What about the Working Class?

[blake 3:17]

watch?v=scBif3NgbNE

I've had a bunch of thoughts spinning around for a few weeks now and decided I should get em out.

A lot of discussion here, and elsewhere in the Left, seems to imply workers or the working class or labour as either something simple that naturally unifies or has particular contradictions that make class solidarity or effective class struggle impossible. I'm simplifying here, but it's not too inaccurate.

I was in a labour solidarity/action meeting a couple of years back with people from different radical perspectives, but all good folks, and quickly realized that the word 'labour' (or labor for our American friends) was being used in several different ways. Some people meant unions. Some people meant union leaders. Some people meant union members. Some people meant workers, never mind if they were in a union or not. I went to a second meeting and people were still talking at cross purposes and I got fed up and left in the middle. The main discussions were on a couple of key lock outs and strikes, with the hope of making them more militant.

Recently I've had a couple of interesting conversations about political struggles, and friends pointed out the lack of a working class strategy (correct!), and abused my brain with more blah blah on the labour aristocracy. The latter was mostly a waste of time, until I realized the usually thoughtful author was universalizing the experience and meaning of a set of strikes in Germany in the 1920s! Like wtf! He also dismissed suburbanization as irrelevant to the conservatization of the working class. Ugh.

The mistake all of these comrades I saw making was essentially one of supposing a very temporary tactical militancy for something much more radical.

Here are a few dimensions I see to working class life that we need to wrestle with as revolutionaries:

1) Alienation -- This is the beginning of Marx's critique of capitalism. As workers we feel more and more like things, our tasks become routinized, we get stuck on clock time away from the natural rhythms of life. The early Marxists and anarchists didn't have to deal with mass consumerism, but we do. That alienation can instill rebellion, but that's mostly fleeting.

2) The kinds of work we do and skills we develop -- I don't think that's actually talked about enough. While there is a broad deskilling going on, there are new ones (and old ones) and we need to think about what we have as our abilities.

3) Our relation to capital -- I find it strange that so many Marxists are so clued out about what their labour's relation to capital is. I've seen workers in quite strong positions just totally flub it, and other folks in very miserable positions do massive damage to the class enemy by using creative tactics and strategies.

Just some thoughts.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I generally feel that alienation is a very important thing to overcome especially considering there are very few amongst the current generations of workers who have ever experienced a society any less alienating that the one we currently live in. Another issue that I feel is fundamental to organising is how jobs have individualised or departmentalised. You notice it particularly in things like call centres where everyone has virtually individual targets and individual work stations and are caught in a bubble where they rarely interact with their coworkers except at lunch or outside of working situations so on paper it would prove to be difficult to organise in such environments. Yet there has also been some very interesting strikes in call centres that, sort of as you mention in 3, have successfully forced the companies to back down to the demands of the workers.

I generally feel that there's no real set formula for success, you can't just do ABC and expect militancy as every situation is different. Good thread, something that needs to be discussed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1) Alienation is an interesting starting point because it both a) forms the basis of proletarian subjectivity and b) presents itself as an obstacle to be overcome. I think this is where/why I find myself at odds with a lot of the politics of "labour" - the question of alienated labour isn't even on the table, let alone more nuanced questions about how alienation shapes our "being". Instead of its overcoming, there is a type of "movementism" that points to its perfection: More queer production! More racialized consumption! More sustainable forms of individualized nuclear life! Movements which contain within them not the seeds of new forms of (unalienated) collective life, but rather have as their endpoint their dissolution into capitalism. Or, to be more fair, movements that contain within them a contradiction between their (capitalist) politics, and their (communist) potential.

2) Yeah, skills is a really real thing. Like, part of me always falls back on "Well, we produce our world now, we'll produce our world after capitalism!" - except that "we" don't really. Like, fuck if any movement I've been a part of could feed, clothe, and house itself if capitalism collapsed. Which, I guess, accounts for the (capitalist) politics in point 1 - most of the (white, first world) workers I know aren't stupid, and know damn well that no capitalism means no bananas, no Nikes, no iPhones, etc. If we don't collectively have the skills to produce something at least as appealing (because all we've been trained to do is flip burgers and harvest apples) we're going to have a serious problem.

3) Yup. Hell, one savvy grocery store cashier can provide a lot of tangible good for a struggle compared to one "strategic" unionized but conservative steel worker.

[Rafiq]

1)2) Yeah, skills is a really real thing. Like, part of me always falls back on "Well, we produce our world now, we'll produce our world after capitalism!" - except that "we" don't really. Like, fuck if any movement I've been a part of could feed, clothe, and house itself if capitalism collapsed. Which, I guess, accounts for the (capitalist) politics in point 1 - most of the (white, first world) workers I know aren't stupid, and know damn well that no capitalism means no bananas, no Nikes, no iPhones, etc. If we don't collectively have the skills to produce something at least as appealing (because all we've been trained to do is flip burgers and harvest apples) we're going to have a serious problem.


This is a good point, though what are the implications?

We are able to have bananas, Nikes and Iphones because capitalism is now a globalized system. Logically, the Communist movement then must be a global movement. Communists today must not simply be internationalists - but transnationalists. We must not speak of according proletarians of different nationalities - but the condition of the universal proletarian. Never in the history of capitalism have conditions been more predisposed to Communism. If there is anything our Internationals have proven, it is that indeed trans-national organization, coordination and political unity is a very possible thing. Today's Late Republic is the entire planet, today's political entity is the whole Earth - no longer do "nation-states" simply exist. Which brings us to another point:

Wasn't the failure of Communism irrevocably tied to the problem of political and ideological legitimacy? Populations were mass mobilized against their ruling parties not because in their isolated conditions, because their "human nature" broke with Communist ideology - rather, the legitimacy of the world Liberal state apparatus was stronger than that of their according Communist states. Today we not only have according national state apparatus's, we have a singular world state-apparatus by which all geopolitical legitimacy and hegemony is held. And all national-state apparatus's whose interests do not coincide with this global-liberal state apparatus are deemed illegitimate. Wars between capitalist powers today could only ever be wars for the state apparatus. It is not simply that America holds hegemony - the U.S. too is subject to this world-liberal state apparatus which goes beyond its simple national interests (though, American interests are usually in tune with this global state apparatus).

The basis for world power and world conquest for Communism is already in the very foundations of the global capitalist order.

[cyu]

Just remember that it isn't capitalists that produce bananas, shoes, or electronics. Workers produce them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just remember that it isn't capitalists that produce bananas, shoes, or electronics. Workers produce them.

Sure - but workers produce them as workers within capitalism.
I'm skeptical that any self-organized autonomous community of produces would continue to produce a bullshit luxury cashcrop like bananas (or mine uranium and consequently poison themselves, etc.).

[cyu]

Right - no doubt lots of economic activity will change. Consider all the prostitutes currently working for "think tanks" funded by the ruling class - without their paymasters, their jobs would be less than worthless. Either they'd have to work doubly hard to come up with propaganda to prop up their paymasters, or they'd have to secretly come up with a backup plan once their paymasters can no longer fund them.

[Rafiq]

Sure - but workers produce them as workers within capitalism.
I'm skeptical that any self-organized autonomous community of produces would continue to produce a bullshit luxury cashcrop like bananas (or mine uranium and consequently poison themselves, etc.).

but doesn't this force us to recognize the poverty of this form of organization (self organized autonomous communities) itself? Massive decentralization of power, is arguably a form of regression as far as human civilization goes.

One could make the argument that it was human civilization by which all that is rotten began. But I beg to differ. Human civilization was an achievement despite all of the horrors it entailed. We can ideologically look at everything following the neolithic revolution as carrying the embryo of communism today.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

but doesn't this force us to recognize the poverty of this form of organization (self organized autonomous communities) itself? Massive decentralization of power, is arguably a form of regression as far as human civilization goes.

One could make the argument that it was human civilization by which all that is rotten began. But I beg to differ. Human civilization was an achievement despite all of the horrors it entailed. We can ideologically look at everything following the neolithic revolution as carrying the embryo of communism today.

Empathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers every time. This says quite enough to the historical materialist.
- (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm)Benjamin (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm)

Communism is not simply the realization of a linear progression ending in a centralized technocratic utopia (contra Bernstein and the white supremacist social-democratic imagination). Abandoning the circuits of capitalist accumulation and, in the process, certain creature-comforts hardly constitutes a "regression".

But, forgive me, maybe I'm unreasonably attached to an ethical Marxism rooted in an idea of "the good life" that concerns itself more with the central question of alienation than a bucket of caviar for every worker.

[Rafiq]

Empathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers every time. This says quite enough to the historical materialist.
- (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm)Benjamin (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm)

Communism is not simply the realization of a linear progression ending in a centralized technocratic utopia (contra Bernstein and the white supremacist social-democratic imagination). Abandoning the circuits of capitalist accumulation and, in the process, certain creature-comforts hardly constitutes a "regression".

But, forgive me, maybe I'm unreasonably attached to an ethical Marxism rooted in an idea of "the good life" that concerns itself more with the central question of alienation than a bucket of caviar for every worker.

Oh, how dignified you must feel! Triumphantly, you hack to pieces and set ablaze the technocratic menace with righteous vigor. The only problem is that this menace is made of straw.

To the noble savage cos-player, to the ardent guardian of a "Marxism that primarily concerns alienation", all of the acheivments of civilization amount to the hundred year old phenomena of capitalist consumerism - indeed, those wretched hedonists! This isn't about luxury, but undeniable and fundamental advances in the triumph of man over nature. Communists recognize and uphold the achievements of capitalism and liberalism and see them as a pre-requisite for their own victory. Petty bourgeois ideologues, conversely, recognize the various 'injustices' of capitalism, but from the perspective of previous social epochs - In other words, as reactionaries.

What is a uniquely new phenomena is a new form of ideology - the academic champions of the petty bourgeois class seem to have created the class struggle solely existent within the parameters of a class society distinguished by capitalism - as a struggle between "humanity" and capitalism - civilization against some worthless pre-cartesian notion of man. Only, they are reproducing the same wretched capitalism they claim to so adamantly despise by framing any struggle against it in some worthless, abstract infantile conceptualization of the struggle - they abandon the field of power, politics, and revoke the proletariat of its only means of struggle.

These postmodern "Communists", so adamant in their claim that they have looked "beyond" the limitations of Marxism and 'old school Communism' are in reality dignified conformists to postmodernism. How coincidental is it that something like primtiivsm held ground in coincidence with the rise of postmodernism as the de-facto dominant bourgeois ideological discourse? These "leftists" are nothing more than petty bourgeois intellectuals paying homage to the death and failure of 20th century Communism. With open arms they readily accept and concede to the class enemy the notion that history truly has ended.

Rather than the implications for this as being an actual, viable force capable of bringing humanity back to a pre-modern, pre-historical epoch - the implications are the righteous reproduction of ruling ideology, the celebration of the impotency of Communist ideology.

For these reason, no one but they have more in common with the ideological masturbation manifested in the notion of a technocratic utopia. Crypto-primtivist reactionaries, and technocrats are both guilty of accepting the mystifications of postmodernism and the tenets of the ruling order. Both of them detract from our present circumstances a worthless abstraction in substitute for a Communism derived from present circumstances. Both of them attempt to replace the proletarian struggle for world domination and state dictatorship as a a struggle for abstractions derived from their according alienation.

And, if I might ask, what foundational basis form a proletarian dictatorship pre-requisites decentralized, "autonomous communities"? What about the condition of the universal proletarian entails the idealization of this notion? NOTHING! the classes by which the idealization of this notion are befitting of - the petty bourgeois intelligentsia (students!). As a matter of fact, to even attempt to conceptualize a future utopia, be it technocratic or primitive, is a form of high alienation. But of course, to GDU, prince of "ethical Marxism", in all his righteous asceticism, dreams of a world without achievements in medicine, technology, industry and science, without social achievements or conscious, reinforced and affirmative gender equality, anti-racism, universal solidarity and egalitarianism.

Through the studies of groups like Radical Anthropology (which ARE much appreciated), the conclusions that hey come to is that some how, pre-civilization was "better". Where things like social egalitarianism and the absence of religion were hanging by a thread, where the discovery of new, more proficient means of survival destroyed this egalitarianism like it wasn't shit. Marx envisioned (as only a means to give substance to the movement of TODAY) universal renaissance beings, a world of self-conscious men and women. Pre-civilization and a regressive return to the dominance of nature over man, decentralized "autonomous communities" were so great that their abandonment was almost necessitated (by, for example, driving big game to near extinction). Another interesting paradox? These are the same radical vegans. Well, the only historical possibility of veganism came in coincidence with class society after the neolithic revolution. So that's always a hilarious paradox.

Even pre-civilized man, was a result from a radical break with nature. Our primate counterparts, in their infinite cycle of the alpha male are perfectly in harmony with nature - they cause no ecological problems and are a perfect example of what primitivists want, a return to our roots. For fuck's sake, even primitive Communism (which was, distinguished by big game hunting) posed a major ecological catastrophe by driving many species to extinction and disrupting the balance in the cosmos. The same predispositions that led to primitive Communism, led to class society. Class society, which led to petty forms of so-called transhistorical alienation which SOLELY laid the foundations for self-consciousness and the realization of the self. Without the existence of class society, Communism would be impossible, without the existence of civilization, there would be nothing.

Egalitarianism out of animalistic ignorance is worthless. It is just like how for feminism, fascination with matriarchal societies (where, EVEN IF IT WAS A POSITION OF 'POWER' women had a pre-ordained 'place') is its greatest threat.

But most of all - we concern ourselves solely with this talk of transhistorical drivel BECAUSE of the existing struggle - all of this is not a reflection of any kind of grand thesis on history, rather, our notion of history is derived from the existing conditions of life. We do not have the power to return to primitive communism or pre-civilization. Communism ideologically does not condemn civilization, it inherits it.

You call me, with causality as if it is a given, as if it is a notorious and well known fact, a "Bernstein social democrat". Well, GDU, have a word with other twisted ideologues like 870 and ask them how that discussion went. 'Bernstein-esque social democracy' is irrevocably a cousin of autonomous anarchism and the notion of self-organized communities. Why? Both of them have a pathetic fear of power. Their lineage might not be traced organizationally, or even directly theoretically - but they are both a result of an impotent Socialism. But why do you call me a Bernstein socialist? Do you even fucking know what distinguished Bernstein from others from which he derived his infamy? No, you don't. You're just slurring shit at me directly out of your ass. I have no fucking idea how anyone can even draw the line from anti-primitivism to an adherence to "evolutionary socialism" and the abandonment of revolutionary theory. Primitivism is what is alien to revolutionary theory - a revolution entails a fundamental change in the social relations of life based on existing premises - there are no existing predispositions that would lead society marching to the tune of "autonomous communities" except the pipedreams and fantasies of petty bourgeois students.

Hedonism and dedication to Communism go hand in hand. Hedonism is a weapon that is appropriated. Communists do not spend time lolling over how worthless smart phones are. This is obvious to anyone - we all know how stupid consumerism is. We all know we don't need all this shit. A Communist, rather recognizes the hypocrisy and reality of this so-called enlightened hedonism: Where do these smart phones come from? They are part of the world totality of capitalism - no smart phones without death and barbarism in the Congo, no smart phones or computers without slavery, exploitation and child soldiers. No apple products without Chinese sweatshops and further - no bananas without toilers exploited to their death in Latin America.

Communism does not condemn the products themselves, but the nature of these products. Mass communication is an achievement of capitalism, but it is also its own antagonism. The question is not over "whether the proletariat gets cavier" or "whether we get bananas". The point is, dignified claims that we can't have them because we have to be in "non alienating autonomous communities" or that "we must have them because they taste good". The point is that the question itself is a distraction from the real struggle.

But to the main point at hand, self-autonomous communities will not only lack bananas, but access to healthcare (comparable to that in capitalism), relative security, education, electricity, public transportation and -fuck it, I can go on forever. This is regressive. A universal, centralized power by which universal standards can be set in place, by which the mobilization and transfer of resources on an inter-continental level is something I highly, highly doubt will not have to exist following a global proletarian dictatorship.

[cyu]

A lot of people lack access to healthcare under capitalism, while the rich "convince" the working class to make Botox for them. That is part of the problem xD

[Money is used by the rich as a unit of "power" in this case - each unit of money represents a certain amount of power they have that can be used to get others to do their bidding. Thus the more money you have, the more power you have to make others do whatever you want them to do ...in this case, inject paralyzing poison into your facial muscles.

...even as capitalists claim that capitalism is decentralized, the more the wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, the more concentrated power becomes... at least until the wage slaves start ignoring property claims.]

[Rafiq]

A lot of people lack access to healthcare under capitalism, while the rich "convince" the working class to make Botox for them. That is part of the problem

Okay, no one argues otherwise. The point is that such advances in medicine in general - even if they are reserved for few (which, let's be honest, this isn't completely the case. Standardized access to healthcare has never been as good as it is today) are not simply a worthless luxury.

Likewise, things today are much better than they are during feudalism. Opposition to capitalism must be grounded from capitalism, not before it.

[cyu]

Advances to technology come from labor (assuming you also consider scientists and researchers to be wage slaves) - not from capitalists. The only role that capitalists play in the economy is the allocation of economic resources - which can be done any number of ways, including through a Politburo, aristocracy, or military junta. As far as how good capitalists are at allocating economic resources, they are good at allocating for their own pleasures ...lots and lots of it for their own pleasures.

[Or for the less conscious marketers among the wage slaves, the random useless pleasures invented by those who would like to feed off some of their excess.]

[Rafiq]

Advances to technology come from labor (assuming you also consider scientists and researchers to be wage slaves)

Even if I give you this assumption, which I find incredibly problematic if not completely wrong, what's the point? The pyramids were derived from the blood and sweat of slaves - they would not have been erected without the initial existence of slavery as a condition.

Furthermore, as GDU has pointed out, things produced by workers in capitalism would not be produced without their condition as proletarians to begin with, i.e. without the process of capital accumulation. People like Chomsky claim that "the public sector is capable of innovation too". Frankly I find this ridiculous and completely missing the point - things are not produced, products, and technologies, as a means of expressing pure creativity. Rather, they serve a real purpose in feeding the hunger of capital - profit. Accepting this does not give heed to the notion that innovation is only possible in a market-society. What we can point out, for example, is that the fact that things are produced solely for profit means they don't always coincide with the needs and even real desires of the consumer - because cyclically the desires of the consumer are defined by this process to begin with. Furthermore, they are not produced because they are useful, but because they are profitable. This leads to problems which actually pose a barrier to "innovation", like the oil industry being the sole reason why we have not moved beyond the usage of fossil fuels - or planned obsolescence.

Of course, Communism is not a struggle for permanent iphones for everyone. The struggle for Communism concerns relations of power - not the demand for luxuries or products. I recall a Soviet film in which upon entering the wine cellar of the winter palace, which infamously contained priceless wines, were simply smashed and destroyed en masse by revolutionaries. I think this perfectly expresses a type of logic vital to Communists: That our ideological discipline is stronger than the entrancing powers of trinkets. That the revolutionary flame consumes and destroys even the current conceptualization of what is envious and what is not.

[cyu]

they are not produced because they are useful, but because they are profitable. This leads to problems which actually pose a barrier to "innovation", like the oil industry being the sole reason why we have not moved beyond the usage of fossil fuels - or planned obsolescence.

Communism is not a struggle for permanent iphones for everyone. The struggle for Communism concerns relations of power - not the demand for luxuries or products. I recall a Soviet film in which upon entering the wine cellar of the winter palace, which infamously contained priceless wines, were simply smashed and destroyed en masse by revolutionaries. I think this perfectly expresses a type of logic vital to Communists: That our ideological discipline is stronger than the entrancing powers of trinkets.



Yep, I don't think we disagree on this point.

[Grenzer]

Even if I give you this assumption, which I find incredibly problematic if not completely wrong, what's the point? The pyramids were derived from the blood and sweat of slaves - they would not have been erected without the initial existence of slavery as a condition.

Slavery has nothing to do with the pyramids though. The pyramids were not built by slaves. Labor for the pyramids was supplied through the imposition of a corvée. It amuses me how you constantly try to pontificate on things you don't know a fucking thing about.


Of course, Communism is not a struggle for permanent iphones for everyone. The struggle for Communism concerns relations of power - not the demand for luxuries or products. I recall a Soviet film in which upon entering the wine cellar of the winter palace, which infamously contained priceless wines, were simply smashed and destroyed en masse by revolutionaries. I think this perfectly expresses a type of logic vital to Communists: That our ideological discipline is stronger than the entrancing powers of trinkets. That the revolutionary flame consumes and destroys even the current conceptualization of what is envious and what is not.

This isn't actually what happened at all. When the workers' militia broke into the Winter Palace, they didn't smash the bottles of wine; that would have been stupid. They drank it! The level of inebriation reached the point the situation on the streets was degenerating into anarchy without the militia to impose order. This state lasted a few days before the Bolsheviks scrambled a more reliable group to evict people from the wine cellars and to prevent any more from being taken out. You express a type of logic that is abstracted from the real world and didn't see any actual reflection in the experience of the Russian Revolution.

It's ok that you're ignorant. I don't think anyone could reasonably expect anything else from you at this point. It's not even that, when on the rare occasion that you make a valid point, you undermine yourself through the use of juvenile and cliché metaphors, pseudo-poetry, and temper tantrums. Just stop pretending that you know what you're talking about when it's clear that you don't have a clue.

[Rafiq]

It amuses me how you constantly try to pontificate on things you don't know a fucking thing about.

Isn't this a logical fallacy or something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)? Or is it this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)?

The only thing amusing is how you think, somehow, this de-legitimizes me. The only thing that is amusing is that you wasted everyone's time by thinking it was worth shit to point that out. Sure, ignore the fucking point of the argument (as if slavery never existed HISTORICALLY, as if there isn't a completely similar example I could point out and yet make the same point) - point out some worthless trivial bullshit.

Honestly, what the fuck is this? What are you like, someone on the internet who goes around correcting everyone's grammar? "Slavery had nothing to do with the pyramids" - well, the cultural, and common connotations for slavery is forced labor. I agree, this is wrong - but it is not ridiculous for someone to claim that slaves built the pyramids. As a matter of fact, in pertinence to the actual fucking argument, to point out such an error could only be a matter of dodging the actual argument - or trolling. And because you've been gone so long, I can't really tell in your case.

Here I thought good old Grenzer would actually be a worthy addition. Upon reading Ismail's thread, which he created for you, I even personally PM'd an admin to assure them that they read it - I actually was hopeful of your return to the board. If anything can de-legitimize my posts, Grenzer, it is the naive belief that I truly thought you wouldn't be such an ass. I've seen children have better argumentative ediquette than you. Like, are you fucking KIDDING me? Really? THIS is your evidence that "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about?"

And because it's not even such a ridiculous thing to be 'ignorant' of, I have no reason to lie: Want to know the sad part? I actually KNEW that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, but as a public project, similar to forced labor in the Soviet Union (in that, it may be forced, but it is not slave labor - even though it was not a corvee in the Soviet Union). I literally brushed off this fact because it had fuck all to do with the point at hand.

I want everyone to take a deep, hard look at Grenzer here - because in all honesty I'm almost at a loss for words (to his fortune). Really? REALLY? Do you actually think you have proven anything here? What is it you have demonstrated, Grenzer? That I didn't specify a fun fact even though it had fuck all to do with anything? So, if I were to make a grammerical mistake, which is about hte only equivilent sceneior possible, would that then de-legitimize the post?

Grenzer, your post should have been like this:

What? You didn't specify that it wasn't slavery, but a corvee? Lol, fuck you Rafiq, you don't know shit! Hey everyone look, Rafiq doesn't know anything he's talking about! He's clearly giving a deep, detailed description and trying to demonstrate his insight about ancient Egypt! That's what this discussion was about, right? The construction of the pyramids?



This isn't actually what happened at all.



I recall a Soviet film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October:_Ten_Days_That_Shook_the_World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k62eaN9-TLY&t=137m48s (skip to 137:48)

Oh Grenzer, I'm so fucking ignorant aren't I. Like, you sure got me! Did I fucking say that's what actually happened? No, I didn't. You create a straw man out of your own pompous ignorance and you dare fucking accuse me of "not knowing what I'm talking about"? And what is your evidence, Grenzer? That I forgot to specify that a form of uncompensated, forced labor in ancient Egypt was not in fact, 'technically' slavery (even though others, myself not included, might contest this definition of slavery)?

You claim that this logic wasn't actually reflected in the real world - well its inclusion in the film, which ideologically represented, and reflected the attitude of Communist discipline which was very real - obviously makes your argument bullshit. I said I think this perfectly expresses a type of logic vital to Communists, by merit of being expressed alone, it is a form of logic, it is an attitude. According to Grenzer, only the actual events represent prevailing ideas and ideology - not their manifestation in art or representation. So, for example, when the third Rambo tried to represent the Mujahadin, according to him this doesn't reflect the prevailing ideology, or logic of American neoconservatives. Honestly, I have seen few arguments as blatantly stupid. Who the fuck are you Grenzer? Any claim that I "don't know what I'm talking about" is groundless - like what the fuck is your problem here? Obviously, there is some kind of personal animosity being that your "accusations" were complete shit.

This kind of philistine pseudo-empiricism is very akin to that of Chomsky's - that all that matters are sensual facts, not the actual implications of facts, or how these "facts" are perceived, or why these "facts" are expressed the way they are. At least his is more consistent and, on paper, is "reasonable" and is actually empiricism.

I don't know whether to laugh, or lose my shit. You actually pissed me off here. I am actually pissed off at the fact that you go on your merry way thinking you're correcting me. The fucking pomposity. You know what, I demand a fucking apology actually. If you're half as honest and committed to "facts" and "knowing your shit" as you claim you are, you'll fucking apologize.

[Rafiq]

For the record, I actually like Grenzer and his posts. Honest, I do. If you don't like my posting style, Grenzer, or my "pseudo poetry" (I don't even think it's poetry, but whatever), that's completely fine. Just don't manifest this opposition in groundless opposition to the posts themselves, and their substance. If you want to disagree with me, that's perfectly acceptable. Actually argue, have something to say - don't falsely and erroneously accuse me of making these groundbreaking mistakes, because the only person it embarrasses is you.

[Alexios]

But the problem is that this repeats a precedent you've established already: attempting to use historical or contemporary examples to support a pre-made argument. You're bringing up the construction of the pyramids by slaves to argue that slavery was a prerequisite for their construction, while being ignorant of the now widely-accepted notion that most of the pyramids were actually built by skilled workers receiving a salary or being made to do so as a form of taxation. This exact kind of speech comes up very often in your posts (although I shouldn't single you out, since many other people here do it as well). While it might work on newcomers, it de-legitimizes your argument to more experienced people.

[Rafiq]

But the problem is that this repeats a precedent you've established already: attempting to use historical or contemporary examples to support a pre-made argument. You're bringing up the construction of the pyramids by slaves to argue that slavery was a prerequisite for their construction, while being ignorant of the now widely-accepted notion that most of the pyramids were actually built by skilled workers receiving a salary or being made to do so as a form of taxation.

So, Alexios, are you going to tell me there isn't a similar example I could use that could serve "as an example to support a pre-made argument"? Are you saying that never in history have slaves built iconic architectural constructs? Because if you'd like to go down that road, I'd be happy to demonstrate that you are wrong.

Secondly, you're wrong that I was ever 'ignorant' of this fact. This is something I read almost two years ago. Why didn't I let that get in the way of making the argument? Because it doesn't make a fucking difference, at all. It really, honestly is of zero consequence. The cultural connotations of the construction of the pyramids, is associated with slavery. This is evident in other places, too:

Kautsky writes

Foreign tourists in Russia stand in silent amazement before the gigantic enterprises created there, as they stand before the pyramids, for example. Only seldom does the thought occur to them what enslavement, what lowering of human self-esteem was connected with the construction of those gigantic establishments.


Trotsky refers to (Raphael?) Abramovich in Terrorism and Communism:
(http://books.google.com/books?id=_5ApAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Kautsky+slavery+pyramids&source=bl&ots=kEC3jS4WQ_&sig=4TxmCVsudySeicrsMm4h9AkGszo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u0EjVKz3NI6ayATDqoKoBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=slavery&f=false)

Wherin then, does your socialism differ from Egyptian slavery? It was just by similar methods that the Pharaohs built the pyramids, forcing the masses to labor


Nobody is actually using "historical examples" as though this is a debate about history. Nobody is elaborating on whether or not the construction of the pyramids was through slavery. I could have said "only through decree by the Pharaoh" (And then you will say that the Pharaoh didn't personally decree anything - notice a pattern?) were the pyramids built, they would not have been built without the pre-requisite of the system by which corvee work can be mandated"

Just admit this is a bullshit red herring. How the fuck could you ever even think to call me out over something so ridiculous? It is nothing but a red herring. I would expect "experienced" posters not to de-legitimize my posts over such nonsense, again that's another logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy). So what, I "ignorantly" brush over a small, worthless and irrelevant detail in pertinence to the discussion, and now my whole post is garbage? Only a child thinks this way.

See, this is why I flame. This is why I get pissed off. People are LITERALLY talking like this - literally, Alexios, in his mind, is actually arguing that skimming over this detail is somehow, of consequence.


This exact kind of speech comes up very often in your posts (although I shouldn't single you out, since many other people here do it as well). While it might work on newcomers, it de-legitimizes your argument to more experienced people.

Then give some actual examples. You claim this speech comes up very often, so care to point it out?

[Rafiq]

I don't understand how you can have this logic - so even if you're right, that this is a noticable trend or pattern, how does that make it any different? I already pointed out no one should give a fuck - even if I do it 100 times a day, it doesn't make my posts wrong - it doesn't signify that I "don't know what I'm talking about" no matter how many times I do it, or have done it. But really, I'm intrigued. Give me some examples of other time's I've done this.

The disgusting hypocrisy is found in the fact that you both know what the fuck I'm talking about, you both know what I'm trying to say. So if the argument, and the point is being conveyed clearly, why jump to a red herring?

I am inclined to think it is similar to Grenzer's "example" of how, apparently, "That's not what happened" in pertinence to me talking about a film depicting a scene where revolutionaries storming the winter palace start destroying a bunch of priceless wines.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Alienation is a consequence of capitalist relations, not of banana farms or smartphone production. A materially abundant communist society would still produce similar items - bananas are nutritious and smartphones are useful, so I see no reason for either to halt.

[Ravn]

The workers that made the iphones & the nikes can't afford to buy them because they're being paid low wages & also do this work in dangerous conditions because unions, worker safety are things that are suppressed or neglected. OTOH, the labor aristocracy are the affluent workers who buy into the system & think that they're best interest are aligned with the owner class.

[cyu]

I know, we'll rebrand slavery and call it New and Improved Slavery 2.0 - I'm sure they'd be willing to go for that.

Maybe we can disband the Pro-Slavery Party and form a new Pro-Capitalist Party - won't sound as bad after that I think.

Maybe we can even name it the Communist Party or have all the people in charge declare themselves to be Anarchists.

...not sure where I'm going with this. Maybe just to beware of labels and false revolutions - like the one in Egypt...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

ÑóẊîöʼn[/B]]Alienation is a consequence of capitalist relations, not of banana farms or smartphone production. A materially abundant communist society would still produce similar items - bananas are nutritious and smartphones are useful, so I see no reason for either to halt. OK, but let's not talk about "capitalist production" in the abstract, let's deal with it in the real world where workers' lack of control over the means of production means not only that they don't control the products of their labour, but also that they don't control the process itself.

To run with the example, I'm not trying to say that bananas will disappear entirely. Even now, the vast majority of the world's bananas are produced for local consumption (see: India). However, massive monocropping for export (see: Ecuador) which is poorly suited to meeting regional needs, is premised on massive petrochemical inputs, etc. is likely premised on forced labour on multiple levels.

So, like, not only are the people of Ecuador unlikely to continue to fuck up their country for the sake of the former labour aristocracy's refined palates, but also the people who live in Northern Alberta are unlikely to be like, "Yeah, keep strip-mining the shit out of our homes for oil" without the intervention of capitalism.

Further, I would hope that a communist society would open the floodgates that prevent innovative and sustainable methods of diverse local food production from catching on. While I may now enjoy access to year-round oranges, there are a variety of local edibles that are, for all intents and purposes, impossible to obtain on the market - since, for example, it's more profitable for Nova Scotia to produce apples in absurd quantity. Which brings it back, I think, to the original question again: What would workers produce if they weren't workers? Given free rein to produce directly for the benefit of their communities (and for the human community generally), how might people labour and on what terms?

Anyone who thinks, "Mine uranium in the morning, staff the workers' McDonalds in the afternoon, and get shitfaced on rum in the evening," has a fundamentally different notion of communism than I do. Which is fine, since, obviously, neither I nor anyone else can look into their crystal ball and see the future. None the less . . .

[blake 3:17]

Sorry I've been absent, life's been what it is. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about some of the initial discussion here and was hesitant to respond too quickly. I'd thought about posting about a couple of things that happened at work but realized they were... not trivial, but more a matter of etiquette than one of solidarity or struggle.

I appreciate a number of comments about the need for solidarity. I've had a few ideas that might work within a union structure. For example, locals in the same national union but in different regions and doing slightly different work forming some kind of 'friendship' networks with ongoing communication that could work then work together in even of a strike or lock out or whatever else.

On a medium and longer term strategic basis, I'm seeing the very crucial need to shorten the production chain. It's ecologically devastating shipping stuff back and forth, back and forth, but also in terms of workers power we need to shorten it. Longer and longer production chains undermine workers rights in the short term, but ultimately in the long term whether it's in term of deskilling or creating regional/national economies based on single industries or resources or creating capitalist infrastructure which is worthless when used for any other purpose.

I won't get into technology -- but please could we not fixate on consumer gadgets? I do think they're worthy of both appreciation and criticism but come on.

[Rafiq]

Alienation is a consequence of capitalist relations, not of banana farms or smartphone production. A materially abundant communist society would still produce similar items - bananas are nutritious and smartphones are useful, so I see no reason for either to halt.

This is likely. But it's not so much the problem of an argument of efficiency or utility. It is the very idea which stresses that Communism is somehow going to fulfill the lust created by consumerism - that Communism means free iphones for everyone. Communists must not only cast down the idols of religion - but the idols of needless want and false want - of alienation.

[blake 3:17]

Has anyone here talked about the imperialist attacks on Iraq with co-workers? I was realizing today I'd been negligent in bringing the following to work the last couple of days where I could have distributed it: http://cupe.ca/invest-jobs-not-war

At different times there's been some success with getting either Trade Unionists Against War or Workers against War -- often this a good chance for people in different positions or slightly different sectors etc to transcend the economic and focus on issues that can bring up a much wider set of social and political questions.

There's a US Labor against War which could be OK -- it's mission statement is here: https://org.salsalabs.com/o/2488/images/USLAW%20Mission%20Statement.revJan2014-1.pdf

This issue might be highlighted in an interesting way by this fine essay by Dave Roediger, "Mumia Time or Sweeney Time?" http://www.labournet.net/mumia/0004/mumtime.html