Can i be a leftist if...

[*PRC*Kensei]

yo,first read this little story:

i'm 17
this morning, when i whas discussing a protest action against the local "facist" party with my marxist mates, some people came up to me and said:
"dont act like your left, your a damn capitalist, you dont sare stuff, you'r a gamer, blablabl"

now this bullshit shocked me, and i now have this question to the community: can i be a true leftist if:

- my dad aint a proletarier, he's die hard free-market guy, however he votes more or less left.
- we earn... a bit more mony than the average fammily in belgium...
- I'm not the worker type, havnt worked jet... i'm more the study/philosofy type.
- i'll work when needed, but i'm not.........a worker :o
- I'm a gamer, buying games from BIG imperialist companies, like EA.
- i've got a high-tech pc... a false need.
- i'm not like the uber social type...

however:
- i'm 100% anti-racist/facist.
- I've got true...socialist feelings.
- i believe in it.
- read marx & other leftist writers...
- i try to do anything i can to prevent racism
- 100% multi-cultural.
- i've got major sympathy for the workers.


now: can i be a true leftist without beeying a real proletatian ?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Marx himself was not part of the proleteriat, neither was Engels. Most Socialist writers have tended to belong to the bourgois.
Indeed my favourite living Socialist, Tony Benn, was born Lord Anthony Wedgewood Benn.
Personally I don't think your background matters, its what you do for your cause.

[OleMarxco]

Exactly. I second that - Although it helps to have experience of what proletar's have to go trough - And class has nothin' to do with it, although a genuine upper-class revolutionary is unlikely, it's not dismissed ;)

[*PRC*Kensei]

:) k

[rioters bloc]

yeah, i have a friend who really dislikes communism [shes very...moderate], mainly because she's russian and just relates everything i say back to the soviet union... and if i ever talk abt communism she'll say 'you cant talk, if you were in russian during the revolution you wouldve been one of the first to go, being part of the intelligentsia/bourgeoise'

and it really irritates me because, even tho my parents earn a bit more than average, we're hardly well off.. most of their excess money goes to my family in bangladesh which is a third world country.

but yeah even that aside, i think prc that it shows that you're of good moral calibre if you can empathise with people who are worse off than you without being in their position :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

but yeah even that aside, i think prc that it shows that you're of good moral calibre if you can empathise with people who are worse off than you without being in their position

It certainly does show good moral fibre. If only a "few more of 'dem good ole' wealthy folk" thought of those who are worse off, then the world would be a much better place.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 7 2005, 02:41 PM
yeah, i have a friend who really dislikes communism [shes very...moderate], mainly because she's russian and just relates everything i say back to the soviet union... and if i ever talk abt communism she'll say 'you cant talk, if you were in russian during the revolution you wouldve been one of the first to go, being part of the intelligentsia/bourgeoise'

and it really irritates me because, even tho my parents earn a bit more than average, we're hardly well off.. most of their excess money goes to my family in bangladesh which is a third world country.

but yeah even that aside, i think prc that it shows that you're of good moral calibre if you can empathise with people who are worse off than you without being in their position :)
ive been in moskou :D but not during the revolution offcourse :P

and about the "upper class",
in my - old boring - country i think it are mostly them - and a core of workers who know what they are doing - who will vote left.

their the ones with good education, which teaches about marx, about socialism - belgium had a very hard time in the industrial times - , but the mojority of the proletariat tends to vote right, very right.

Cause it is showed to them :ph34r: , but nobody explains them socialism :(

[Donnie]

yo,first read this little story:

i'm 17
this morning, when i whas discussing a protest action against the local "facist" party with my marxist mates, some people came up to me and said:
"dont act like your left, your a damn capitalist, you dont sare stuff, you'r a gamer, blablabl"

now this bullshit shocked me, and i now have this question to the community: can i be a true leftist if:

- my dad aint a proletarier, he's die hard free-market guy, however he votes more or less left.
- we earn... a bit more mony than the average fammily in belgium...
- I'm not the worker type, havnt worked jet... i'm more the study/philosofy type.
- i'll work when needed, but i'm not.........a worker ohmy.gif
- I'm a gamer, buying games from BIG imperialist companies, like EA.
- i've got a high-tech pc... a false need.
- i'm not like the uber social type...

however:
- i'm 100% anti-racist/facist.
- I've got true...socialist feelings.
- i believe in it.
- read marx & other leftist writers...
- i try to do anything i can to prevent racism
- 100% multi-cultural.
- i've got major sympathy for the workers.
I have no problem with people from middle class background working with the class struggle movement; providing they reject their class. I have a friend who is a class struggle anarchist who comes from a middle class background.

However, I would suggest you don’t go out and buy games. Why not use that powerful computer of yours and download the games off the net for free. Or get you're PS2 chipped and get the games for a much cheaper price off a market stall. Or If you really want the game go into a game store and trade one of you’re old games for another one, I’ve seen game stores do those type of deals.

I like playing games although I refuse to buy them so I find other ways of attaining the game without giving the company money ;)

Also I would like to announce that if people are needing stuff for their computer i.e. needing more RAM then go to computer fairs and barter to get them cheap, instead of going to some corporation like PC World. You will also find that if you go to a computer fair/market there is chance that the people you're buying know more about computers than some shit arse corporation.

I went to a computer fair near my local town and bought a computer monitor (I needed a new monitor because my other one broke after 7 years) for £15! That’s a bargain from paying £150 for a monitor in a corporate store; they also chucked in some free speakers. That’s a 100% bargain.

Dumpstering at a skip is another good thing because you may come across the odd good peace of computer hardware that some rich kid has got fed up with.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 7 2005, 01:53 PM
:) k
It's not ":) k" but "k :)" - By the way, it's a spam, too. This's not tolerated. Get more content in your post's, please? And if you only write'rat, then write atleast "okay", not just 'k'. It's jus'pathetic with'rese shortin's! ;)

[workersunity]

The test of a true communist is one who knows what he is working for, in this case abolishment of private property, Labor helps create the new man, one must know the workers exploitation by doing it.

[Clarksist]

All it takes to be a commie in a communist society is work as much as you feel you are getting out of it.

Why would we take away some luxuries under communism?

[danny android]

Originally posted by OleMarxo+Sep 7 2005, 06:22 PM--> (OleMarxo @ Sep 7 2005, 06:22 PM)
*PRC*[email protected] 7 2005, 01:53 PM
:) k
It's not ":) k" but "k :)" - By the way, it's a spam, too. This's not tolerated. Get more content in your post's, please? And if you only write'rat, then write atleast "okay", not just 'k'. It's jus'pathetic with'rese shortin's! ;) [/b]
what the heck are you talking about and why do you care?

[Guest1]

The games really don't matter, you can buy them if you want.

As for your background, you should aim to get a summer job or something and try to make your own money through a part time job. I'm assuming you're young, so it's good if you can be more independant. Eventually, you should "commit class suicide", by moving out and making your own living as a worker :)

[enigma2517]

It makes no difference, just as long as you reject your class, like somebody mentioned somebody earlier.

Our job as communists/anarchists is to educate the working class. It doesn't really matter who puts the message out there. In fact, being a student/rich white suburban kid you probably have more time and resources at your disposal than an actual working class person.

Just don't fall into the Leninist paradigm where you think you can substitute your expert leadership skills in exchange for materialized class consciousness :)

[MoscowFarewell]

They shouldn't be talking like that. That's wrong of them. Its all dependent on belief, ideaology, and aim.

[matiasm]

Che was in the upper middle class, he was not a proletariat.

good example....

[Sabocat]

Perhaps Marx said it best....

If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. (Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 7 2005, 11:47 PM
The games really don't matter, you can buy them if you want.

As for your background, you should aim to get a summer job or something and try to make your own money through a part time job. I'm assuming you're young, so it's good if you can be more independant. Eventually, you should "commit class suicide", by moving out and making your own living as a worker :)
the thing with summer work is: i dont need no mony :P i get A LITTLE BIT mony form my parents, but i'm NOT a consumer........ i rarely buy something...(games, cause i'm...pro in many...like in ut2004 my clan wha snr 1 last week end) , i rarely ask for something... not interested in mony.

I CANT be a 100 % communist, cause i'm living in a capitalist society. arch, bloody free market :P
but if it comes to work...might go work for the unions or something.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by *PRC*Kensei+Sep 9 2005, 08:00 AM--> (*PRC*Kensei @ Sep 9 2005, 08:00 AM)
Che y [email protected] 7 2005, 11:47 PM
The games really don't matter, you can buy them if you want.

As for your background, you should aim to get a summer job or something and try to make your own money through a part time job. I'm assuming you're young, so it's good if you can be more independant. Eventually, you should "commit class suicide", by moving out and making your own living as a worker :)
the thing with summer work is: i dont need no mony :P i get A LITTLE BIT mony form my parents, but i'm NOT a consumer........ i rarely buy something...(games, cause i'm...pro in many...like in ut2004 my clan wha snr 1 last week end) , i rarely ask for something... not interested in mony.

I CANT be a 100 % communist, cause i'm living in a capitalist society. arch, bloody free market :P
but if it comes to work...might go work for the unions or something. [/b]
you can live away from capitalism. you can organize your freind for mutualist living.

[Black Dagger]

Wouldn't want to 'drift' too far away, as in away from the struggle... and off into lifestylism/isolationism :P

[OleMarxco]

Why not? Y'could all make a darn good commune, fer'shit'z! ;)


Originally posted by danny android+Sep 7 2005, 11:18 PM--> (danny android @ Sep 7 2005, 11:18 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:22 PM

*PRC*[email protected] 7 2005, 01:53 PM
:) k
It's not ":) k" but "k :)" - By the way, it's a spam, too. This's not tolerated. Get more content in your post's, please? And if you only write'rat, then write atleast "okay", not just 'k'. It's jus'pathetic with'rese shortin's! ;)
What the heck are you talking about and Why do you care? [/b]

Oh...... Well, I don't know? Perhap's, if you've tight-knightily studied my post as I have your's, it -MIGHT- appear that the -ISSUE- is about a, uh, sort'a'rof SHORTIN' INNESSICITY. Yeah, 'rat's it. So stuff it and get back to yo car-cass, 'cuz I care (fo') cash, like a car-crash! Heck, you ain't even're same-guy or gal I addressed in the first place, so why do YOU care? I do because it's annoyin' my ass off :D

[James]

I heard that you had to be 5'9, brown hair, grey eyes, working class accent, and be working class (and be able to prove working class ancestors for at least 3 generations).


Nah mate, You simply have to ask yourself what is a "leftist".
Once you answered this, you shall have answered your question.

[STI]

I think that, whenever we meet upper-class or middle-class (bah, what a fucking ambiguous term!) communists, we should definately be asking ourselves why on earth they're communists. For a member of the bourgeoisie, there's no material reason to be a communist, so then why? There may be others, but the only reason I've ever seen is morality, which is not a very good foundation for serious leftism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

There may be others, but the only reason I've ever seen is morality, which is not a very good foundation for serious leftism

Morality is the most important reason to become a leftist. After all if Marx didn't view it as morally wrong to exploit the working man, he wouldn't have written about it and proposed a system under which there would no exploitation.

[captain donald]

Being a part of the middle class, white boy etc. (although i have worked fast food and wharehouse jobs) And being a leftist at the same time is because of
1) Morals (as mentioned in above posts)
2) Happiness. Material isnt happiness. If someone believes happiness is something money cant buy, then it doesnt matter how much they have.
3) MORALS! (yep)

[enigma2517]

Many middle class people are still living in an extremely alienating society. Sure you have...stuff...and chances are I won't ever have to worry about being hungry or homeless.

But I've always wanted something more.


For a member of the bourgeoisie, there's no material reason to be a communist, so then why?

I can see your point. Let me just mention a few things

Upper-class is usually bourgeoisie. Middle class are usually petty bourgeoisie/proletariat. They still work for wages (or salaries) and have little say in the economic hierarchy.

Secondly, its only important that you reject your class. Materialism is of course a very important cornerstone of practically everything we do, yet you have to consider how it is interpretted.

If somebody is poor they are undoubtably more likely to commit "crimes" (in the bourgeoisie defintion)

That doesn't mean, however, that everybody that is poor will resort to crime. Material conditions heavily sway things but its not an absolutist concept. I simply refuse to accept that fact that we have no freewill and are indefinietely bonded to our class. Although it is a dangerous tendency. Watch out.

[*PRC*Kensei]

If goods arnt devided fair, one will have more as the other, and the other will have less than the one, and the other wants the same and will try to steal it...

but.. when the one who has more than the other, and wants mor anyway...then he's a darn capitalist :P

naaa, i blaim the diffirence between rich and poor when it comes to "crimes commited by the poor"... been in bulgaria this summer, anyone sais the "roma" are thiefs, but it's simpel to say that if you see the live in what i would call a garderhouse & cant find work anywhere cause they are roma... capitalist causes crimes commited by "the poor".

mmmm thats bad-formulated :P

[chebol]

James wrote:
I heard that you had to be 5'9, brown hair, grey eyes, working class accent, and be working class (and be able to prove working class ancestors for at least 3 generations).

Arglywydd mawr! I'm three inches off!!!!!
I knew those bloody Saxa-Coburg ancestors would stuff things up (George IV), no matter how many miners we got in.

I guess I had better resign myself to writing tawdry poetry instead.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:46 AM
James wrote:
I heard that you had to be 5'9, brown hair, grey eyes, working class accent, and be working class (and be able to prove working class ancestors for at least 3 generations).

Does being 5 foot 9 and working class, but with black hair and blue eyes count? :lol:

[OleMarxco]

But what if you had upper-class in your family -BEFORE- the 3 generation's (which is the case of alot of ex-Noble's and Burgerouise) Eh? ;)
I suppose I'm Middle-Class - But my mother is definately working class. And I respect that choiche to work at the bottom very much, actually, which was part of what led me to'ris shit...Revolution, aye? We need to remove all these unnessecarry borders and boxes put around people. Enough money-beurocracy...

[STI]

Morality is the most important reason to become a leftist

I really don't think it is. Morality is totally disconnected from material reality and can be manipulated very easily. Leftism is about an objective examination of the material world and the collective self-interest of the working class.


After all if Marx didn't view it as morally wrong to exploit the working man, he wouldn't have written about it

Maybe Marx was a scientist and he simply wrote what he saw was going on in capitalism. He never, ever said "OMG That's wrong!". He said it was in the interests of the working class to overthrow capitalism because it is exploitative.


proposed a system under which there would no exploitation.

Actually, he said that communism was the inevitable result of the overthrow of capitalism by the working class.


2) Happiness. Material isnt happiness. If someone believes happiness is something money cant buy, then it doesnt matter how much they have.

Communism is about material gain. It's about getting all the shit we've never been able to because we're held down and exploited. We're communists, not Buddhists.


Upper-class is usually bourgeoisie. Middle class are usually petty bourgeoisie/proletariat. They still work for wages (or salaries) and have little say in the economic hierarchy.

That's why I don't use "upper class" and "middle class" unless somebody else starts with those terms. They're next to meaningless objectively.


That doesn't mean, however, that everybody that is poor will resort to crime. Material conditions heavily sway things but its not an absolutist concept.

Not every worker will be a communist.

But that really doesn't have much to do with anything.


I simply refuse to accept that fact that we have no freewill and are indefinietely bonded to our class

Well, whether you believe it or not, it's true. The fact that you "refuse" to believe it is irrelivant.

And you still havn't answered my main objection: that, even with free will, bourgeois have no reason to want communism. So then why?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I really don't think it is. Morality is totally disconnected from material reality and can be manipulated very easily. Leftism is about an objective examination of the material world and the collective self-interest of the working class.

Quite true. However people in general, I'd guess, are not drawn at first to leftist ideas becuse they want to find "an objective examination of the material world and the collective self-interest of the working class". They are drawn to leftist ideas because they see things they think are morally wrong, children dying of hunger, sweatshops etc. Then once they start to learn about leftist ideas, then they begin to examine "the material world and the collective self-interest of the working class".


Maybe Marx was a scientist and he simply wrote what he saw was going on in capitalism. He never, ever said "OMG That's wrong!". He said it was in the interests of the working class to overthrow capitalism because it is exploitative.

Oh come on. Unless Marx found Capitalism wrong on a moral basis, why would he spend so much time writing about alternatives. Are you seriously saying Marx did all of this from a detached perspective and had no real dislike for Capitalism?


Actually, he said that communism was the inevitable result of the overthrow of capitalism by the working class.

That is where Marx took a scientific viewpoint. He quite rightly, thought that people would only take a certain amount of exploitation until they finally overthrew their exploiters.

[STI]

Quite true. However people in general, I'd guess, are not drawn at first to leftist ideas becuse they want to find "an objective examination of the material world and the collective self-interest of the working class"

I've found just the opposite. The best thing I've ever said to anybody was "ever notice how when you're at work, it makes you feel like shit?" As long as it's done in plain language, free of needless jargon, people are quite receptive to things that are in their own interest.


They are drawn to leftist ideas because they see things they think are morally wrong, children dying of hunger, sweatshops etc

People are drawn to humanitarianism, not leftism, because of that stuff.


Unless Marx found Capitalism wrong on a moral basis, why would he spend so much time writing about alternatives

Actually, I don't think he spent a great deal of time talking about alternatives, compared to how much time he spent on explaining and examining capitalism itself. And the alternative, a classless society, he said, was the inevitable result of the working class taking power, not the "most moral alternative".


Are you seriously saying Marx did all of this from a detached perspective and had no real dislike for Capitalism?

Where did I say that? Of course Marx didn't like capitalism. He was fucking poor! It was about self-interest, though. He didn't say "oh, I think capitalism is morally wrong" (hell, he probably didn't even believe in morality), he said "capitalism blows for us poor folks. It's in my interest to get the hell rid of it".


He quite rightly, thought that people would only take a certain amount of exploitation until they finally overthrew their exploiters

But not because exploitation is "morally wrong", which it isn't, but because those exploited people won't like it much, as exploitation isn't a very fun thing to be subjected to.

[Luís Henrique]

i'm 17

It happens. It is also usually curable. ;)


this morning, when i whas discussing a protest action against the local "facist" party with my marxist mates, some people came up to me and said:
"dont act like your left, your a damn capitalist, you dont sare stuff, you'r a gamer, blablabl"

You would be a capitalist if you owned capital. If you don't, you are not a capitalist. A capitalist is a private owner of means of production. Anyone who comes to you and says you are a capitalist because you own consumption goods is either not a marxist, or a very lazy one.

And if you were a capitalist, and wanted to "act like you were left", so? Those guys seem to imply that if "you don't share stuff", ie, if you don't share your means of production, you cannot be a leftist. But this is Christianism at best (sell your goods and give to the poor), not Marxism. A marxist knows that capitalists "sharing" their "stuff" is irrelevant to class struggle.


now this bullshit shocked me,

It is an old right-wing strategy: to divide the opposition. The only shocking thing here is the fact that, if I understand your post correctly, this argument is being used by wannabe leftists.


and i now have this question to the community: can i be a true leftist if:

You can be a "true" leftist - whatever that means - if you truly believe things that are truly leftist. What comes to discussion, then is if you can truly believe - or even understand - those things under the conditions you list below. Let's see them.


- my dad aint a proletarier, he's die hard free-market guy, however he votes more or less left.

Many proletarians are "die hard free-market guys"; there is no contradiction between those things. A proletarian is someone who cannot make a living except by selling his/her labour force. A "die hard free-market guy" is someone who believes that society is best organised in what they would call "a free-market system" - or what we would call a capitalist system.


- we earn... a bit more mony than the average fammily in belgium...

Capitalists pay different wages for different workers. If we were going to play this game, we would come to the absurd of considering underpaid workers "privileged" if they just have a job - considering those many who don't have one.

It is not your, or your father's, fault, if the capitalists value his labour more than others'.


- I'm not the worker type, havnt worked jet... i'm more the study/philosofy type.

You are 17.

We - the working class - have fought hard to prevent children from working.


- i'll work when needed, but i'm not.........a worker :o

You will be, don't delude yourself.


- I'm a gamer, buying games from BIG imperialist companies, like EA.

Are there other companies that produce games?

In a capitalist system, you buy things produced by capitalist companies or you die. That is the meaning of the phrase, monopoly of means of production. OK, you won't die if you don't play games, but what the heck?


- i've got a high-tech pc... a false need.

Says who?

If you feel you need a high-tech PC, then you need a high-tech PC. What is wrong, false, or anti-socialist about that?


- i'm not like the uber social type...

So?

Many die-hard right-wingers are ueber-social. How else would they win elections? ;)


however:


- i'm 100% anti-racist/facist.

This excludes only the far-right, not center or moderate right. On second thought, it excludes only a variant of the far-right. The ultra-"libertarian" far-right isn't fascist, not even necessarily racist.


- I've got true...socialist feelings.

What is a "true" socialist feeling?


- i believe in it.

In what?


- read marx & other leftist writers...

And understood them?


- 100% multi-cultural.

From my very partial, third-world point-of-view, this seems to be rather a right-wing characteristic, but, of course, I could be wrong. What exactly does that mean?


- i've got major sympathy for the workers.

What is "simpathy", and why do you have it for workers?


now: can i be a true leftist without beeying a real proletatian ?

Sure. If you weigh like a duck, you are a witch, and therefore... a COMMUNIST!

Luís Henrique

[Amusing Scrotum]

I've found just the opposite. The best thing I've ever said to anybody was "ever notice how when you're at work, it makes you feel like shit?" As long as it's done in plain language, free of needless jargon, people are quite receptive to things that are in their own interest.

This strategy tends to work well until you mention Communism or Socialism, then you tend to get all the dull statements like "it didn't work in Russia." Personally when I try to promote Socialism/Communism I refer to the ills of Capitalism in the third world etc. and try to appeal to peoples humanitarean side.
I suppose each to his own.


People are drawn to humanitarianism, not leftism, because of that stuff.

The two aren't totally different. Che Guervarra was more of a humanist before he devoloped his own ideas regarding Communism.


Actually, I don't think he spent a great deal of time talking about alternatives, compared to how much time he spent on explaining and examining capitalism itself. And the alternative, a classless society, he said, was the inevitable result of the working class taking power, not the "most moral alternative".

I suppose you are right about that one.


Where did I say that? Of course Marx didn't like capitalism. He was fucking poor! It was about self-interest, though. He didn't say "oh, I think capitalism is morally wrong" (hell, he probably didn't even believe in morality), he said "capitalism blows for us poor folks. It's in my interest to get the hell rid of it".


Marx wasn't that poor, he was well educated and had some very good jobs. I always thought his lack of wealth came about because of his ideas rather than the lack of wealth forming his ideas.


But not because exploitation is "morally wrong", which it isn't, but because those exploited people won't like it much, as exploitation isn't a very fun thing to be subjected to.


Exploitation is to some extent morally wrong, but, it is definetely a horrible thing to be subjected to.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 13 2005, 03:20 PM

i'm 17

It happens. It is also usually curable. ;)


this morning, when i whas discussing a protest action against the local "facist" party with my marxist mates, some people came up to me and said:
"dont act like your left, your a damn capitalist, you dont sare stuff, you'r a gamer, blablabl"

You would be a capitalist if you owned capital. If you don't, you are not a capitalist. A capitalist is a private owner of means of production. Anyone who comes to you and says you are a capitalist because you own consumption goods is either not a marxist, or a very lazy one.

And if you were a capitalist, and wanted to "act like you were left", so? Those guys seem to imply that if "you don't share stuff", ie, if you don't share your means of production, you cannot be a leftist. But this is Christianism at best (sell your goods and give to the poor), not Marxism. A marxist knows that capitalists "sharing" their "stuff" is irrelevant to class struggle.


now this bullshit shocked me,

It is an old right-wing strategy: to divide the opposition. The only shocking thing here is the fact that, if I understand your post correctly, this argument is being used by wannabe leftists.


and i now have this question to the community: can i be a true leftist if:

You can be a "true" leftist - whatever that means - if you truly believe things that are truly leftist. What comes to discussion, then is if you can truly believe - or even understand - those things under the conditions you list below. Let's see them.


- my dad aint a proletarier, he's die hard free-market guy, however he votes more or less left.

Many proletarians are "die hard free-market guys"; there is no contradiction between those things. A proletarian is someone who cannot make a living except by selling his/her labour force. A "die hard free-market guy" is someone who believes that society is best organised in what they would call "a free-market system" - or what we would call a capitalist system.


- we earn... a bit more mony than the average fammily in belgium...

Capitalists pay different wages for different workers. If we were going to play this game, we would come to the absurd of considering underpaid workers "privileged" if they just have a job - considering those many who don't have one.

It is not your, or your father's, fault, if the capitalists value his labour more than others'.


- I'm not the worker type, havnt worked jet... i'm more the study/philosofy type.

You are 17.

We - the working class - have fought hard to prevent children from working.


- i'll work when needed, but i'm not.........a worker* :o

You will be, don't delude yourself.


- I'm a gamer, buying games from BIG imperialist companies, like EA.

Are there other companies that produce games?

In a capitalist system, you buy things produced by capitalist companies or you die. That is the meaning of the phrase, monopoly of means of production. OK, you won't die if you don't play games, but what the heck?


- i've got a high-tech pc... a false need.

Says who?

If you feel you need a high-tech PC, then you need a high-tech PC. What is wrong, false, or anti-socialist about that?


- i'm not like the uber social type...

So?

Many die-hard right-wingers are ueber-social. How else would they win elections? ;)


however:


- i'm 100% anti-racist/facist.

This excludes only the far-right, not center or moderate right. On second thought, it excludes only a variant of the far-right. The ultra-"libertarian" far-right isn't fascist, not even necessarily racist.


- I've got true...socialist feelings.

What is a "true" socialist feeling?


- i believe in it.

In what?


- read marx & other leftist writers...

And understood them?


- 100% multi-cultural.

From my very partial, third-world point-of-view, this seems to be rather a right-wing characteristic, but, of course, I could be wrong. What exactly does that mean?


- i've got major sympathy for the workers.

What is "simpathy", and why do you have it for workers?


now: can i be a true leftist without beeying a real proletatian ?

Sure. If you weigh like a duck, you are a witch, and therefore... a COMMUNIST!

Luís Henrique
eeem,big post, i'll try to react to it, not gonna cut your post into peaces, so you have a little work on figuring out what i'm reacting to:

- I know the term capitalist, but they dont.
- My dad isnt a proletarier AND a free market guy, never said those words ment the same. My dad works for the goverment, And strongly believes in the current. market economy (its his proffecion)

what else did you said.... ow yea:
- about the anti-racism: in my country "beeing against anyone who isnt here for atleast 3 generations" is becoming more and more centre-right thoughts, a very populair thought. Belgians dont love immigrants, trust me.
- About the multi-cultural stuff: right ? nothing right to that ? it's just that the colour or the country he came from of my neighbour are my last worries these days.

about the game comanies, offcourse there are others (like atari) but their...all the same in the end ;) EA is just best example of a HUDGE company.

i believe in... the fact that a socialist world would be a better one.
and "simpathy" is a tottaly mis-spelled word meaning i support them ;)

:unsure:
and i'm bussy understanding marx & other leftist writers.

[Luís Henrique]

eeem,big post, i'll try to react to it, not gonna cut your post into peaces, so you have a little work on figuring out what i'm reacting to:

;)


- I know the term capitalist, but they dont.

So their opinion about those issues shouldn't have much weight, should it?


- My dad isnt a proletarier AND a free market guy, never said those words ment the same. My dad works for the goverment, And strongly believes in the current. market economy (its his proffecion)

So, basically, he sells his work force for a living, doesn't he?


- about the anti-racism: in my country "beeing against anyone who isnt here for atleast 3 generations" is becoming more and more centre-right thoughts, a very populair thought. Belgians dont love immigrants, trust me.

Very sad thing. But I wouldn't say that this is becoming a centre-right thought. I would say Belgium - and, I suppose, Belgian "moderate right" parties - is, and are, becoming more far-rightist.


- About the multi-cultural stuff: right ? nothing right to that ? it's just that the colour or the country he came from of my neighbour are my last worries these days.

Here, "multiculturalism" seems to me a clear imperialist strategy to break the political and cultural unity of my country. Perhaps it is different in Belgium.


about the game comanies, offcourse there are others (like atari) but their...all the same in the end ;) EA is just best example of a HUDGE company.

I know there are other companies, but all of them are capitalist companies. And the other companies do not produce exactly the same games, too.


i believe in... the fact that a socialist world would be a better one.

So do I, but why? And what is socialism?


and "simpathy" is a tottaly mis-spelled word meaning i support them ;)

Sure, but why do you support them? And how?


and i'm bussy understanding marx & other leftist writers.

Yes, it takes a time. And patience. And a lot of work. It is also worth the pain.

;)

Luís Henrique

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 13 2005, 03:59 PM

eeem,big post, i'll try to react to it, not gonna cut your post into peaces, so you have a little work on figuring out what i'm reacting to:

;)


- I know the term capitalist, but they dont.

So their opinion about those issues shouldn't have much weight, should it?


- My dad isnt a proletarier AND a free market guy, never said those words ment the same. My dad works for the goverment, And strongly believes in the current. market economy (its his proffecion)

So, basically, he sells his work force for a living, doesn't he?


- about the anti-racism: in my country "beeing against anyone who isnt here for atleast 3 generations" is becoming more and more centre-right thoughts, a very populair thought. Belgians dont love immigrants, trust me.

Very sad thing. But I wouldn't say that this is becoming a centre-right thought. I would say Belgium - and, I suppose, Belgian "moderate right" parties - is, and are, becoming more far-rightist.


- About the multi-cultural stuff: right ? nothing right to that ? it's just that the colour or the country he came from of my neighbour are my last worries these days.

Here, "multiculturalism" seems to me a clear imperialist strategy to break the political and cultural unity of my country. Perhaps it is different in Belgium.


about the game comanies, offcourse there are others (like atari) but their...all the same in the end* ;)* EA is just best example of a HUDGE company.

I know there are other companies, but all of them are capitalist companies. And the other companies do not produce exactly the same games, too.


i believe in... the fact that a socialist world would be a better one.

So do I, but why? And what is socialism?


and "simpathy" is a tottaly mis-spelled word meaning i support them* ;)

Sure, but why do you support them? And how?


and i'm bussy understanding marx & other leftist writers.

Yes, it takes a time. And patience. And a lot of work. It is also worth the pain.

;)

Luís Henrique
So, basically, he sells his work force for a living, doesn't he?

-> he's an economical advisor, he trades hi's experience for a living...so yea his work force, but he's a real beaurocrat. (or however you spell it)

So do I, but why? And what is socialism?

-> its a systhem where .... arch, i'll leave that explanation to others :P aint got all day :P And i support is mainly cause i they the currest systhem is damn wrong...

Sure, but why do you support them? And how?

-> planning to go work for the workers-union. Also i support them in a way foorball fans support their players ;) and Why ? sombody has to do the work that makes our economy & society flow... and i think the onces we build on should be treated well. Their the cornerstone of evry capitalist country. and they suffered a lot in the past, the past may be gone now, but they never had a compansation for all the suffer they had in last century and those before.

[perdido]

I feel that I have a similar situation. I live in the U.S. and am most definetely a member of a middle-class family, I'm also 17. However I choose to believe in leftist ideas because I am disgusted with this capitalist system. I almost never buy things new, there is no need for it. I am in the process of rejecting my class. I work for everything I need, I refuse financial assistance from my parents and try to explain to them why but they do not understand. I use my own money and time to build computers for the elderly and homeless shelters so everyone can experience this wonderfull thing called the internet. I believe that computers and the internet should be available to everyone and I will continue working for that. So I guess I am lost in my political views but socialism has appeared to me as a light of hope.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

I am an ex-petite bourgeiose (please excuse my spelling), meaning high middle - class, American. My dad is unemployed now, and my mom is a Teacher's Assistant. I just want to give you some advice: Freeware. I'm a computer geek too, and the best games are freeware. Just don't buy a new PC for a while, and don't buy EA games stuff. Or buy the PC from a third-party company and run Linux or some other Unix like thing on it. I'm just starting this Open Source stuff, but trust me, there are great freeware games (google: Wolfenstein Enemy Territory).

[STI]

This strategy tends to work well until you mention Communism or Socialism, then you tend to get all the dull statements like "it didn't work in Russia."

Oh! I know! It's terrible! Then I have to spend like 10 seconds saying "When I say 'communism', I mean a classless stateless society. Russia/China were state monopoly capitalist (socialist)".

Besides, most people are usually sharp enough to pick up pretty quickly that the type of society I want is a good deal different than the Soviet Union.


Personally when I try to promote Socialism/Communism I refer to the ills of Capitalism in the third world etc

I don't quite see how this strategy would avoid the "Russia was communist" response you so dread.


and try to appeal to peoples humanitarean side.

I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think humanitarianism (based entirely in morality) is a decent base for being a communist.

Besides, what does people saying "It didn't work in Russia" have to do with being a leftist because of morality?


I suppose each to his own.

See, I don't like that kind of approach. I really don't think your strategy will produce many long-lasting, serious leftists.


Che Guervarra was more of a humanist before he devoloped his own ideas regarding Communism.

I'll assume you mean "humanitarian" here...

I've read a good deal of Che's writings, and sure he uses a bunch of angry humanitarian rhetoric, but how much of that was serious, and how much was just him trying to rile up support?

Che was in a much different situation than us. He was an anti-imperialist who was part of anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world. He probably saw socialist revolutions as the most effective means of liberating country X.

And, think about it. He definately had some self-interest in leading socialst revolutions.


Marx wasn't that poor, he was well educated and had some very good jobs.

He couldn't afford a coffin for his daughter who died because he couldn't afford medicine. He was poor. He came from a rich background, but rest assured, he was poor.


I always thought his lack of wealth came about because of his ideas rather than the lack of wealth forming his ideas.

The forming of his ideas came necessarily from his objective examination of capitalism. He saw that there were the proletarians who sold their labour power to the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production. He saw that the proletarians were exploited in this situation and predicted that the inevitable result was revolution.


Exploitation is to some extent morally wrong,.

See, I really don't think exploitation is morally wrong.

What makes it wrong?

[Black Dagger]

What makes it wrong?

Because it's 'mean'! :lol:

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:30 AM
I am an ex-petite bourgeiose (please excuse my spelling), meaning high middle - class, American. My dad is unemployed now, and my mom is a Teacher's Assistant. I just want to give you some advice: Freeware. I'm a computer geek too, and the best games are freeware. Just don't buy a new PC for a while, and don't buy EA games stuff. Or buy the PC from a third-party company and run Linux or some other Unix like thing on it. I'm just starting this Open Source stuff, but trust me, there are great freeware games (google: Wolfenstein Enemy Territory).
yea,

wolf ET is free,
Amerikan army is free ( BUT WE ARE NOT GONNA PLAY THAT ARE WE :P :P :P ??)
Counterstrike1.6 is free,

but i'm an ut2004 player (and a good one ;) )

But lets get back on toppic :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Oh! I know! It's terrible! Then I have to spend like 10 seconds saying "When I say 'communism', I mean a classless stateless society. Russia/China were state monopoly capitalist (socialist)".

Besides, most people are usually sharp enough to pick up pretty quickly that the type of society I want is a good deal different than the Soviet Union.

Oh yeah because people are so fickle, dumb and gullable. That when I tell them the Soviet Union, China etc. are State Capitalist, they will instantly agree with me. I am disagreeing with what they have been told in school, seen in the media, heard Polliticians tell them and perhaps most importantly, what self proclaimed Communists have told them. Yet they will disregard all of this and agree with me. Why would they possibly agree with me? Who am I to go against everything they know about the subject, telling them everything they think they know is wrong.
If winning over ignorant arguments was as easy as you say, then the Communist Cause would be growing by the day.


I don't quite see how this strategy would avoid the "Russia was communist" response you so dread.

I doesn't. It just makes it easier for me to make the case for Communism. By telling people about the crimes of Capitalism first, I find it makes it easier to then suggest Communism as an alternative.
Perhaps I didn't clarify this well enough in my other posts.


I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think humanitarianism (based entirely in morality) is a decent base for being a communist.

Not based entirely in morality. Based upon recognition of the human suffering and oppression that Capitalism inflicts on your fellow man.


See, I don't like that kind of approach. I really don't think your strategy will produce many long-lasting, serious leftists.

Maybe it won't, but, how many "long-lasting, serious leftists" has your strategy produced?


I'll assume you mean "humanitarian" here...

I've read a good deal of Che's writings, and sure he uses a bunch of angry humanitarian rhetoric, but how much of that was serious, and how much was just him trying to rile up support?

Che was in a much different situation than us. He was an anti-imperialist who was part of anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world. He probably saw socialist revolutions as the most effective means of liberating country X.

And, think about it. He definately had some self-interest in leading socialst revolutions

My point was that Che orginally saw the suffering in Latin America and was depressed with it and cared about it. Only later did he come to the conclusion that Socialism/Communism would solve these problems.


He couldn't afford a coffin for his daughter who died because he couldn't afford medicine. He was poor. He came from a rich background, but rest assured, he was poor.


The forming of his ideas came necessarily from his objective examination of capitalism. He saw that there were the proletarians who sold their labour power to the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production. He saw that the proletarians were exploited in this situation and predicted that the inevitable result was revolution.

I don't know enough about Marx's life, to hold any kind of debate on what formed his ideas.


See, I really don't think exploitation is morally wrong.

What makes it wrong?

What makes it right?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 7 2005, 07:46 AM
yo,first read this little story:

i'm 17
this morning, when i whas discussing a protest action against the local "facist" party with my marxist mates, some people came up to me and said:
"dont act like your left, your a damn capitalist, you dont sare stuff, you'r a gamer, blablabl"

now this bullshit shocked me, and i now have this question to the community: can i be a true leftist if:

- my dad aint a proletarier, he's die hard free-market guy, however he votes more or less left.
- we earn... a bit more mony than the average fammily in belgium...
- I'm not the worker type, havnt worked jet... i'm more the study/philosofy type.
- i'll work when needed, but i'm not.........a worker :o
- I'm a gamer, buying games from BIG imperialist companies, like EA.
- i've got a high-tech pc... a false need.
- i'm not like the uber social type...

however:
- i'm 100% anti-racist/facist.
- I've got true...socialist feelings.
- i believe in it.
- read marx & other leftist writers...
- i try to do anything i can to prevent racism
- 100% multi-cultural.
- i've got major sympathy for the workers.


now: can i be a true leftist without beeying a real proletatian ?
Sounds very similar to me.

[STI]

This strategy tends to work well until you mention Communism or Socialism, then you tend to get all the dull statements like "it didn't work in Russia."

Oh! I know! It's terrible! Then I have to spend like 10 seconds saying "When I say 'communism', I mean a classless stateless society. Russia/China were state monopoly capitalist (socialist)".

Besides, most people are usually sharp enough to pick up pretty quickly that the type of society I want is a good deal different than the Soviet Union.


Personally when I try to promote Socialism/Communism I refer to the ills of Capitalism in the third world etc

I don't quite see how this strategy would avoid the "Russia was communist" response you so dread.


and try to appeal to peoples humanitarean side.

I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think humanitarianism (based entirely in morality) is a decent base for being a communist.

Besides, what does people saying "It didn't work in Russia" have to do with being a leftist because of morality?


I suppose each to his own.

See, I don't like that kind of approach. I really don't think your strategy will produce many long-lasting, serious leftists.


Che Guervarra was more of a humanist before he devoloped his own ideas regarding Communism.

I'll assume you mean "humanitarian" here...

I've read a good deal of Che's writings, and sure he uses a bunch of angry humanitarian rhetoric, but how much of that was serious, and how much was just him trying to rile up support?

Che was in a much different situation than us. He was an anti-imperialist who was part of anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world. He probably saw socialist revolutions as the most effective means of liberating country X.

And, think about it. He definately had some self-interest in leading socialst revolutions.


Marx wasn't that poor, he was well educated and had some very good jobs.

He couldn't afford a coffin for his daughter who died because he couldn't afford medicine. He was poor. He came from a rich background, but rest assured, he was poor.


I always thought his lack of wealth came about because of his ideas rather than the lack of wealth forming his ideas.

The forming of his ideas came necessarily from his objective examination of capitalism. He saw that there were the proletarians who sold their labour power to the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production. He saw that the proletarians were exploited in this situation and predicted that the inevitable result was revolution.


Exploitation is to some extent morally wrong,.

See, I really don't think exploitation is morally wrong.

What makes it wrong?

[black magick hustla]

Actually,

The most influential figures in revolutionary history where hardcore altruists. Many of them came from privilieged families, and at the end, they felt very disgusted with the capitalist system.

However, the revolution itself, is mostly powered by the masses who have materialist reasons.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

hey dude, I'm in the same boat as you, come from an upper-middle class family, very comfortable etc. However, I feel it is the ideals that trully matter. I too am more academic and I don't know if I ever will trully be a worker, just isn't where my talents lie. However, I have already worked for unions etc. doing other things. And, as other have said, Mr. Marx, Engells, Che etc. where all middle to upper class.

[Insomniac]

Well considering that Im from a middle class background and now I have grown up and now work in advertising and market research management, I should NOT be a leftist of any type, according to the posts of STI.

Under the materialist conditions of capitalism, Im AM better off under this system from my own standpoint as this system can get me rich, give me status etc...

However my leftist views are formed on a MORAL standpoint as I have no material incentive to reject capitalism, only my moral views have led me to reject it.

But if I cannot oppose capitalism from a moral standpoint, then prehaps I should give up on all this revolution stuff and just sign up as a member of the Conservative Party and attend Republican fund raising dinner parties!

[slim]

All the early leaders of communism were from the middle class. You shouldnt let STI alienate you. The bourgoise are the enemy, the middle class are just pawns in their struggle and usually their scapegoats. This has led me to believe that the middle classes have as much right if not more right to revolt.

[Black Dagger]

Yup, the petty-bourgeoisie are 'poor' scapegoats for the big bad capitalist class :lol:


All the early leaders of communism were from the middle class.

So the 'middle class' as you call it, are the 'leadership' class ay? The 'middle class' produces good and intelligent leaders, who needs the WC?!!

The petty-bourgeoisie are materially disposed and conditioned to support capitalism. Maintaing the 'comfort' of their lifestyle (from which they can look down upon the 'unwashed masses') relies on maintaining their 'favourable' relationship to the means of production, on maintaing capitalist social relations. They can produce 'leaders'- but they usually of the worst-kind, reformists- liberals, social-democrats, state-capitalist authoritarian. It's not the 'guidance' and 'leadership' of the 'middle class' that we (the proletariat) need, but the strength and unity of working people, such that we can emancipate ourselves, not rely upon the 'charity' and 'morals' of the petty-bourgeoisie.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:18 AM
hey dude, I'm in the same boat as you, come from an upper-middle class family, very comfortable etc. However, I feel it is the ideals that trully matter. I too am more academic and I don't know if I ever will trully be a worker, just isn't where my talents lie. However, I have already worked for unions etc. doing other things. And, as other have said, Mr. Marx, Engells, Che etc. where all middle to upper class.
But Ché whas a fighter... he whas an active revolutarian. But it doesnt mather :)

[Luís Henrique]

So the 'middle class' as you call it, are the 'leadership' class ay? The 'middle class' produces good and intelligent leaders, who needs the WC?!!

Yes, this is one of the most annoying things about middle class leftists: that some of them somehow believe that they are either mandated to lead the masses, or that they are morally superior to the masses because their revolt is based on "morals not in interests". :rolleyes:

I really don't care why people first get attracted by socialist thinking. It may well be something as silly as the Sociology 101 teacher being both a commie and a babe, or because everybody at home is already lefty and they just get along, or, on the contrary, because they have a normal teenage need to stick out from their families, parental authority, etc.

I do care why people continue to hold socialist standpoints, though - even if they are not from middle class origins. If it is because it makes them feel superior to others, they are in the wrong way. There are easier ways to feel morally superior to others; making some money and converting to Calvinism comes to mind.


It's not the 'guidance' and 'leadership' of the 'middle class' that we (the proletariat) need, but the strength and unity of working people, such that we can emancipate ourselves, not rely upon the 'charity' and 'morals' of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Yes, that's it. They may bring a lot of useful knowledge, and even earnest enthusiasm and disposition for struggle. But they should leave their hierarchical dispositions on the other side of the fence.

Luís Henrique

[slim]

I never said it was the "leadership class" as you called it. Your putting words in my mouth. Im just saying that the middle classes should be included in the struggle against the bourgoise. Have no illusions i am not middle class so its not as if "im advocating myself and my class" type thing.

[STI]

All the early leaders of communism were from the middle class. You shouldnt let STI alienate you. The bourgoise are the enemy, the middle class are just pawns in their struggle and usually their scapegoats. This has led me to believe that the middle classes have as much right if not more right to revolt.


Well that's just beautiful, except that it has no practical meaning since you havn't defined "middle class".

You also took a shot at me without actually addressing anything I'd said, which simply enriches the quality of your post


Well considering that Im from a middle class background and now I have grown up and now work in advertising and market research management, I should NOT be a leftist of any type, according to the posts of STI.

You have no material interest in the overthrow of capitalism. Since material interest is one of the driving forces of history, I don't expect moralistic leftism to last or become a very potent force in the long run.

Also, Marxism is thoroughly materialist. Morals are completely idealist. The two are diametrically opposed.

And what moral objection do you have to capitalism?


I never said it was the "leadership class" as you called it. Your putting words in my mouth. Im just saying that the middle classes should be included in the struggle against the bourgoise. Have no illusions i am not middle class so its not as if "im advocating myself and my class" type thing.

You still need to define "middle class" for that to mean anything.

[slim]

Middle Class

Its between working class and the bourgoise. The managers, skilled workers and those who get better pay than the majority of the owrking class but are also subject to persecution from the bourgoise for mistakes not their fault, alienated by a jealous working class and persecuted by the tax man.

These poeple to me are the working class. All slaves of the bourgoise should have the right to rise up as equals.

[STI]

Skilled workers are still workers, so I don't really consider them "middle class". When I talk about class, it's not about "how much money you make", it has to do with your relation to the means of produciton.

Managers benefit materially from the exploitation of the working class and actively facilitate it. Fuck 'em.

[slim]

Managers are still not the means of production and the bourgoise can drop them as they please. They are still expendable to them.

The bourgoise control the means of production.

[STI]

Where did I say managers were synonomous with bourgeoisie?

A CEO is, by your definition, "expendable", but he's sure as hell not working class!

[slim]

A CEO is bourgoise.

Managers are middle class

Blue and white collar workers are working class.

Managers are not the bourgoise. Therefore they should not be seen as the enemy.


That is my point. Maybe we lost eachothers points a long way back but this is what ive been trying to say.

[STI]

A CEO doesn't necessarily own the means of production. He's basically just a high-level manager.

He still benefits from the exploitation of the working class, though, and actively participates in making sure that exploitation happens, just like a manager.

There's really no difference. I'm thinking that you're just trying to justify sympathy for managers because yourself or somebody close to you in closely tied to or part of that group.

[*PRC*Kensei]

k...

today i got more then sick of the society... cant stand it anymore... people only interessed in their own profit... leaving work to others... Discriminating... consuming... ackting like little childs... not concerned about the furture... just thinking about themselves... profit... :ph34r:

Democracy seems to be chaos...

how do i revolt ? :blink:

[slim]

STI,

The managers do not care about profit as much as the "final product".

Kensei,

The HRA or you can be "patient" and "wait for the time" which basically means wait till someone else does something.

[STI]

The managers do not care about profit as much as the "final product".

They care about the final product as a means of maximizing profit (if the end product has no use-value because it was put together like shit, it has no exchange-value and that labour was wasted and cannot be extracted as profit).

And the fact that he doesn't get the profit directly doesn't change the fact that the manager benefits materially from the exploitation of the workers or that, since being determines consciousness, a manager will be predisposed to have a very anti-worker, pro-classist outlook.

Sure, you'll always have anomolies. That's one unavoidable aspect of all the social sciences. But the general trend of the group shouldn't be a question.

Also, you should always look at *why* the anomolies are anomolies. My explaination was that they feel like they have some kind of moral obligation, which ins't a very solid basis for leftism.

[slim]

I know quite a lot of managers and i can say that none of them are pro-classist or anti-worker.

It is propagandist to assume things. Im not blaming you in person but sometimes ideas can be manipulated. The anti worker idea may be because managers are trained to motivate workers and tell them what to do to get things done. I hate authority but i dont think that classing them as the bourgoisie or alienating them from the working class is just. Alienation leads to suffering. Suffering that is not deserved.

Do chara,

Slim. Sil Anmachadhra.

[STI]

I know quite a lot of managers and i can say that none of them are pro-classist or anti-worker.

Yet they actively participate in and materially benefit from the exploitation of the workers. :rolleyes:


It is propagandist to assume things

No, it's rational, when adequate evidence is available.

I'll always assume that Chlorine and Sodium will form an ionic bond to make table salt. Why? Evidence suggests that it will always be so.

Like I said before, the social sciences aren't so clean-cut, but I'd bet the world to nothing that, aside from a small number of anomolies, managers will never be revolutionary. I've said why a crapload of times, and I've gone into why I don't think those anomolies are very important. If you'd like to actually address those conclusions, you're more than welcome to. But I'm getting a bit tired of having to bring up the same points over and over again.


The anti worker idea may be because managers are trained to motivate workers and tell them what to do to get things done

Ya, managers are just motivational speakers with white collars, trying to pump up the workers into feeling good about themselves and giving them some good-natured guidance when needed :rolleyes:

You've got to be kidding me. Do you actually think that's the real role of managers in capitalism?


i dont think that classing them as the bourgoisie

I've never said that they were bourgeoisie. In fact, I think I've said the opposite. They don't own the means of production, so it's impossible for them to be bourgeoisie. I've said that they were the shop-floor strong-arms of the bourgeoisie, and that, when push comes to shove, most of them will be against us (for reasons I've gone into already).


or that alienating them from the working class is just

It's not about "just" or "unjust" (moralistic, subjective, meaningless terms in themselves), it's about "factually correct" and "factually incorrect". I'm not "alienating" them, I'm pointing out the fact that they are objectively separate from the working class and have interests which are opposed to ours, and as such, we really shouldn't trust them when it comes to revolution.


Alienation leads to suffering

Well, it'll lead to even more suffering for us workers when they hijack our revolution and become the new bosses, so I won't really lose much sleep over the fact that some managerial prick has "hurt feelings" because I wouldn't trust him to be part of our revolution.

And I wouldn't be so concerned about the "suffering" of those poor, poor managers. They're benefitting just fine from this whole capitalism thing (you know, by fucking us workers over).

You can rest easy knowing that managers wouldn't flinch from seeing your commie ass hanging from a tree once the class conflict spills into the streets.

[slim]

Look you can think what you want. Im also getting tired of repeating myself here.

I know a lot of managers and directors. I have worked with them and i have socialised with them. To know your enemy you must know them, not of them. They are working class!!! They go to the same pubs, drink the same drinks and have many of the same views as the rest of us.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:20 PM
Look you can think what you want. Im also getting tired of repeating myself here.

I know a lot of managers and directors. I have worked with them and i have socialised with them. To know your enemy you must know them, not of them. They are working class!!! They go to the same pubs, drink the same drinks and have many of the same views as the rest of us.
directors...are working class, who are capitalist class then.... :huh:

anyway not worth to get personal on.

[STI]

Im also getting tired of repeating myself here.


If you cared to actually respond to anything I've written, you wouldn't have to. All you're doing is repeating yourself in the face of rational criticism.


I know a lot of managers and directors.

So do I. This isn't going to become a dick-measuring contest over who knows more managers, is it?


To know your enemy you must know them, not of them

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.


They are working class!!!

No they aren't!!!!

See, I used more exclaimation marks, so that makes me right!


They go to the same pubs, drink the same drinks

You can't be serious.


and have many of the same views as the rest of us.

Well, short of a nationwide public opinion poll, which neither you nor I has the resources to conduct, there's no way of knowing that, so the best we can do is speculate. I've offered my speculation and given some rational backing-up of it. If you care to attack that rationally, I invite you to, otherwise, give the world a break and quit repeating your opinion ad nauseum.

[slim]

They do go to the same pubs and drink the same drinks.

General at Sea. Working class pub, also den for managers. They are not in separate groups of the pub but hang around with eachother and have a laugh.

O'Connells bar. VERY working class pub where fights break out all the time (usually over old scores to settle). Managers also go there.

They drink the same drinks. Beer, Lager, Guinness.

We are the same social group whether you see it or not. Most if not all managers are from working class backgrounds. I dont see why they should be persecuted by the working class for the crimes the bourgoisie commit.

[STI]

They do go to the same pubs and drink the same drinks.

I wasn't denying that they probably did. I was saying that it doesn't matter.

"Hey man. Donald Trump drinks Pepsi. I drink Pepsi. We MUST be part of the same class".

Class has to do with your relation to the means of production and your role in the productive process, not where or what you drink.


We are the same social group whether you see it or not

I'm still waiting for you to actually back up that statement.

Watch. I can play your game too.

"We aren't in the same social group, whether you see it or not". See how well I did? Doesn't much constitute an argument, though :(


Most if not all managers are from working class backgrounds

So what? Some members of the bourgeoisie are from working class backgrounds. Does that somehow change the fact that they're the boourgeoisie?

Of course not, if you look at it objectively.

...Oh, that's the real issue though, isn't it? You're refusing to be objective about the issue. You seem to think that just because you know a handful of managers (unlike everybody else in the world, apparently) and they drink where workers drink means that their social function and their role in the productive process is somehow fundamentally different than it actually is.


I dont see why they should be persecuted by the working class for the crimes the bourgoisie commit.

Because they're out there, Monday to Friday, facilitating and committing those "crimes"... and benefitting from them :angry:

[slim]

Im just stressing that they are the same social groups, the same friends. They are allies in the coming war, not enemies.

They facilitate the bourgoisie out of necessity. Are many people content to live in poor conditions and be trodden on by the bosses. If the system of capitalism is there then they might as well manage. Someone has to do it, the fact that they have to tell people what to do is part of capitalism and not a fault of their own.

Kill the man not the messenger.

When capitalism is destroyed i dont want people taking out vendettas against managers and supervisors in some confused orgy of mindless destruction that could be better directed against the bourgoisie and their mercenary armies.

[STI]

When capitalism is destroyed i dont want people taking out vendettas against managers and supervisors in some confused orgy of mindless destruction that could be better directed against the bourgoisie and their mercenary armies.


Well, I'm afraid that it won't be confused or mindless. I expect the majority of managers to be actively defending capitalism, so there won't be much confusion about it.

Jeez, you seem to have a very negative outlook on workers, too. What, do you think the revolution will just be a big bloodbath for the sake of a big bloodbath? Boy, us workers are viscious. We probably need a nice, strong state to keep us in line, too. With you in charge, maybe?


Im just stressing that they are the same social groups, the same friends

And I'm stressing that something like who you're friends with doesn't change what class you're a part of or where we can expect your loyalties to lie when the shit hits the fan.


Are many people content to live in poor conditions and be trodden on by the bosses

Not that long ago, you were talking as though the managers were living in those poor, downtrodden conditions. At least now you're admitting that they're getting some of the goodies of exploitation.


e. Someone has to do it, the fact that they have to tell people what to do is part of capitalism and not a fault of their own.

Now you're sounding like those jerkoffs who run around saying we should "support the troops" because "it's their job".

Nope. Doesn't cut it. Sorry.

[Socialist_Martyr]

My father is the owner of a framing company and i myself have worked for him on several occasions. What he did at the begining was put down that he was paying everyone 15 dollars an hour but in reality he was paying us all 10 dollars an hour and keeping the rest. im fine with 10 dollars an hour but the fact is he was making more money off of cheating us (he gets paid by the project owner). I organized the framers and went on strike untill he stopped. We wemt 4 months without working for him or getting paid and we had to do stuff like pawn stereos and tvs to eat. but in the end he caved and stoped what he was doing. the point is my father make 250000$ a year but i still hate my class and would die to see it abolished.

[STI]

You fucking went on strike against your fucking Dad!?!?

I fucking LOVE you man!

[Socialist_Martyr]

i not only went on strike i went to live with his workers.

[STI]

You've gotta be shitting me, man! That rocks some serious balls.

[slim]

"Jeez, you seem to have a very negative outlook on workers, too. What, do you think the revolution will just be a big bloodbath for the sake of a big bloodbath? Boy, us workers are viscious. We probably need a nice, strong state to keep us in line, too. With you in charge, maybe?"

I dont have a negative outlook on workers at all. Seeing as i am one it would be rather difficult to think negatively of myself, im vain.

Dont be sarcastic. It doesnt help your argument very much, it just makes me question your seriousness and dedication to the revolution. I am anti authoritarian so im against having a big strong state. Me in charge? NO. Me fighting from the front and kicking ass with my tactical and physical skills YES.

As for a big bloodbath for its own sake, dont be stupid. I know what i will fight for. I know what the people will fight for. It will not be to beat the shit out of civilian managers. I want our efforts directed against the cappie loyal police, army and anyone who stands in our way. There will be minimum bloodshed i hope.

Do chara,

Slim. Sil Anmachadhra.

[STI]

I dont have a negative outlook on workers at all. Seeing as i am one it would be rather difficult to think negatively of myself, im vain.

I was simply following your attitude to its logical conclusion.


Dont be sarcastic. It doesnt help your argument very much, it just makes me question your seriousness and dedication to the revolution.

???

I'm sarcastic, therefore I'm not dedicated to the revolution?

If that were true, the revolution would have like 10 dedicated supporters.


Me fighting from the front and kicking ass with my tactical and physical skills YES.

Well, I'll see you there then (only I'll be more in the "spray and pray" category :lol: )



I know what i will fight for.

But, according to you, the workers will just conduct a bloodbath against managers (which, hey, they might, but you seem to think it'll be "confused" and "unjust". They have it coming, I think).


I want our efforts directed against the cappie loyal police, army and anyone who stands in our way.

And my main point is that I expect the majority of managers to fall into the "everyone who stands in our way" group, for reasons I've gone into already.

...Something which, in this post, you havn't addressed.

[risky.riot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:36 PM
I think that, whenever we meet upper-class or middle-class (bah, what a fucking ambiguous term!) communists, we should definately be asking ourselves why on earth they're communists. For a member of the bourgeoisie, there's no material reason to be a communist, so then why? There may be others, but the only reason I've ever seen is morality, which is not a very good foundation for serious leftism.
Well, there is actually a very lengthy explanation for why these terms seem to be so ambiguous; they are misunderstood. I could try to say it in my own words, but I'd probably be wrong because I'm still confused about it :(
The term upper class refers to a group of people at the top of a social hierarchy. Often members of an upper class do not have to work for a living, as they are supported by earned or inherited investments. Members of an upper class often have power over other people as employers or landlords. or sometimes as members of a government. The term "upper class" has had a complex range of meanings and usages, and in the 21st century many people are uncomfortable with it as a term and as a concept. Apologists for an upper class say that being upper class is reflected by thinking, tastes and breeding, not the amount of money one has.

In many countries the term "upper class" was long intimately associated with land ownership. Political power was in the hands of landowners for many centuries, often to the exclusion of other rich people (which was one of the causes of the French Revolution). Upper class landowners in Europe were often also members of the titled nobility, but not necessarily so: the prevalence of titles of nobility varied widely from country to country. In the United Kingdom "upper class" is now almost always used pejoratively, and British people are much more anxious to avoid being labelled "upper class" (or even "upper middle class") than their American equivalents.

In the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries the term "upper class" referred to an elite which combined wealth and social power, but the connection with landownership was far weaker than in Europe; in the Northern states it was almost non-existent. This usage of "upper class" lingered into the 20th century to some degree, associated with the WASP elite and the power of the graduates of the Ivy League. The U.S is now arguably more socially stratified than the UK, albeit that some individuals move up a class by making money. This reflects the absence in America of the embarrassment that many Europeans feel about their societies' socially stratified pasts.

The high level of inequality in the U.S. compared to other developed countries (see Gini coefficient seems to be blotted out by the power of rhetoric that the U.S. is a unique "land of opportunity". There is a widespread assumption that inequality is simply based on some people working harder than others. Generally this is unaccompanied by any analysis of how common social advancement actually is in the U.S. compared to other developed countries, and it is sometimes supported by a wildly inaccurate assumption that class divisions in Europe, and especially in the UK, have hardly loosened since the American Revolution."

[slim]

STI,

I believe we may have come to a conclusion:

Managers are a possible enemy and a possible ally. If they get in the way they will suffer, if they dont get in the way then they will live and they may even join us.

Is there a possiblity that the middle class will break down before/ during the revolution that will polarise the upper and working classes?

[STI]

I believe we may have come to a conclusion:

Managers are a possible enemy and a possible ally. If they get in the way they will suffer, if they dont get in the way then they will live and they may even join us.

Maybe you've come to that conclusion, but I havn't. My conclusion through this entire discussion was that a huge majority of managers will be against the communist revolution, since they have no material incentive to do away with capitalism, so it's foolish and even dangerous to trust them. That conclusion hasn't changed.


Is there a possiblity that the middle class will break down before/ during the revolution that will polarise the upper and working classes?

Depends on what you mean by "middle class". I don't expect to see managers dissappear. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer ("the concentration of wealth"), and small businesses (whose owners I wouldn't otherwise expect to be on our side) will likely become unable to compete, forcing more people into working-classdom or unemployment. Working class people will, on the whole, get poorer, which is gonna suck...

So, yes and no. Things are going to get worse before they get any better.

[Deutsche Ideologie]

Listen to this PRC-

You HAVE to be a part of the working class when you're older. Doesn't mean you can't go to college, but you have to somehow be a part of it, in my opinion atleast. marx and engels both lived in extreme poverty with their families while they were writing about Socialism.

You can go to college, to know what the capitalists know. Like Huey said. or whoever it was.

but you can't be making a bunch of money and be a socialist, dont work like that.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:14 AM
i not only went on strike i went to live with his workers.
If I had a uterus, I would have your children :lol:

Seriously, awesome work man, I hope you stick around at this site. We need more people like you here.

[Black Dagger]

we need more restricted members Cym? :P