Pro capitalist workers

[JKP]

Traditionally the working class has been our ally, but it seems there is a growing reactionary sentiment among some of them. Some might not like capitalism but defend it as "the best system we have". Others are explicitly pro capitalist.

I believe that as capitalism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to our ideas. Although I am concerned how pro-capitalist workers will affect us in the meanwhile.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

The fact is that a lot of workers defend capitalism as "the best system we have" because of a combination of things:

1) Undereducation/miseducation. They are brought up in an education system which teaches that this is the way things are. You get paid for so much work. And they just accept it.

2) The flock mentality. They believe what they read, mostly in the rightwing tabloids.

3) Necessity. They see money coming in and if they have a family to support they see that as good.

[Lord Testicles]

i think the problem is most of the pro capitalist working class dont really know what communism is, like for example in my history class i was told basically that communism is bad and that people are mis-treated and that stalins russia was a prime example of communism in work witch is all lies of coure but most people take it as the truth and when you try to educate them they dont want to know.

[Stokey]

All that people are told en masse is that communism is a bad thing that happened in Russia, China etc. and not what it is in reality. Education is the key and if they are still pro-capitalist after that then demystification of what the state are really up to is needed.

[OleMarxco]

It's mostly because of the urban legend of Soviet, mixed with a bit of Capitalist-propaganda Myth...and extremely bad Leadership decision's on Soviet's part. We need to - IMMEDIATLY - take distance from such a thing...Totalarianism, maybe not..the dictatorship of the proletariat is misunderstood as a call for a despot - no, it is for a mayority rule, but explainably easily misunderstood. Centralism is not preferable, to say the least ;)

[anomaly]

The real problem is that not only are some ignorant of what communism is, they are willfully ignorant! try telling them to visit this site, and read some discussions on communism to get a feel for what it's all about. They reject the idea, and go on believing what they want to believe.

Back to the original thread, I feel that workers are seemingly 'pro-capitalist' (honestly, ask a blue collar worker if they like their boss and/or wage...they'll sharply reply that they despise both) is simply because capitalism is the present system, and they must survive in it. Some simply have no desire to destroy what is currently providing them with their subsistence. To some, it may be like killing your parents when you are 5. Unthinkable.

However, there are some in this world who work and also actively fight the system. I have long said that it is these people we must search for and find. Unfortunately (as I have also long said) too many revolutionaries are conservative (orthodox) Marxists. That is, they feel Marx said no wrong. They therefore accept that communism cannot be achieved anywhere but the 1st world.

[Seeker]

Just yesterday someone told me they didn't shop at Wal-Mart because it was a "socialist" company.

The reason she believed this: She once wandered into the back of one of their stores and saw a sign that read something to the effect of "Everyone work harder so we can crush Company X under our jackboots."

I told her that Imperialist might be a better term. She agreed and went on to tell me about some of their labor practices (this was one of our first conversations so she didn't know I already knew about it).

[Decolonize The Left]

The lack of proper education is clearly a huge problem. But what did you expect? Did you expect the capitalist class to empower the very workers they exploit with ideas of unification? It's totally in their interest to endoctrine the future generations, and so they do it. Simple stuff really.

How about a better quetion: Can the Left agree on a goal for the revolution? Socialism, communism, anarchism, mix?

When we establish a common goal, then we can analyze how to go about achieving that goal, including the obstacles present today. I started a thread on this here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39576).

-- August

[Red Powers]

Try talking to workers about conditions on their job. Even the most pro-capitalist worker understands that, at work, he or she is really a slave. They have to do what they are told, they have to dress a certain way etc. etc. The way to talk to workers is to start from this insight then go to how the capitalists control the whole society through their control of the working class.

[Decolonize The Left]

Try talking to workers about conditions on their job. Even the most pro-capitalist worker understands that, at work, he or she is really a slave. They have to do what they are told, they have to dress a certain way etc. etc. The way to talk to workers is to start from this insight then go to how the capitalists control the whole society through their control of the working class.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true. Workers today do not know they are slaves. They think that they are receiving fair, if not close to fair, wages for their work. And capitalism has taught them that this is correct.

Talking to workers is one thing, but who are you to tell them about their lives? A better solution would to be form worker's collectives where the lowliest workers can get a better understanding of how the whole factory works. And then form labor councils where the factory can discuss conditions and begin, slowly, to take control.

This proposition will bring about the revolution faster than someone else just telling them the way things are. If anyone wants me to elaborate I will, but I tried to keep it short.

-- August

[Taiga]

I guess workers are pro-capitalist because they think they have a chance to become rich. You know, "work had and you become successful". That kind of stuff. "American dream". I know they clearly see that there are millions of people that work very hard and still are poor, but they think that it's because they are lazy etc. They think they may be lucky. They see that the capitalism is a big lottery and they prefer a single chance to get a jackpot to the decent but maybe not so splendid life.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think capitalist workers see it that way exactly. It's more of a "this is the way it is, and it's the best way". They don't see it as one big lottery, they see themselves and their families. They see the food that's on the table and the money in their pockets. That's it, that's what they see.
Now if they can buy a new car and think better of themselves, that's what capitalism is there for, to give them that opportunity.
What they don't realize is how little opportunity they really have, and how it is completely determined by their wages.

-- August

[Dean]

I've worked in construction with the IBEW, hoping to be in an environment that was generally sentimental towards leftists. However, I found that a great deal ofthem were fervently pro-capitalist, which was shameful.

The basic reason IS miseducation. That they are willfully ignorant is in fact a personal disregard for their own education, and this is fostered by the nature of our media, school system and household structure: each and every one of these environments feed information and take little or no input from the child. There are, of course, exceptions, such as progressive teachers and parents, but they are not only rare but weak against the hoards of propagandized teachers and the awful nature of the capitalist media.

They teach people that ignorance is a real virtue by giving people a worldview instead of allowing them to create one on their own. A notable character of the education system that helps this along is the relative lack of class discussion and, perhaps more importantly, the lack of realistic information given on philosophies and political movements.

Anybody who thinks, for instance, that Lenin was a murderer (apart from arguments about capital punishment) show a relative lack of knowledge of his ideas, though he is arguably one of the most iportant politicians of all time - he did shape the USSR heavily, and though he wished to revise it heavily in order to insure more worker control (correct me if im wrong) he was unable to due to Stalin's essential excommunication of him from the central committee, claims that he was going insane and disregard for his advice.

These workers have also been duped into thinking that equality itself would be bad for them, because they know that they are priviledged. Contrarily, communism will benefit each and every human being in the world. The poorest people will gain shelter, food, and health. The middle class will cease to have excessive anxiety over monetary concerns (I'm referring to those tho have food/shelter/clothes but little else). The Priviledged elite will perhaps gain more than any other class - they will develop a sense of community, a much less autistic personality, and the knowledge that they won't be targetted by the poor, revolutionaries, etc.. Every class, however, will gain a sense of global community and compassion, which is the greatest gift that communism has to offer; even if we are sick and dying, it is good to know that we have lived productively and communally, and that there is genuine, naked compassion amongst us.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 26 2005, 01:12 PM
The fact is that a lot of workers defend capitalism as "the best system we have" because of a combination of things:

1) Undereducation/miseducation. They are brought up in an education system which teaches that this is the way things are. You get paid for so much work. And they just accept it.

2) The flock mentality. They believe what they read, mostly in the rightwing tabloids.

3) Necessity. They see money coming in and if they have a family to support they see that as good.
This is pretty much the truth.

[workersunity]

false consciousness

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:47 AM
Workers today do not know they are slaves.
They even don't admit that they are workers, specially the middle-class. Today the workers class are divided into 2 parts:
1- The middle-class: They are well-paid because of their experiences and cleverness. They mostly work in service branches. They own house, car and conveniences.
2- The working class: They are poor. Their salary is just enough to pay their daily expense. Their lifestypes are like John Q.
I think the middle-class is bought off quite easily but the working class is not. If they are ecucated by Marxists they will understand their own real status in captalism.

[Red Powers]

Quote QUOTE
Try talking to workers about conditions on their job. Even the most pro-capitalist worker understands that, at work, he or she is really a slave. They have to do what they are told, they have to dress a certain way etc. etc. The way to talk to workers is to start from this insight then go to how the capitalists control the whole society through their control of the working class.



I'm sorry but that just isn't true. Workers today do not know they are slaves. They think that they are receiving fair, if not close to fair, wages for their work. And capitalism has taught them that this is correct.

Talking to workers is one thing, but who are you to tell them about their lives? A better solution would to be form worker's collectives where the lowliest workers can get a better understanding of how the whole factory works. And then form labor councils where the factory can discuss conditions and begin, slowly, to take control.

This proposition will bring about the revolution faster than someone else just telling them the way things are. If anyone wants me to elaborate I will, but I tried to keep it short.

-- August

Well it's been true in my experience. And I don't get into talking about wages first thing beause the theory of surplus value takes some time. Who am I? Just another worker whose thought about things a bit more.
But let me get this straight you would skip over raising class consciousness and go right to forming collectives and then labor councils. And would you do this with the workers who think they are getting a fair day's wage? Why would they join your collective? And what does "begin, slowly to take control" mean? Are you going slow in hopes that the boss doesn't notice? Are you going to have a revolution one factory at a time? Somehow I get the sense that it is not just the "lowliest worker" who needs a better sense of how the whole factory works. ;)

[Decolonize The Left]

Workers collectives are to help the workers understand how the factory works as a whole, not to incite revolution, although it is a huge step and I'll tell you why. After the revolution, you will need the workers to be able to run whole industries for themselves, and this will involve an understand of more than their specific job.

Yes you must raise class consciousness, but this is more difficult that you think. You don't just go out there yelling at folks about the truth and hope they believe you. They have to come to understand for themselves. This will come through slow education of how capitalism truly operates, accompanied by a knowledge of the industry outside their specific job. If they know how the whole plant works, and what others do, and they know why those others are getting paid more, they will rise up in anger.

I was proposing a part of the solution which should not be ignored. It is widely accepted that class consciousness is the first step, but worker's collectives followed by labor councils must follow.

-- August

[Social Greenman]

Most workers I know tend to think that home ownership and their employer owning the factory as being in essence the same thing. When asked they think that the abolishment of private property would mean that they will lose their home, i.e., their personal space. Most American don't know the difference between the "means of production" and home ownership and this is one of the reason, among many, as to why there are pro-capitalist workers.

Also, the myth of a "fair day's wage" has to be addressed as well. A wage is what it is: A portion of what is agreed upon by the capitalist to whom he/she hires. One could say he/she get X amount an hour but the fact is that the first few hours of the work day the employee earns. The rest of the day is surplus labor or the profits made from labor which the capitalist pockets and/or pays the stock holders who are absent from production. All social wealth is created by labor and the capitalist exploits it period.

[Red Powers]

Yes you must raise class consciousness, but this is more difficult that you think. You don't just go out there yelling at folks about the truth and hope they believe you.


I have never in my life yelled at folks about the truth. Where did you get this idea from? And I know how difficult it can be to raise consciousness which is why I would start with a workers sense of powerlessness on the job and build from there.




If they know how the whole plant works, and what others do, and they know why those others are getting paid more, they will rise up in anger.

Workers unless they are rookies already know how the plant functions I don't know why you're obsessed with this. Have you ever worked in a factory? I don't know who these others are who are getting paid more but i'm not sure that the workers would rise up in anger over it. Most people understand that there are differential wage rates, big deal.

But we agree that raising class consciousness is key, that's good.

[red_orchestra]

Pro Capitalist workers in my opinion follow the flock mentality. They are scared to stand up and fight for change. The way I see it you HAVE to fight for a fair wage these days or your employer WILL fuck you over, BIG TIME!

[Social Greenman]

Workers being afraid to stand up to the capitalist does not qualify them as being pro capitalist. These are the workers who are made timid through the propaganda machine and threats by the capitalist of closing down the shop.
Then you have the thug who is hired by the capitalist. They make sure that the workers don't organize through violence and fear. The pro capitalist worker believe the capitalist has more rights because they OWN the means of production. The pro capitalist worker believe that he/she will one day be capitalist--some may become petite but that is as far as they will get. The pro capitalist worker will take the capitalist side on every issue. They will be against better wages and benefits and will not stand with their brothers and sisters in strikes. Also, they will seek union positions to keep his/her capitalist master informed. These people also get a kickback from the capitalist now and then

[Luís Henrique]

fight for a fair wage

What would a "fair wage" be?

Luís Henrique

[JKP]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 31 2005, 10:46 AM

fight for a fair wage

What would a "fair wage" be?

Luís Henrique
Assuming you have faith in liberty, then the only "acceptable" wage, if it could be called acceptable, would be nothing less than the full product of the worker's labour.

[Luís Henrique]

Assuming you have faith in liberty, then the only "acceptable" wage, if it could be called acceptable, would be nothing less than the full product of the worker's labour.

But this cannot be a wage.

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

Luis, if you wish to bicker over what the term "wage" means, go right ahead.

But JKP was stating what (under a free society) workers should receive for their work, and that being the work itself.

So if one equates "wage" with what one receives for one's work, JKP is correct.

-- August

[Luís Henrique]

But JKP was stating what (under a free society) workers should receive for their work, and that being the work itself.

Well, this cannot be, too. We need to feed the children, the disabled, and the elderly. A part of our work must go to them.


So if one equates "wage" with what one receives for one's work, JKP is correct.

This cannot be. Otherwise, we would have to say that slaves or serfs receive wages, which obviously is either false, or completely changing the meaning of the word.


Luis, if you wish to bicker over what the term "wage" means, go right ahead.

This isn't bickering at all. It is correctly defining terms. And avoiding expressions like "fair wages", that imply the idea of a "fair capitalism".

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

A wage is whatever you define it as. In capitalist society it is a sum of money you receive in exchange for your time working.

The point is that this is wrong. You, as a worker, should receive your work for just that, your work. It is natural.

In regards to feeding others who cannot feed themselves, it's foolish to think the people who farm crops or bake bread will not share with others in such a society. What would a baker stand to gain from denying an old lady a loaf of bread? He receives no profit from it, therefore he has all the reason to give it to her.

-- August

[Luís Henrique]

A wage is whatever you define it as.

No. It is the price of labour force, whenever labour force is a commodity.


In capitalist society it is a sum of money you receive in exchange for your time working.

Yes, that's right. What is it in a society that is not capitalist?


The point is that this is wrong.

It is contrary to our interests, not "right" or "wrong".


You, as a worker, should receive your work for just that, your work.

We, as workers, should receive what we need. And we should have a saying about what do we need.


It is natural.

No; if it was "natural", it would be the way things are.


In regards to feeding others who cannot feed themselves, it's foolish to think the people who farm crops or bake bread will not share with others in such a society.

It would be foolish to make that an option.


What would a baker stand to gain from denying an old lady a loaf of bread? He receives no profit from it, therefore he has all the reason to give it to her.

We don't want old ladies to live on people "giving" things to them. We want old ladies to have rights, including a right to a fair share of social wealth.

Luís Henrique

[Social Greenman]

In the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" Marx wrote that a general insurance(s) fund have to be created so that health care, food, clothing, etc., can be given to those who have need of them. Of course he spoke of a labor voucher but lets stick to the topic of why workers are pro capitalist. I can say for certainty that their is a herd mentality among the proles. But how can human kind have both predator and herd mentality at the same time?

[workersunity]

Eugene Debs said it best

"How can any intelligent, self-supporting wage-earner
give his support to either of these corrupt capitalist parties?
The emblem of a capitalist party on a workingman is the badge of
his ignorance, his servility and shame." -Eugene Debs

[workersunity]

and

"The worker who votes the Republican or Democratic ticket
does worse than throw away his vote. He is a deserter of
his class and his own worst enemy, though he may be in blissful
ignorance of the fact that he is false to himself and his fellow
workers, and that sooner or later he must reap what he has sown."

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, that's right. What is it in a society that is not capitalist?

Wages are a creation of capitalism. Without capitalism, there would be no wages.


It is contrary to our interests, not "right" or "wrong".


In my opinion, wages are "wrong". I think they are morally oppressive and therefore are wrong. I didn't say that was the absolute truth, that's just what I think. But it is also contrary to our interests, and subsequently the interests of the workers themselves.



We, as workers, should receive what we need. And we should have a saying about what do we need.

This is too ill-defined. What is "what we need"? And what is "a say in what we need"?
I think it's much more simple. The worker deserves nothing less than his work.


No; if it was "natural", it would be the way things are.

This is ignorant. Are pesticides natural? No, and they exist. So what's your point? If you say receiving your work for your time is unnatural, what is natural? Wages? By your logic they are since they exist today.



It would be foolish to make that an option.

Sharing with old women is foolish? <_<


We want old ladies to have rights, including a right to a fair share of social wealth.

What is a "fair share"? What is "social wealth"?
You need to define your terms before you make an argument.

-- August

[Luís Henrique]

Wages are a creation of capitalism. Without capitalism, there would be no wages.

Oh, come on. You stated that "wages" are whatever one gets for their work. Now, are you saying that, before capitalism, people did not get anything for their work?


In my opinion, wages are "wrong".

If wages are "wrong", how can they be "fair", as you were arguing previously?


This is too ill-defined. What is "what we need"? And what is "a say in what we need"?

What we need is what we think we need, what we collectively decide that are our needs.


I think it&#39;s much more simple. The worker deserves nothing less than his work.

So, non-workers must live out of charity?


This is ignorant.

Thanks for the compliment.


Are pesticides natural? No, and they exist.

You are confusing two different meanings of the word "natural".

Pesticides aren&#39;t "natural" because they do not occur in that form in nature. "Natural", here, is the opposite of "artificial". When you say that the worker receiving the whole product of his/her work - as a wage, nothing less - is "natural", you don&#39;t mean that this occurs in nature. You mean that other social forms, like slavery or capitalism, are unnatural. Now, "natural" becomes the opposite of "unnatural".


So what&#39;s your point? If you say receiving your work for your time is unnatural, what is natural? Wages? By your logic they are since they exist today.

You stated that the workers receiving the whole product of their work is "natural". I stated that it is not "natural". Which is different from stating it is "unnatural". I never said that wages are natural. On the contrary, you very clearly implied "wages" are not only "natural", but also eternal: they are, according to you, whatever part the workers receive for their work.


Sharing with old women is foolish? <_<

No. Allowing the survival of old women to depend on the benevolence of others is foolish.


What is a "fair share"? What is "social wealth"?

And you accuse me of bickering.

A fair share, comrade, is defined by that old saying, "from each one in the measure of their capabilities, to each one in the measure of their necessities". Do you have a problem with that?

"Social wealth", comrade, is the whole of the product of all workers.


You need to define your terms before you make an argument.

A very good idea. How about defining "wages", for a start?

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

You stated that "wages" are whatever one gets for their work.

No. I said:

A wage is whatever you define it as. In capitalist society it is a sum of money you receive in exchange for your time working.



Now, are you saying that, before capitalism, people did not get anything for their work?

Before capitalism people worked as serfs under noble rule. They received nothing in exchange for their work other than the &#39;right&#39; to live on the nobles property, and work for them. If you consider that a wage, fine.


If wages are "wrong", how can they be "fair", as you were arguing previously?

I never argued wages (in the capitalist, monetary sense) could be fair. I said if one wished to use the word "wage" and define it as the final product which you produced, this would be fair.



What we need is what we think we need, what we collectively decide that are our needs.

I asked you to define "what we need" and "a say in what we need" and you used the same words 3 times in your definition....



So, non-workers must live out of charity?

What non-workers?


No. Allowing the survival of old women to depend on the benevolence of others is foolish.


Then kill them we must..... <_<


And you accuse me of bickering.


I don&#39;t see how asking you to define the keys terms in your argument is bickering.


A fair share, comrade, is defined by that old saying, "from each one in the measure of their capabilities, to each one in the measure of their necessities". Do you have a problem with that?

What of those who cannot produce for society, such as the sick, crippled, handicapped, elderly, young, blind, etc...?


How about defining "wages", for a start?

:lol:
I said wages were whatever you wish to define them as. In a capitalist society they are the money you receive for your time and labor. Remember?

-- August

[Sa&#39;d al-Bari]

Workers currently in a capitalist society are subjected to biased education, reactionary nationalism, and the words and promises of the capitalist politicians. Furthermore, they are often subjected to Social Darwinism, which is used in the form of capitalist cultural hegemony to blame the workers for their own plight.

In light of this the working class is compelled to blame everything but the capitalist system for their problems, and to furthermore have faith in the capitalist system. It is through their own experience that they can realize the truth behind capitalism, but this experience requires certain contradictions to be developed. If these contradictions do not exist, then it is extremely likely that the workers will be supportive of bourgeois politicians and the capitalist superstructure as a whole.

[Luís Henrique]

So if one equates "wage" with what one receives for one&#39;s work, JKP is correct.

-- August

That&#39;s exactly what you wrote.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What non-workers?

Children. Disabled people. Elderly people. Workers who are temporarily sick.

And what about vacations, week-ends, etc?


Then kill them we must..... <_<

No. Sustaining them should be an obligation of all, not a volutary act of charity.


I don&#39;t see how asking you to define the keys terms in your argument is bickering.

Since you took exception with my asking for a clear definition of "wage", and called it "bickering"...


What of those who cannot produce for society, such as the sick, crippled, handicapped, elderly, young, blind, etc...?

That has been my question to you, since you believe people should get the whole of their product in exchange for their work, and those people do not work at all. You have answered that those people should live on charity, which seems to me completely anti-socialist.

Socialists do not believe in "from each one in the measure of their capabilities", which is what is implied in the "whole product" nonsense.


I said wages were whatever you wish to define them as.

So you don&#39;t define them. You say that the word means whatever you want it to mean.

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

That&#39;s exactly what you wrote.

Indeed, I still don&#39;t see how that&#39;s an argument. If you re-read your quote of my words you will see the "So if one" in front, which stands with my repeated position that wages are what you define them as.


And what about vacations, week-ends, etc?

What about them?



No. Sustaining them should be an obligation of all, not a volutary act of charity.

Really? And who would obligate everyone? Who would force people to help these others? Who would provide the discipline to the population to make them help those in need?


Since you took exception with my asking for a clear definition of "wage", and called it "bickering"...


Not only does this not make sense, but it is false. I did not take exception to anything as I have shown repeatedly my position on what "wages" are. Since I find them, in all forms, to be oppressive, I feel there should be no wages.
Unless of course, one was to define wages as the whole product of your work, when it wouldn&#39;t be a wage anymore, it would be the product.


That has been my question to you, since you believe people should get the whole of their product in exchange for their work, and those people do not work at all. You have answered that those people should live on charity, which seems to me completely anti-socialist.

Could you please find my quote where I said all who cannot work should live on charity? I can&#39;t remember.
But I do know that those who cannot work should be supported by their community, not simply because they can, but because it is in their interest. All people are of interest to a community, they all provide some sort of "labor".

Labor is not confined to industrial or argicultural production, painting is a labor of sorts as it offers something to the community.
I think we might differ on what "work" means, or "labor" for that matter.


So you don&#39;t define them. You say that the word means whatever you want it to mean.

Correct. If you think about it, wages can be money you receive, they can be other goods (which would be considered trade, but you could call it a wage for your work), they can be anything as long as you define it that way. Personally I don&#39;t care which one you use, as long as you define it so I know what you&#39;re talking about.

-- August

[Social Greenman]

We need to explore the "why" of pro-cappies. I came upon this awhile ago as it pertain to human behavior:
Within the human population you will find a wide variety of people, some are spotted, some are tall and some are small, some are aggressive and determined, and some are easliy frighten and shy. In a herd you will find a feeling of acceptance. That is what herds do. They have groups and within them you will also find movements. You will also find they don&#39;t necessarily move in the same direction, in fact they wander about, and are flighty and are constantly on the verge of stampede.

I believe the Bourg know how to herd the general population through their sheep dogs They have many different functions within society that keep the population mostly loyal to the capitalist class.

[Decolonize The Left]

How about the herd of the working class? How about being part of the "herd" of your country? Is that not the largest form of &#39;group safety&#39; there is?

"And the one who wanders in not lost". -- Tolkein

Thought that quote applied to the bit about wandering.

-- August

[Social Greenman]

That&#39;s what I am trying to convey is that the working class acts in a herd like manner. It&#39;s ironic that humans can take the role of being part of the herd while some play the role of sheep dog and other animals (funny how we humans can change into different animals). Then you have those who are parasites and predators. Parasites as in living off the surplus labor of the herd which the capitalist class does. Yet, very few in the herd understand that this is a form of robbery. Predator as in taking by force through violent means whatever their callous heart desires no matter what the harm may be to the victim(s). The herd view these as criminal acts.

What makes the worker pro-capitalist is the upbringing they have recieved from their parents. Also, the education designed so that they accept the parasites taking from them their surplus labor. I do recall teachers getting me ready to be part of the workforce. To accept whatever wages the boss was willing to give and to sign a contract stating so. Cappies love contracts just to make it legal to screw you over. If you missed what it says in the fine print you are screwed even more being, of course, your fault.

In various circumstances in life people come accross different sheep dogs and of course there are other animals that come into play. They can be found in the work place as formen and managers. We cannot forget the weasel who reports worker activities to the bosses. The mole who infiltrates different herd gatherings wearing a herd body suit. His job is to find reasons for the guard dogs to be sent in. We see other sheep dogs on T.V. whose purpose is to keep us programmed to cappie thought. Then you have the guard dogs who uphold bourgeoisie laws.

I hope you can see that different people can take the role of the sheep dog and other animals and still be part of the herd. After all, we have a free will don&#39;t you know. :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

What about them? (vacations, week-ends, etc?)

According to you, people should get, for their work, the whole product of their work. Since during vacations people do not work, I fear that you are implying that either people will receive nothing during vacations, or that they will have no vacations.


Really? And who would obligate everyone? Who would force people to help these others? Who would provide the discipline to the population to make them help those in need?

Good questions. The answer you give, though (that non-workers must depend on workers benevolence) isn&#39;t as good.


Not only does this not make sense, but it is false. I did not take exception to anything as I have shown repeatedly my position on what "wages" are. Since I find them, in all forms, to be oppressive, I feel there should be no wages.
Unless of course, one was to define wages as the whole product of your work, when it wouldn&#39;t be a wage anymore, it would be the product.

I am glad to see that you agree with me.


Could you please find my quote where I said all who cannot work should live on charity? I can&#39;t remember.

Here:


What would a baker stand to gain from denying an old lady a loaf of bread? He receives no profit from it, therefore he has all the reason to give it to her.


But I do know that those who cannot work should be supported by their community, not simply because they can, but because it is in their interest. All people are of interest to a community, they all provide some sort of "labor".

So that&#39;s some kind of exchange?

Luís Henrique

[OleMarxco]

Well, hold on now here. Personally, I won&#39;t condone &#39;em for bein&#39; pro-Capitalist...but I think it&#39;s more egoism than "herd mentality" that makes some worker&#39;s Capitalist-pro...because they want to make it big, too, and I can -RESPECT- that. But just not understand it...it&#39;s not very likely it would be actually YOU, withouth a fight, that is ;)

[Decolonize The Left]

I hope you can see that different people can take the role of the sheep dog and other animals and still be part of the herd.

I can and I agree.

Quin:

According to you, people should get, for their work, the whole product of their work.

Yes.


Since during vacations people do not work, I fear that you are implying that either people will receive nothing during vacations, or that they will have no vacations.

I was not implying either of these ideas. Vacations take the same application as the old women who cannot make bread. They will receive what they need anyway.
Although, I must say, I don&#39;t know how vacations would even be necessary. In a society where everyone works for the good of the community, the work hours will be incredibly low (as the work force is incredibly large), and therefore there will be no need for extended periods of non-work time, as most time will be that anyway.
Now I am not saying "there will be no vacations", I&#39;m saying that people won&#39;t be inclined to take vacations as they won&#39;t be over-worked.


Good questions. The answer you give, though (that non-workers must depend on workers benevolence) isn&#39;t as good.

It is a good question.
I did provide an answer, yet you have not. So when you say "isn&#39;t as good", you have nothing to refer it to. Not as good compared to?
Not to mention that I didn&#39;t say anyone would "force" anyone to do anything, quite the contrary I think the opposite should happen...


So that&#39;s some kind of exchange?

Exchange between a whole community yes. That is comprised of two-person exchanges, but in total it is a larger communal exchange.

-- August

[Luís Henrique]

I was not implying either of these ideas. Vacations take the same application as the old women who cannot make bread. They will receive what they need anyway.

If the baker is supposed to rely on others benevolence for his vacations or retirement, here is one good reason he wouldn&#39;t give bread to an old lady: he would instead save it for his own consumption.


Although, I must say, I don&#39;t know how vacations would even be necessary. In a society where everyone works for the good of the community, the work hours will be incredibly low

Yes, this is possible. However, we wouldn&#39;t want the work hours to be so incredibly low that our own living standards would suffer from that, would we? We wouldn&#39;t like bakers working so little that they didn&#39;t produce plenty of bread for all of us.


I did provide an answer, yet you have not. So when you say "isn&#39;t as good", you have nothing to refer it to. Not as good compared to?

As compared to your question. Good question, not so good answer.


Exchange between a whole community yes. That is comprised of two-person exchanges, but in total it is a larger communal exchange.

"Communal exchange" is comprised by any amount of "two-person exchanges", or am I misreading you?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

August, let&#39;s take your baker example further. Suppose Mr. Fornari is a very good baker. He is able to bake about 75 loaves of bread each day.

But Mr. Fornari isn&#39;t able to eat 75 loaves of bread a day. Even counting his children and elderlies, his consumption of bread is about 5 loaves a day. What is he supposed to do with such surplus production? Should he reduce it to his own subsistence level?

Luís Henrique

[*Hippie*]

I don&#39;t understand how a working class person could betray their own class. :o
Sad thing is, they are our only hope for a revolution. We must reach the working masses&#33;

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:06 AM
false consciousness
This is the correct answer. :)

[Decolonize The Left]

However, we wouldn&#39;t want the work hours to be so incredibly low that our own living standards would suffer from that, would we? We wouldn&#39;t like bakers working so little that they didn&#39;t produce plenty of bread for all of us.

There would be such a larger working class with the abolition of money. Think about all the bankers, stock brokers, trade people, etc.... Would they not work, or be part of the community? I say they would and would also aid in production of goods for everyone.


"Communal exchange" is comprised by any amount of "two-person exchanges", or am I misreading you?

No you are reading correct. I just don&#39;t like the word "exchange" for it involves more a give when you have, take when you need idea instead... is that clear? If not tell me, I&#39;m having difficulty labeling it.


August, let&#39;s take your baker example further. Suppose Mr. Fornari is a very good baker. He is able to bake about 75 loaves of bread each day.

But Mr. Fornari isn&#39;t able to eat 75 loaves of bread a day. Even counting his children and elderlies, his consumption of bread is about 5 loaves a day. What is he supposed to do with such surplus production? Should he reduce it to his own subsistence level?

A fine example.
Mr. Fornari would produce 75 loaves a day if that&#39;s what the community needed. If they only needed 50 then he would produce that. He would take his 5 loaves and hand the rest of his surplus production out to those who asked.

-- August

[JKP]

Originally posted by wet blanket+Sep 29 2005, 09:46 PM--> (wet blanket @ Sep 29 2005, 09:46 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 02:06 AM
false consciousness
This is the correct answer. :) [/b]
They may also have fantasies about becoming a capitalist themselves...

Of course they probably have a better chance of winning the lottery.

[Kittie Rose]

Yeah, I know a guy who had it really hard working ridiculous hours to get by. He had some of the most ridiculous arguments, like buildings would look less interesting.

[red_che]

I have read the responses between Luis Henrique and AugustWest. Their discussion on wage and needs is really interesting.

I would like to add my thoughts on that issue.

Wage is that sum of money being given by a capitalist to a worker as payment for the latter&#39;s labor force extracted in day, or in a certain period of time. That wage represents the exploitation of the capitalist over the worker. Does the worker get exactly what s/he deserved? No.

Now, should the worker get all what s/he deserve? No. Why? Because s/he also have a responsibility to society so s/he ought to give a portion of that value of his labor for society&#39;s needs (for social education, health... things like that). That is represented by a labor voucher, or something to that effect.

Now, how much could a worker then get out of the value of his labor? The worker should get only what it needs.

How can we determine the needs of the worker then? It is determined by her/his basic necessities and that of her/his family to live a decent life (housing, clothes, food). That way, no excess value can be used by anyone to accumulate more value out of it. I think this is how a communist society would be, or I suppose.

[SmithSmith]

simple

The fundamental idea of capitalism is that anyone could be part of the privileged few if you work hard. So they work and work thinking they will make it and when they don&#39;t it is because they didn&#39;t work hard, weren&#39;t lucky or smart enough.

They see other workers like them who do make it but everyone cannot make it. There is got to be losers.

[SmithSmith]

Now, how much could a worker then get out of the value of his labor? The worker should get only what it needs.

How can we determine the needs of the worker then? It is determined by her/his basic necessities and that of her/his family to live a decent life (housing, clothes, food). That way, no excess value can be used by anyone to accumulate more value out of it. I think this is how a communist society would be, or I suppose.


How is this different from capitalism?

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:55 AM

Now, how much could a worker then get out of the value of his labor? The worker should get only what it needs.

How can we determine the needs of the worker then? It is determined by her/his basic necessities and that of her/his family to live a decent life (housing, clothes, food). That way, no excess value can be used by anyone to accumulate more value out of it. I think this is how a communist society would be, or I suppose.


How is this different from capitalism?
In capitalism, the surplus value is the profit of the capitalist and is used by the capitalist for more accumulation of capital. While in Socialism, it will be used for society&#39;s functions.

[Abood]

Why would a worker support capitalism? think about it.. the only rational thing is...
he either wants money, he wants to be a bourgeoisie, but ofcourse that doesnt happen 99% of the time. Or, he doesnt know there are better solutions, he&#39;s fed capitalist shit, telling him that if he works hard he&#39;ll go somewhere.. hah.. i only tell him: Be a Communist, or be a dreamer

[Floyce White]

This thread began before I joined this message board. JKP decided to bring it back to the top, so I spent a few days thinking about the issue.

Some of the pro-capitalist workers are misinformed. Some are just angry and take it out on everyone around them. These working-class people can be won to communism through action and discussions during action. Arguing for the sake of argument convinces no one of anything. Agreement during inaction is as fragile as an egg shell.

Taiga: "I guess workers are pro-capitalist because they think they have a chance to become rich."

Well, some already are rich. Some of the pro-capitalist workers actually are landlords, investors, employers, or merchants when not at their day jobs. This is especially true at better-paying jobs that attract existent petty capitalists who want to reinvest all the profits from their investments (rather than spend the money on the expenses of life). Not all workers are working class. That&#39;s why it&#39;s sometimes clearer to say "lower class" and "upper class."

Getting a higher wage allows some working-class people to take out mortgages instead of just paying rent, and to set aside money in retirement funds instead of just hoping that friends, family, and pension plans will be enough. With home equity and savings, some of them are tempted to become capitalists, start businesses or investments, and try primitive accumulation. So it&#39;s true that some workers go from the poor class to the rich class. They are classes, not castes. Working-class people who try to start businesses and fail, but try again and again--they too are no longer part of the working class. There&#39;s no such thing as "sometimes capitalists." Class is a way of treating people. It is false to say that it "isn&#39;t capitalism" just because someone created violent trade relations and hurt others, but failed to find a way to continue doing harm.

Some working-class people see the previously-capitalist and newly-capitalist co-workers and want to be the same. They "talk the talk" even though they never exploit anyone. There&#39;s a disconnect between belief and act. They can be made aware of the contradiction.

The focus on action is the key. Communists focus on acts. Meanwhile, leftists put the emphasis on formal representation relations over classless demographic groups of "oppressed people." One of the demographic groups is workers in general, rather than the dispossessed who are born into servitude. Leftism sometimes seems to be very popular, but the popularity is as superficial as "yeah you&#39;re right." Leftists collect formal, institutional relations from demographic groups like flowers, and put them under a control process of democracy/dictatorship. This makes rule both the means and the end. To the contrary, communists put the emphasis on the self-mobilization of the dispossessed. It&#39;s this emphasis on "what people do" rather than arbitrary groupings of "what people are" or "what people believe" that makes communism different from leftism.

(Yes I know, the phrase "being determines consciousness" compares "are" and "believe." It teeters precariously on you having an extremely clear insight into all of the relevant aspects of a person&#39;s being. It&#39;s used for discussion among comrades rather than trying to convince pro-capitalists, who might be hiding some aspects of their being.)

As an aside, that&#39;s why the "Marxist" concept of socialist LOCO ("Lower Order of COmmunism) ruled through DOPE ("Dictatorship Of the ProlEtariat"), or its rephrasing as "new democracy," is leftism and not communism. It&#39;s a property relation of "what workers belong to" that covers up "who workers belong to."

JKP: "Traditionally the working class has been our ally...workers will become receptive to our ideas...workers will affect us..."

Unambiguous statement that the "us" is not part of the working class. In fact, the whole post could easily be interpreted to mean that "we" are pro-capitalists. It sounds like something a dysfunctional Democrat would say on a campaign stop.

If "us" is intended to mean "revolutionary leftists," it is a correct statement as worded. Leftism is pro-capitalism. Indeed, one danger to the "progress" of leftism is that many workers might be won to supporting rightist "reactionary" factions instead. (I discussed these semantics under the thread I began with the essay Whose Class Struggle?)

If this is not what you meant to say, then you probably started off by violating the rule of English that says that an opening sentence does not yet have any context in which to clarify ambiguity. Afterwards, you continued with the same language and left the whole issue up in the air. But then, this is a discussion forum. You asked a important question that we should be discussing--regardless of how it was phrased.

JKP: "Some might not like capitalism but defend it as &#39;the best system we have.&#39;"

It&#39;s a debaters&#39; trick. "Some people might not like dog droppings, but what my dog just dropped on your doorstep is the best pile of dog droppings we have." Would that line convince you to enthusiastically support me walking my dog in your doorway every afternoon? No. Even the "best" abuse is still abuse, and the abused would be better off if they put an end to it.

JKP: "I believe that as capitalism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to our ideas."

No. As communism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to each others&#39; ideas. That can happen only if you be a communist. Don&#39;t wait for capitalism to undermine itself. It never will.

Revolutionaries who look to the course of capitalism to create the conditions and receptiveness for communism: they are equally pro-capitalist workers. Their work is political labor to prevent antiproperty struggle.

anomaly: "The real problem is that not only are some ignorant of what communism is, they are willfully ignorant&#33;"

You mean, like communists who say that capitalism "isn&#39;t capitalism" if it nationalizes the companies of a few big-capitalist families, who want to smash the state by rehabilitating the state, who want to end rule through forms of rule such as democracy and dictatorship, who say that classes "aren&#39;t" familial inheritance classes and that communism "isn&#39;t" the struggle of the dispossessed class to abolish property now, and so on? That kind of willful ignorance? Seems the workers are pretty wise to be ornery.

If it doesn&#39;t come from the knowledge and experience of the masses themselves, it isn&#39;t communism. The work to end ignorance--the mass sharing of knowledge--is the educational activity of the working-class movement that will ultimately be organized in every commune of the workers&#39; party. Substituting classes on "Marxism" for this activity is, in reality, pro-ignorance.

Hopes_Guevara: "If they are educated by Marxists they will understand their own real status in capitalism."

Fantasy propaganda about education in the USSR, People&#39;s Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, or other socialist countries. The immigrants I talk to from those countries--all are extremely ignorant of politics even by American standards.

Dean: "The basic reason IS miseducation. That they are willfully ignorant is in fact a personal disregard for their own education, and this is fostered by the nature of our media, school system and household structure: each and every one of these environments feed information and take little or no input from the child."

Lower-class people learn to distrust one-way communication because it always turns out to be for the purpose of preventing feedback that would expose lies. Lower-class people become increasingly uninterested in any similar process. That&#39;s another reason why education requires action.

Dean: "They teach people that ignorance is a real virtue by giving people a worldview instead of allowing them to create one on their own. A notable character of the education system that helps this along is the relative lack of class discussion and, perhaps more importantly, the lack of realistic information given on philosophies and political movements."

workersunity: "false consciousness"

Agreed. The glorification of ignorance is a necessary precondition to the domination of upper-class ideologies.

anomaly: "That is, they feel Marx said no wrong."

Dogmatism is not about the usefulness or factuality of the opinions of an authority figure. Dogmatism is about submitting to authority. Adding "right about this" and "wrong about that" conditions to submitting to authority--is still submitting to authority. It is surrender to the carrier of the "right" ideas. (Reminds me of the movie The Messenger that is shown at colleges to recruit to Islam.)

Communists must abandon and criticize the method of relying on the opinions of long-dead authority figures from upper-class family backgrounds. It is not a matter of looking for honest mistakes. The difference between upper-class ideology and lower-class ideology is not a mistake--it is a function of class society. Upper-class persons produce upper-class ideas. That&#39;s why we have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, and other "leader" figures, instead of annual volumes of translations of the writings and speeches of lower-class activists themselves.

"We shall be all" means nothing until that "all" includes creating theory and practice without regard to authoritative opinion.

AugustWest: "Can the Left agree on a goal for the revolution? Socialism, communism, anarchism, mix?"

No. I discussed this in my Antiproperty essays.

AugustWest: "I don&#39;t think capitalist workers see it that way exactly."

"Capitalist workers" versus "pro-capitalist workers." I pointed this out at the start of this post. Notice how the tiny semantical change of leaving out the "pro-" makes for an enormous shift in context. Now do you see why I put such a heavy emphasis on questions of semantics and logic?

Dean: "...Lenin was [not] a murderer..."

Is the Chairman of the Reptilian National Committee a murderer? Yes. Governments are armed bodies, and politicians get some of the responsibility for governmental violence. Since this is a matter of principle, the workers&#39; party is not an electoral party and doesn&#39;t participate in any government--before, during, or after the revolution. The goal of working-class struggle is to eliminate the difference between deciding and doing. The goal of working-class struggle is to eliminate governance in every form: ownership, the state, tradition, etc.

Dean: "Lenin...wished...to insure more worker control (correct me if I&#39;m wrong)."

You&#39;re wrong. Lenin was the head of the commission that co-opted, pacified, and disbanded the soviets.

Dean: "[Pro-capitalist] workers have also been duped into thinking that equality itself would be bad for them, because they know that they are priviledged."

Equality is a mathematical tool that is used to count property. The idea of "social equality" and "social inequality" is an idealistic, false pretense at applying mathematics to make sure that there is "fair trade." Luis Henrique pointed this out about "fair wages" and "fair capitalism." Just as the idea of "freedom" can exist only along with the reality of slavery, so too does the relative term "equal" exist only along with the reality of massive inequality. What&#39;s more, the whole idea is intended to support the "equality" of money transactors as opposed to a royalty simply dictating what they will take and what if anything they will pay in return. "Equality" is part of the terminology of the capitalist revolution. To dogmatize these terms, to try to apply them to the anti-capitalist revolution is, in reality, the pro-ignorance of the "duped."

Also, the concept of "privileged workers" is as false as its corollary: "underprivileged capitalists."

Dean: "Every class, however, will gain a sense of global community and compassion..."

There is no such thing as "group opinion." Individual persons--not whole classes--can have or lack "a sense of compassion."

Dean: "The middle class will..."

Hopes_Guevara: "They even don&#39;t admit that they are workers, specially the middle-class."

There is no such thing as a "middle class." Your family either claims to own what others use, or it doesn&#39;t. There is no "third class" with a "third way."

Hopes_Guevara: "1- The middle-class: They are well-paid because of their experiences and cleverness. They mostly work in service branches. They own house, car and conveniences.

"2- The working class: They are poor. Their salary is just enough to pay their daily expense. Their lifestypes are like John Q.

"I think the middle-class is bought off quite easily but the working class is not."

No. Class is not defined by income, occupation, or ownership of items of personal use such as a car or house. Class is defined by ownership of the things used by others. I discussed this at length in the article No Compromise With Capitalism, and in the subsequent article Superiority or Solidarity. If you were not aware of my essays when you posted this, you are now.

Red Powers: "Well it&#39;s been true in my experience [that workers know they are servants]. And I don&#39;t get into talking about wages first thing beause the theory of surplus value takes some time. Who am I? Just another worker who&#39;s thought about things a bit more."

Then your opinions are more useful than all of the Internet chats ever typed.

Red Powers: "But let me get this straight: you would skip over raising class consciousness and go right to forming collectives and then labor councils? And would you do this with the workers who think they are getting a fair day&#39;s wage? Why would they join your collective?"

Action and education are inseparable. Putting the spotlight is on provocative language about institutions is an excuse to ignore the relation between action and education. "Workers&#39; collectives" is a hold-your-nose and "I&#39;m not with them" way that socialist "theoreticians" and "intellectuals" say "union" without saying "union." Somehow they can chortle out phrases about "collections of workers" with "collections of work"-related activity (such as "collective" lunch rooms or softball teams), but they can&#39;t even mouth the idea of workers&#39; union. (If we can unite on our own, we don&#39;t need them.) "Workers&#39; collectives" is the kind of language you never hear from poor people (except after socialists rename businesses that way).

AFL-CIO unions don&#39;t use working-class ideas. They use capitalist-class liberalism and conservatism. In some other countries, unions use capitalist-class, radical-leftist ideas such as collectivization, co-operativism, or syndicalism. The idea of workers&#39; takeover and abolition of ownership ("collective" or otherwise) is completely unthinkable to them. The only time they even mouth the words is to play the "responsible leader" and discourage it.

Some communists waste their time trying to invent hypothetical relations of "workers&#39; collectives" because of the shortcomings of pro-capitalist unionism. That&#39;s the only kind of unionism that can last for long under capitalism, so it&#39;s "all that exists." Another term supposedly must be needed for the "revolutionary" workplace organization.

Yet we always say that the "union" is the solidarity among workers--not the bureaucrats, the dues, or campaign speeches by Democrats who need you to turn out on "Solidarity Day" to vote for them. Where did the union come from? Workplace organization forms the union and is the union. That&#39;s the fact that is lost and distorted.

Similarly the party of the working class forms the commune and is the commune. It&#39;s the organization of mass struggle in an entire locality, the same way the the union is the organization of mass struggle in an entire workplace. The union isn&#39;t a form of property ownership of the workplace, and it isn&#39;t a district in city government. Same with the commune. It isn&#39;t some form of public-property ownership, and it isn&#39;t a city government. "Party isn&#39;t government" is a half-truth of bourgeois politics. It can&#39;t be applied to the workers&#39; party becoming the commune.

The soviet (or council) form is not the issue. A commune uses many forms of organization. It&#39;s not a matter of workplace, military base, neighborhood, and school associations going through a rigid process of institutionalization of revolution. The whole concept of a "stage" of "workers&#39; collectives" leading to a "stage" of "workers&#39; councils" is a very convenient theory for bourgeois leftism. It ignores the unity in struggle among working-class people that drives the process of greater unification. Without the party--the specific discussion and action to organize struggle that lower-class people themselves do--none of this goes anywhere. It all gets stuck in formalities of institutionalized process, and workers get isolated, divided, pacified, and disorganized, and swallow anybody&#39;s claim to be the "leadership" and the "real workers&#39; party."

That&#39;s what happened in Russia. "Real workers" like Lenin and Zinoviev convinced workers to vote for Majorityists in the soviets, and to go along with whatever the majority representatives did. When the rebellious workers, peasants, and soldiers promptly noticed that the Majorityists weren&#39;t doing what the lower-class majority wanted, the soviets were rapidly disbanded (this must be in the Russian version of Roberts&#39; Rules). The "labor council" method worked great. That&#39;s why some socialists labeled themselves "councilists" and wrote copiously about "workers&#39; collectives" and "labor councils" after the Russian Revolution. They too wanted to play commander and "turn the guns around" at the other commanders in the rear. The later mass admission of NEP Men into the Russian Social Democratic "Labor Party"--Majorityist confirmed that its earlier upper-class "leadership" and membership was not a meaningless coincidence or an honest mistake, but proof that it always was a bourgeois party. The renaming of these capitalists as "communists" in a "Communist Party" was further proof of their deliberate lying.

The idea of soviets without the party--as with the idea of "one big union" without the party--is opposition to the well-rounded self-organization of the working class. The capitalists are organized in their parties. It&#39;s suicidal for workers to try to skip over organizing themselves as a party.

That&#39;s the "skip over" we should be concerned about: not just the education, but everything else that comes along with thorough and complete preparation for revolution.

Social Greenman: "We need to explore the "why" of pro-cappies. . . . In a herd you will find a feeling of acceptance."

"Acceptance?" No. It is a self-evident lie that people "believe in" what guns make them do. It&#39;s more like a vain hope that with a daily kowtow of surrender, they might avoid being chosen first for punishment, and that they might be favored with a crumb. It&#39;s the stale old lie of hedonic calculus.

Sorry for such a long post, but there was some catching-up to do.

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:35 PM
Traditionally the working class has been our ally, but it seems there is a growing reactionary sentiment among some of them. Some might not like capitalism but defend it as "the best system we have". Others are explicitly pro capitalist.

I believe that as capitalism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to our ideas. Although I am concerned how pro-capitalist workers will affect us in the meanwhile.
I think this is simply because most capitalist countries lack decent workers parties which arent either completely ultra left or reformist. Workers are not that likely to care for a party talking a bout the "reactionary nature of the bourgoisie"

but a party talking about stopping the privatisation of public services, campaigning for better wages etc whilst always holding the end goal of socialism, and educating its members, will always be more sucessful

[JKP]

Originally posted by voice of the voiceless+Jan 24 2006, 12:33 PM--> (voice of the voiceless @ Jan 24 2006, 12:33 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 03:35 PM
Traditionally the working class has been our ally, but it seems there is a growing reactionary sentiment among some of them. Some might not like capitalism but defend it as "the best system we have". Others are explicitly pro capitalist.

I believe that as capitalism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to our ideas. Although I am concerned how pro-capitalist workers will affect us in the meanwhile.
I think this is simply because most capitalist countries lack decent workers parties which arent either completely ultra left or reformist. Workers are not that likely to care for a party talking a bout the "reactionary nature of the bourgoisie"

but a party talking about stopping the privatisation of public services, campaigning for better wages etc whilst always holding the end goal of socialism, and educating its members, will always be more sucessful [/b]
I&#39;d imagine most of the members on this board would prefer if you would keep your reformism to yourself.

[Social Greenman]

It is true that 80 percent of new small busineses go belly up which means that 20 percent become petite bourgeoisie businesses like machine shops, ma and pa restaurants, dealerships, Pubs (bars), etc. This is the hope that a lot of workers look at of being their own boss to make thier own profits. Basically to exploit because they were once exploited. What&#39;s good for the goose is good for the gander mentality. It is a cycle that has not been broken in advance capitalist countries. It is by rare chance or sheer luck that a business goes bourgeoisie big time capitalist. And if you look at all the "toys" that money can be made from is is no wonder that many workers are pro-capitalist. I visted a sword and spear shop looking for a knife, and I could not believe how many people buy (not cheap) fantasy swords to mount on the wall. The petite who owned the place could cared less if a person was poor so long as he could talk them out of their money.

Voice of the voiceless wrote:


but a party talking about stopping the privatisation of public services, campaigning for better wages etc whilst always holding the end goal of socialism, and educating its members, will always be more sucessful

That is pretty much what Liberals do being reformist to preserve capitalism.

[red_che]

Pro capitalist workers are, I would like to say, a band of misled workers. Their being pro capitalist is merely a product of the bourgeoisie having control over the means of production and political power. As such, their minds were bombarded by bourgeois propaganda and culture.

Their being pro capitalist also is both conscious and unconsious. The workers are consciously supporting the bourgeoisie for fear of losing their source of livelihood or their lives themselves. It is also unconscious because they don&#39;t have enough revolutionary or Marxist education to thwart off bourgeois miseducation.

It is the lack of organization and a firm grasp of Marxism among the workers that make them prone to bourgeois capitulation and petty-bourgeois line of thinking.

[Social Greenman]

And what of Anarchist education? I say this because most American workers don&#39;t know who Bukunin or Proudhon are. If it was not for the internet I would still be ignorant of their existence. Now everyone has heard of Marx and his name produces a negative reaction among American workers because Marx = USSR.

As anyone can see under my liberator avatar (Even the Devil has a lawyer...Want my card?) that I am leaning more toward Anarchist thought. Complete abolishment of the State replaced by Industrial Union and Worker&#39;s Councils is far more favorable than a State that would abuse their power over workers.

[red_che]

Complete abolishment of the State replaced by Industrial Union and Worker&#39;s Councils is far more favorable than a State that would abuse their power over workers.

See? Even in this board people were disunited. We have different outlooks or "ideologies". However, one good step would be to get the workers organized, Lenin is correct in his "What is to be done?". The workers must be organized even at the most basic level, the trade unions.

But on what ideology would the workers pursue, that remains to be debated. However, as for me, I still stand by my first statement, that Marxism (or to be more clear, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) must be the workers&#39; ideology. :)


Now everyone has heard of Marx and his name produces a negative reaction among American workers because Marx = USSR.

This is one example of a bourgeois propaganda that makes some workers become "pro capitalist." Shall we let this kind of consciousness remain that way forever? Of course not. That is why I said that a firm grasp of Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) through Marxist education is one requirement so that this line of thinking would be countered off.

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by JKP+Jan 25 2006, 12:03 AM--> (JKP @ Jan 25 2006, 12:03 AM)
Originally posted by voice of the [email protected] 24 2006, 12:33 PM

[email protected] 26 2005, 03:35 PM
Traditionally the working class has been our ally, but it seems there is a growing reactionary sentiment among some of them. Some might not like capitalism but defend it as "the best system we have". Others are explicitly pro capitalist.

I believe that as capitalism continues its course, more and more workers will become receptive to our ideas. Although I am concerned how pro-capitalist workers will affect us in the meanwhile.
I think this is simply because most capitalist countries lack decent workers parties which arent either completely ultra left or reformist. Workers are not that likely to care for a party talking a bout the "reactionary nature of the bourgoisie"

but a party talking about stopping the privatisation of public services, campaigning for better wages etc whilst always holding the end goal of socialism, and educating its members, will always be more sucessful
I&#39;d imagine most of the members on this board would prefer if you would keep your reformism to yourself. [/b]
Ok you try asking ANY worker in England about

1. Saving the NHS from privatisation

or


2. Destroying the state and creating a mutually cooperative society


which one will they relate to?

the first one of course, its not reformism, its just not being uncompromising. If we can increase the minimum wage for example we must support that. But we must maintain the final goal of socialism.

The SWP for example say that we shouldnt deal with parliament, because its a bourgeois institution; which is true. However, a peaceful transformation of society is far more desirable than a violent one. Our MP for example has campaigned on various issues as an MP, a member of this "institution" and yes its limited, but we should fight for the best possible deal under capitalism AS WELL as fighting to overthrow it

= and by ultra left i mean people like the revolutionary communist party of Great Britatin who support North Korea&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by voice of the [email protected] 29 2006, 09:17 PM
Ok you try asking ANY worker in England about

1. Saving the NHS from privatisation

or


2. Destroying the state and creating a mutually cooperative society


which one will they relate to?

Just because they can&#39;t think outside of the box, doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t. Which do you think is more likely to achieve something? nationalising (or maintaining the nationalisation) of the NHS, or smashing the state. I thing the destruction of the state, and as that is my conclusion, I won&#39;t soften it up or make it more happy...I&#39;ll try and achieve it.

However, Im going to turn the question around.

Ask any (UK) worker their opinions on deporting Asian Immigrants.

Or

Advancing the Socialist/Communist/Anarchist movement.

Which one will they relate to?

Oh...It seems a majority of the working class are racist, but popularity is more important than politics, maybe we should be racist, just as long as we maintain the final goal of socialism, that is. :D