal liberal types who live their political lives according to the balance sheet of wins and losses in the realm of the cultural-symbolic.





Only by comparing humans with chimpanzees, it is easy to understand that there is nothing gradual with symbols.





Despite your attempts at dissembling, *yes*, *everything* about symbols, symbolics, and semantic-mindedness -- as distinct from a *class*-based politics -- is gradual, ephemeral, reversible, and even insulting.





Only by looking at past's priests and today's computer experts, we can see that the dominant class is a symbolic one.





Do you really believe this?? I'll agree with you to some extent on the priests part since access to knowledge was monopolized by the church in centuries past, but today computers have proven to be liberating, and *not* elitist.





Only by looking at Bill Gates we can see that capitalism would not be able to reproduce itself if he was not donating his fortune to “charity”.





This is ludicrous, of course -- to equate all of capitalism to only Microsoft, within the entire computer / IT industry, within the entire world's production and economic output.





Microsoft is only the tip of the iceberg.


So you jumped in around the topic of political symbolism, only to go off on a tangent about symbols themselves, then demonstrated a lack of understanding of what 'class' is. You posited Microsoft as being essential to the continuation of capitalism, then backed off that grand estimation.

The way you go off on tangents, on *any* semantic linkage, reminds me of an associative-word linguistic algorithm -- its functioning allows for pre-programmed semantic linkages to be made, and includes impressive vocabularies, but of course can't "go" anywhere because at best it can just "play off of" certain semantic trends in the conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

[the zizekian]

So you jumped in around the topic of political symbolism, only to go off on a tangent about symbols themselves, then demonstrated a lack of understanding of what 'class' is. You posited Microsoft as being essential to the continuation of capitalism, then backed off that grand estimation.

The way you go off on tangents, on *any* semantic linkage, reminds me of an associative-word linguistic algorithm -- its functioning allows for pre-programmed semantic linkages to be made, and includes impressive vocabularies, but of course can't "go" anywhere because at best it can just "play off of" certain semantic trends in the conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Naming is politics.

[the zizekian]

Naming is politics.


And branding is political economy.

[Sendo]

the way you talk about the "working class" and "workers" as if it/they are this mass that you are not part of is very interesting, and you're paternalism is just lovely. those poor, ignorant workers who still hold illusions in the labour party or the democrats - let's not shatter their dreams. but what of the millions who don't side with the left-wing of capital and instead vote for conservative or far-right parties?

Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension skills would know that he was wording it as if his AUDIENCE were separate from the working class and not himself.

A fictional dialogue between WORKER and YOU implies that his audience (the second person) is separate from the working class--namely one who is financially comfortable and need not worry about setbacks to the minimum wage. I myself have to wonder how privileged you are that when an EASY electoral opportunity for concrete (though ephemeral) change comes up, you would pass it up for your god-damned principles.

It's possible to advocate for revolution and yet take ONE day to vote on an occasion when consciousness and material conditions have presented a left-of-centre candidate over a right-of-centre one.

If Brosip were to word a fictional dialogue as WORKER and ME instead of FELLOW WORKER and ME, then you may have a point. But you just want to be a bad ass commie. You're the equivalent of the strawman goth who alienates other and isolates himself by sneering at everyone who is too blissfully ignorant to leave their Disney world fantasies. You're probably so hardcore that you wouldn't care if someone were to burn down a public playground because it was built under a bourgeois democracy.

[ckaihatsu]

Naming is politics.





And branding is political economy.


You're showing yourself to have a very bourgeois mentality -- and even postmodernist -- with your emphasis on the symbolic realm.

[the zizekian]

You're showing yourself to have a very bourgeois mentality -- and even postmodernist -- with your emphasis on the symbolic realm.

For Marx, capital had a formal dimension before getting a material one.

[ckaihatsu]

For Marx, capital had a formal dimension before getting a material one.


With your focus on semantics and symbolics you really should seriously consider removing your designation of 'Revolutionary' -- it doesn't realistically apply.

[the zizekian]

With your focus on semantics and symbolics you really should seriously consider removing your designation of 'Revolutionary' -- it doesn't realistically apply.

You are proving my point that language is revolutionary!

[the zizekian]

You are proving my point that language is revolutionary!

A revolutionary is someone asking for the impossible.

[Hiero]

For Marx, capital had a formal dimension before getting a material one.

Ability will never catch up with the demand for it.

[Hiero]

A revolutionary is someone asking for the impossible.
In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the concept of precultural reality.

[ed miliband]

Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension skills would know that he was wording it as if his AUDIENCE were separate from the working class and not himself.

A fictional dialogue between WORKER and YOU implies that his audience (the second person) is separate from the working class--namely one who is financially comfortable and need not worry about setbacks to the minimum wage. I myself have to wonder how privileged you are that when an EASY electoral opportunity for concrete (though ephemeral) change comes up, you would pass it up for your god-damned principles.

It's possible to advocate for revolution and yet take ONE day to vote on an occasion when consciousness and material conditions have presented a left-of-centre candidate over a right-of-centre one.

If Brosip were to word a fictional dialogue as WORKER and ME instead of FELLOW WORKER and ME, then you may have a point. But you just want to be a bad ass commie. You're the equivalent of the strawman goth who alienates other and isolates himself by sneering at everyone who is too blissfully ignorant to leave their Disney world fantasies. You're probably so hardcore that you wouldn't care if someone were to burn down a public playground because it was built under a bourgeois democracy.

haha, and you think the election of hollande is good because he calls himself a socialist and that shows people aren't "scared" of the word. :laugh:

[Hit The North]

lol you what?

lol

It's a neo-liberal argument.

[ed miliband]

It's a neo-liberal argument.

what, it's neoliberal to argue that reforms that benefit the working class don't occur because of the ballot box, but because of - or in response to - an organised and militant working class movement, and since our class has been attacked continuously for the past 30 years such a movement no longer exists, making reforms that benefit our class an impossibilty? that's essentially my arguement, not "we don't have enough money"...

[the zizekian]

what, it's neoliberal to argue that reforms that benefit the working class don't occur because of the ballot box, but because of - or in response to - an organised and militant working class movement, and since our class has been attacked continuously for the past 30 years such a movement no longer exists, making reforms that benefit our class an impossibilty? that's essentially my arguement, not "we don't have enough money"...

The proletariat will continue to lose as long as it is not able to understand that the ballot box is a very inspiring way to attack any (constituted) society.

[shaneo]

The proletariat will continue to lose as long as it is not able to understand that the ballot box is a very inspiring way to attack any (constituted) society.

What is your basis for this assertion?

The ballot box is there to protect our constituted society, and the capitalists who run it. Surely that is why capitalist always end up with their representatives in charge. If we all stopped voting they might realise that the game is up.

[the zizekian]

What is your basis for this assertion?

The ballot box is there to protect our constituted society, and the capitalists who run it. Surely that is why capitalist always end up with their representatives in charge. If we all stopped voting they might realise that the game is up.

While voting, one doesn’t work i.e. one doesn’t strengthened capitalism. One secret vote per adult is both anti-social and anti-capitalism.

[shaneo]

While voting, one doesn’t work i.e. one doesn’t strengthened capitalism. One secret vote per adult is both anti-social and anti-capitalism.

True, but while watching television,one doesn't work either. At least by watching television you aren't providing legitimacy to a system that props up capitalism.

I don't see that there is anything to lose if we all stopped voting. At the least, it would do nothing so we have nothing to lose. At best, they will realise that we are ready to take control from them. Fear of revolution is how workers gains were wrested from the capitalists in the past.

Your individual vote may be secret, but the numbers of people who vote is not. Therefore, they can claim a mandate.

[the zizekian]

True, but while watching television,one doesn't work either. At least by watching television you aren't providing legitimacy to a system that props up capitalism.

I don't see that there is anything to lose if we all stopped voting. At the least, it would do nothing so we have nothing to lose. At best, they will realise that we are ready to take control from them. Fear of revolution is how workers gains were wrested from the capitalists in the past.

Your individual vote may be secret, but the numbers of people who vote is not. Therefore, they can claim a mandate.

While voting, one doesn’t watch television, one isn't passive in front of capitalism. Supposing that all stopped voting is just not an hypothesis worthy of consideration.

[ckaihatsu]

While voting, one doesn’t watch television, one isn't passive in front of capitalism. Supposing that all stopped voting is just not an hypothesis worthy of consideration.


Voting for one-or-the-other bourgeois candidate is active *prostration* in front of capitalism, instead of passive acquiescence.

There are plenty more-active political things one can do instead of being a puppet to the system.

[the zizekian]

Voting for one-or-the-other bourgeois candidate is active *prostration* in front of capitalism, instead of passive acquiescence.

There are plenty more-active political things one can do instead of being a puppet to the system.

Democracy is synonymous of class struggle precisely because voting is always voting for oneself.

[shaneo]

Democracy is synonymous of class struggle precisely because voting is always voting for oneself.


That sounds nice, but doesn't make sense. You vote for a politician within a capitalist system. Unless you have put yourself forward as a candidate, you never vote for yourself.

Given that democracy is government by the people, for the people; can you name any country that has a democracy? I know I can't.

[shaneo]

While voting, one doesn’t watch television, one isn't passive in front of capitalism. Supposing that all stopped voting is just not an hypothesis worthy of consideration.

Why is it not worth consideration? It sounds like a good plan to me, and I've explained why.

[the zizekian]

That sounds nice, but doesn't make sense. You vote for a politician within a capitalist system. Unless you have put yourself forward as a candidate, you never vote for yourself.

Given that democracy is government by the people, for the people; can you name any country that has a democracy? I know I can't.

Demos doesn’t mean people but a district cuts from basic necessities and a vote can be spoiled if one doesn’t recognize oneself in any candidate.

[shaneo]

Anyway...
We really can't complain about capitalism if we support the system it uses to legitimise itself.

[the zizekian]

Anyway...
We really can't complain about capitalism if we support the system it uses to legitimise itself.

Capital is dead labor period.

[shaneo]

Capital is dead labor period.

Righto...

[the zizekian]

Demos doesn’t mean people but a district cuts from basic necessities and a vote can be spoiled if one doesn’t recognize oneself in any candidate.

Democracy is basically a random lottery, it requires no labor and no spending.

[Geiseric]

voting for bourgeois representatives is pointless since the capitalists who provide funding are really the ones who decide who is in power depending on who knows what's best for capital at a given point, however voting for delegates to a workers organization is 100% necessary and not participating in actual working class activities as a communist is counter revolutionary and sectarian.

[shaneo]

voting for bourgeois representatives is pointless since the capitalists who provide funding are really the ones who decide who is in power depending on who knows what's best for capital at a given point, however voting for delegates to a workers organization is 100% necessary and not participating in actual working class activities as a communist is counter revolutionary and sectarian.

If you mean, we should be part of unions and vote there, then I'm not sure that's a good idea. Trade unions these days are not what Marx had in mind, and they regularly sell out workers, while passing members dues to the election campaigns of Democratic and Labour parties.

I can't recall the last time a union got a gain (not reduction in loss) for its members. But that's a whole different discussion....

[Hit The North]

what, it's neoliberal to argue that reforms that benefit the working class don't occur because of the ballot box, but because of - or in response to - an organised and militant working class movement, and since our class has been attacked continuously for the past 30 years such a movement no longer exists, making reforms that benefit our class an impossibilty? that's essentially my arguement, not "we don't have enough money"...

No, that's not a neo-liberal argument but its just as pessimistic. But let's take your statement and substitute a particular word for another:


revolutions that benefit the working class don't occur because of the ballot box, but because of - or in response to - an organised and militant working class movement, and since our class has been attacked continuously for the past 30 years such a movement no longer exists, making revolutions that benefit our class an impossibility?
Would you really argue that revolutions are an impossibility in modern capitalism?

[the zizekian]

voting for bourgeois representatives is pointless since the capitalists who provide funding are really the ones who decide who is in power depending on who knows what's best for capital at a given point, however voting for delegates to a workers organization is 100% necessary and not participating in actual working class activities as a communist is counter revolutionary and sectarian.

Voting is choosing.

[shaneo]

Voting is choosing.

Voting is lazy.

Dragging yourself off the sofa once every four years, does not a politically active person make. In fact, all you are doing is propping up capitalism, and providing capitalist parties with a mandate for criminality.

Instead of us all just talking about it, lets do something (legal) towards revolution. There are elections coming up in the US and Australia, so tell everyone you know not to vote. In Australia you are legally required to vote, so just ruin your slip.

If our leaders see that this is how the workers feel, they will be forced to give ground through fear of outright revolution.

[the zizekian]

Voting is lazy.

Dragging yourself off the sofa once every four years, does not a politically active person make. In fact, all you are doing is propping up capitalism, and providing capitalist parties with a mandate for criminality.

Instead of us all just talking about it, lets do something (legal) towards revolution. There are elections coming up in the US and Australia, so tell everyone you know not to vote. In Australia you are legally required to vote, so just ruin your slip.

If our leaders see that this is how the workers feel, they will be forced to give ground through fear of outright revolution.

Not voting is lazy.

[ed miliband]

No, that's not a neo-liberal argument but its just as pessimistic. But let's take your statement and substitute a particular word for another:

Would you really argue that revolutions are an impossibility in modern capitalism?

i was being facetious. ha.

i don't have a problem with being pessimistic and i think there is much to be pessimistic about, but i do believe revolution is possible. whether it will happen in our lifetime is another question entirely. that said, i do believe class struggle is an inescapable reality in class society, whether concious or unconscious. the past two years or so has certainly seen a rise in concious class struggle across the globe, although whether such a disctinction actually means anything i don't know.

[the zizekian]

The lamenting English world should know that France is still a landmark of revolution.

[blake 3:17]

From today's Guardian -

François Hollande: Mr Normal reveals €1.2m wealth
France's socialist president-elect says his principal asset is a house on the Riviera, but lags far behind Sarkozy's €2.7m
Reuters in Paris
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 May 2012 11.30 BST

François Hollande in Tulle, central France on Friday. Photograph: Jean-Pierre Muller/AFP/Getty Images
François Hollande, the socialist "Mr Normal" who will be sworn in as French president next week, says he is worth almost €1.2m (£960,000), considerably less than his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy.

Hollande, who campaigned on a promise to ditch the showbiz style that earned Sarkozy the nickname "President Bling Bling", says in a declaration published on Friday that his principal asset is a house on the French Riviera.

The declaration shows that Hollande, who rents his apartment in Paris but could now move into the presidential Elysée Palace, has declared assets of €1.17m, primarily the house in Mougins.

Other assets declared are bank accounts worth €8,200, a life insurance contract worth €3,550 and €15,000 of furniture, said the declaration.

The man who used to travel to work by scooter, and described himself as Mr Normal during campaigning, does not own a car, the declaration says.

Sarkozy, who hands the reins over to Hollande on 15 May and may go back to work as a lawyer, said in an official declaration in March he was worth about €2.7m, up from €2.1m when he took power in 2007.

Most of that is in life insurance products, but Sarkozy also declared a collection of autographs, watches and statuettes worth €100,000 and a joint bank account of €57,000 with his wife, the singer and former model Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

Hollande's wealth falls just below the threshold that would make him liable to pay wealth tax in France.

His Riviera residence was bought in 1986 for just over half its current declared value and is the place where he spent summer breaks with former partner Ségolène Royal, with whom he had four children in a quarter of a century together.

He now lives with Valérie Trierweiler, a journalist.

Hollande, whose father Georges, a doctor, dabbled in property investment, said in his declaration he had part ownership of two apartments in Cannes that are worth €370,000 in all.

Among the first measures he says he will implement after he takes over is a 30% cut in the presidential salary of more than €19,000 a month.

[the zizekian]

The wealthier doesn’t always win.

[ckaihatsu]

François Hollande, the socialist "Mr Normal" who will be sworn in as French president next week, says he is worth almost €1.2m (£960,000), considerably less than his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy.


Oh, right -- *that's* why I didn't vote for him...(!)


x D

[the zizekian]

Oh, right -- *that's* why I didn't vote for him...(!)


x D

Don’t judge a man by his wealth.

[ckaihatsu]

Don’t judge a man by his wealth.


Dumb-ass, I'm *not* judging him by his wealth -- I'm judging him by the fact that he ran for a political position of representing the interests of the French and international bourgeoisie. Does that clarify things for you -- ??!

[the zizekian]

Dumb-ass, I'm *not* judging him by his wealth -- I'm judging him by the fact that he ran for a political position of representing the interests of the French and international bourgeoisie. Does that clarify things for you -- ??!

He ran to win.

[ckaihatsu]

He ran to win.


So, according to you, "winning is everything", and "might beats right" -- is that it -- ? -- !

[the zizekian]

So, according to you, "winning is everything", and "might beats right" -- is that it -- ? -- !

Only winners have answers.

[ckaihatsu]

Only winners have answers.


And are all answers *equivalent* -- ?

You've heard the expression that "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

[wsg1991]

there are some people who are being over simplistic here , and some misconception , France is not USA , they don't have 2 party system like the one in the USA . about change , it depend on who we talking about , as a social democrat holland will try to slightly lean toward working class while keeping the interest of bourgeois
* about reforms , you wouldn't expect some bold reform that make a real change ( nationalizing an entire sector of the economy as Canadian health care .... ) , just the usual more pensions \ more wages . that may not be a cure for the economic system , and may eventually create more inflation since corporate want to keep their profit , but will benefit the working class . in short terms , it's a symptomatic therapy that do not affect the etiology
*how to keep the bourgeois interest ? well that's where ex colony come handy , i am a Tunisian , i would expect Holland to further increase pressure on our government to make it more business friendly , further smashing colonies economy
* Holland did not win by 80 % , don't expect (him even if he has the best interest of workers in heart ) to make any real decisions , just play on the balancing
*

[the zizekian]

there are some people who are being over simplistic here , and some misconception , France is not USA , they don't have 2 party system like the one in the USA . about change , it depend on who we talking about , as a social democrat holland will try to slightly lean toward working class while keeping the interest of bourgeois
* about reforms , you wouldn't expect some bold reform that make a real change ( nationalizing an entire sector of the economy as Canadian health care .... ) , just the usual more pensions \ more wages . that may not be a cure for the economic system , and may eventually create more inflation since corporate want to keep their profit , but will benefit the working class . in short terms , it's a symptomatic therapy that do not affect the etiology
*how to keep the bourgeois interest ? well that's where ex colony come handy , i am a Tunisian , i would expect Holland to further increase pressure on our government to make it more business friendly , further smashing colonies economy
* Holland did not win by 80 % , don't expect (him even if he has the best interest of workers in heart ) to make any real decisions , just play on the balancing
*

Tunisia, with its revolution, has stopped this kind of wise cynicism.

[wsg1991]

Tunisia, with its revolution, has stopped this kind of wise cynicism.
further explanation please

[the zizekian]

further explanation please

If France is being counter-revolutionary, the revolutionary Tunisia has to invade it. To Tunisians, this would be a cause worth drowning for (in crossing the Mediterranean).

[wsg1991]

If France is being counter-revolutionary, the revolutionary Tunisia has to invade it. To Tunisians, this would be a cause worth drowning for (in crossing the Mediterranean).

be serious dude , stop trolling

[the zizekian]

be serious dude , stop trolling

troll

[shaneo]

be serious dude , stop trolling


I got caught up in a riddle-fest with The Zizekian recently. Fun, but very distracting.

[the zizekian]

I got caught up in a riddle-fest with The Zizekian recently. Fun, but very distracting.

The Right-wingers like to call Zizek a deadly jester:

http://www.tnr.com/article/books/the-deadly-jester (http://www.tnr.com/article/books/the-deadly-jester)

[shaneo]

The Right-wingers like to call Zizek a deadly jester:

... See what I mean.

[the zizekian]

If France is being counter-revolutionary, the revolutionary Tunisia has to invade it. To Tunisians, this would be a cause worth drowning for (in crossing the Mediterranean).

The socialists in France are perfectly able to understand that revolution happens thanks to deadly jester like the late Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi.

[ckaihatsu]

(This is what happens when there aren't enough jobs around -- well-educated people give up hope and turn to a life of high-quality *spamming*...!)


x D

[the zizekian]

Hollande will meet Angela Merkel tomorrow, hopefully he will do to her what he has done to Sarkozy.

http://www.challenges.fr/monde/20120514.CHA6377/l-impossible-clash-entre-hollande-et-merkel.html (http://www.challenges.fr/monde/20120514.CHA6377/l-impossible-clash-entre-hollande-et-merkel.html)

[shaneo]

The socialists in France are perfectly able to understand that revolution happens thanks to deadly jester like the late Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi.

I'm not belittling the desparate act committed by Mohamed Bouazizi, or the public outcry / actions that resulted, but Tunisia's revolution was still-born.

“In Tunisia we are not dealing with a proletarian revolution. We cannot demand the nationalization of banks and of industries. But it is a transition for democracy.”, or so said a member of Ettajdid.

Democracy.... Yeah, good one! ....when has democracy ever been achieved in any nation?

This isn't a question to Zizekian, because I know what your resonse will be:
that they couldn't achieve revolution because the deadly jester had lost its petals, and ice cream has no bones. Or something along those lines.

[the zizekian]

I'm not belittling the desparate act committed by Mohamed Bouazizi, or the public outcry / actions that resulted, but Tunisia's revolution was still-born.

“In Tunisia we are not dealing with a proletarian revolution. We cannot demand the nationalization of banks and of industries. But it is a transition for democracy.”, or so said a member of Ettajdid.

Democracy.... Yeah, good one! ....when has democracy ever been achieved in any nation?

This isn't a question to Zizekian, because I know what your resonse will be:
that they couldn't achieve revolution because the deadly jester had lost its petals, and ice cream has no bones. Or something along those lines.

Bouazizi’s suicide was all but a desperate act that is why it triggers a revolution. For Tunisians, trying to reach France illegally to work is a desperate act, it will never trigger a revolution.