A Challenge to Socialists...

[rachstev]

OK,

I won't discuss the politics of what I am. Suffice to say I don't know. Perhaps I am a lacky. I really can't say.

I am in my mid-thirties, have a beautiful wife and three kids, live in an upper-middle class home (4,000 square feet) in a very nice community (It's a city called Hermosa Beach, California, and is in the South Bay, as we call it, of the Los Angeles area, about 12 miles south of the Los Angeles Airport.)

My backyard looks over a cliff, where below is the beach and an ocean view. We have a flagpole that's pretty high, 40 feet, can be seen for miles and we fly the Stars and Stripes proudly.

I do not own stock or any investment in capital, but make my money through my own talents. People ask voluntarily for my help, and I don't work in an area where one NEEDS to have me. (That is, I don't do anything that anyone could argue one has a RIGHT to expect from society. It has to do with the installation of audio/video equipment.

Now, I am not saying all of this to brag. In fact, plenty of people I know have it better than me. We don't spoil our kids and teach them to be kind and fair to others and to play by the rules. We teach them to be respectful of others.

1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California? Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class? Since Marxist ideology was for one to "take what he needs", I suppose I would still live where I do, because I need it, as does my wife...GOD, does she have material needs far beyond mine! And I would "give what I could", which means I suppose that I'd still work on video systems, but merely do it without pay as needed for the benefit of all. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?


Thanks for taking up this challenge. My problem is that I really don't know where I fit in. I have passed the California Bar, but rarely practice law, but I do write appellate briefs for a friend who does that for a living, or I sometimes review his work.

So why do I hang out here? Well, for sometime now, I have been concerned that our constitutional government is failing in the one thing it was always brilliant at: change. It seems there are intrenched powers that place serious barriers to change and this worries me for the future of my counrty. So I see something coming, politically, and I am wondering where I will stand.

Please don't bore me with dogma, and why I need to see things YOUR way. Instead, you can really help me by answering my 3 questions. Doing so will be of a great benefit to me, more than reading about how I'm doomed to X if I don't do Y. I know all that. Please only pontificate while answering question 1.

Thanks,

Rachstev

[Dark Exodus]

May I ask why do you fly the American flag?

Seems illogical to be patriotic when you did not choose the country you were born in.

[rachstev]

Dark Exodus,

I wrote this post to be very truthful, and am not interested in defending who I am and don't wish to debate who I am.

I presume that you will not "win" an argument to make me less patriotic; nor will I "win: an argument to have you see my point of view.

I am only interested here in my questions 1 through 3.

Let's not bore each other with an issue we know niether of us will ever change on.

Rachstev

[Amusing Scrotum]

1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

Technically speaking you are part of the Proletariat, i.e. you sell your labour. It is not your fault that society at the moment thinks your talents are more important than other workers talents.
Should you change your lifestyle?
Well I don't know enough about you, to pass judgement. If you are fairly comfortable economically, then maybe you could do some voluntary work for an organisation or cause you believe in.


2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California? Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class? Since Marxist ideology was for one to "take what he needs", I suppose I would still live where I do, because I need it, as does my wife...GOD, does she have material needs far beyond mine! And I would "give what I could", which means I suppose that I'd still work on video systems, but merely do it without pay as needed for the benefit of all. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Well if there was a Socialist Revolution and Direct Democracy, it would be the choice of your community whether "little league" still happened. I can't comment on what Socialism would be like for you exactly, because, I don't know enough about your individual circumstances and also I can't tell the future. ;)


3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?

Thats your choice. The best suggestion I could make is for you to read some Socialist literature and formulate your own opinions on whether it is a worthwile cause.


I won't discuss the politics of what I am. Suffice to say I don't know. Perhaps I am a lacky. I really can't say.

You seem to me like your a liberal progressive of some sort. Though I am guessing.

[rachstev]

I suppose I am moderate-progressive, and view that all change in America must be made on the basis of altering or reinterpreting the constitutional framework.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Pretty much what Armchair Socialism said, but with the added corrolary that many countries successfully maintain moderate policies without tying themselves to a constitution.

[Zapata]

1. You seem to be living pretty comfortably, although as armchairsocialism said, you are technically a proletariat. since you seem to be in a sound economic position, i recommend finding ways to help the lower classes of the world (normally i'd say give back to your community, but it seems to me your community is in pretty good shape as it is). give generously if you can.
2. when it comes to marxist ideology, the lives of your children in their schools would probably remain mostly the same, provided they are using their fair share only of the nation's (or california's) wealth. however, i suspect that your house would fall under the 'unnecessary luxury' category of things. whatever your wife may believe, no one 'needs' a 4,000 square foot home. don't get me wrong, this isn't an assault on you or your family. i live in boston massachusetts, in an affluent town. and much as i love living in a relatively large house with all kinds of luxuries, i know i don't really need them, and i know i could live without them.
3. IF there was a revolution, no doubt your lifestyle would be negatively affected. judging from your property description, you would lose at least some of your luxuries. but then, it takes a selfless idealist, willing to lose much of what they have, of an upper-class person to side with marxism. the choice is yours my friend.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not attacking you Zapata, just asking some questions:


1. You seem to be living pretty comfortably, although as armchairsocialism said, you are technically a proletariat. since you seem to be in a sound economic position, i recommend finding ways to help the lower classes of the world (normally i'd say give back to your community, but it seems to me your community is in pretty good shape as it is). give generously if you can.

I hope you're not suggesting charity - people need the chance to get themselves back on their feet, not handouts. Supporting community redevelopment schemes would be a better idea, if you can fit it around your schedule.


2. when it comes to marxist ideology, the lives of your children in their schools would probably remain mostly the same, provided they are using their fair share only of the nation's (or california's) wealth. however, i suspect that your house would fall under the 'unnecessary luxury' category of things. whatever your wife may believe, no one 'needs' a 4,000 square foot home. don't get me wrong, this isn't an assault on you or your family. i live in boston massachusetts, in an affluent town. and much as i love living in a relatively large house with all kinds of luxuries, i know i don't really need them, and i know i could live without them.

Why is 4000sqft too much? Why should people live in shirt-sleeve comfort?


3. IF there was a revolution, no doubt your lifestyle would be negatively affected. judging from your property description, you would lose at least some of your luxuries. but then, it takes a selfless idealist, willing to lose much of what they have, of an upper-class person to side with marxism. the choice is yours my friend.

He's upper middle class, not Bill Gates. While his lifestyle would be adversely affected by social upheavals such as revolution, I have no reason to believe that his quality of life would be drastically reduced.

[Che NJ]

1.) I don't think you should completely change your life style. such a dramatic change would probably upset and confuse your family, especially your wife. as mentioned above, you could be more politically active or help the disadvantaged in your area. Only do what you want, in your case I wouldn't encourage you to make radical changes.

2.) California is the last place I expect a socialist revolution to take place. From what I see, it is a very materialistic and hollywood obsessed place. That's probably a sterotype, but that is the only image I get.

3.) The revolution of course. If you don't want to fight for it, I think everybody at this site would encourage you not to fight at all.

[Free Palestine]

You must first realize it is not possible to go straight to a fully classless society from capitalism, that would be impossible. Social revolution is a process and not an event. Class differences do not vanish at the stroke of a pen.

[left-nut]

1. No. That is unless you're originally from another country that has a revolution going on there, you should go and join.

2. Standard of Living would decrease, as would in any imperialist nation (aka advanced capitalist bka "developed" cka "first world") under socialism.

3. None/Neutral. The US is not ready for socialism and will not be in our lifetime. There would be a counter-revolution faster than the revolution; joining any side would just amount to losing lives in vain.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:35 PM
1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?




Yes. The most important thing is to NOT teach your children to play by the rules. Rules are invented by capitalist to oppress the working class. You cannot start to early in developing their class consciousness. As you know, people are good, but are made bad by society.


2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California? Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class?

No. Your children will start doing sport that is beneficial to society, like doing collective exercises every morning. Little league and football are just setting them off for the big leagues where guys in tight shorts are merely arousing women to not pay their dues for a just society.

Your fate depends on the ruthlessness of the dictator. Since you have studied you are a potential danger so you are either:
1) closely monitored
2) send to a collective farm
3) shot
4) degrade yourself in public
(as these were common fates for intellectuals in countries were revolutions were tried)


3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?

Just do some reading on the forum and then decide.


It seems there are intrenched powers that place serious barriers to change and this worries me for the future of my counrty.

Luckily there are others ways than a socialist revolution.

[left-nut]

Originally posted by PJ O'Rourke+Sep 14 2005, 04:33 PM--> (PJ O'Rourke @ Sep 14 2005, 04:33 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 05:35 PM
1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?




Yes. The most important thing is to NOT teach your children to play by the rules. [/b]
WTF? How old are you?

[left-nut]

Originally posted by PJ O'[email protected] 14 2005, 04:33 PM
Your fate depends on the ruthlessness of the dictator. Since you have studied you are a potential danger so you are either:
1) closely monitored
2) send to a collective farm
3) shot
4) degrade yourself in public
(as these were common fates for intellectuals in countries were revolutions were tried)

Only if he becomes a dumbass and follows your advice to not "play by the rules".

[workersunity]

I know so many people in a position like yours, i dont even know what to say. Firstly Standard of living wouldnt decrease, in fact for the majority of the population it would increase. to put it bluntly i dont know how a socialist society would deal with excess like a couple of cars, but i would say that its hard to fathom socialism in your position because if you know it or not, your still thinking inside the box, All your needs would be met, as you and your family would be taken care of, you wouldnt have to worry bout food,housing,education,healthcare etc... So putting that aside, yes you are in the working class, as the capitalists are taking profit from your labor power. you are creating surplus labor which they are turing into profit. that is why i feel for your position, although in order for you and your family to have a life that isnt plagued with materialism,oppression,racism, sexism etc.. you have to do something. I understand you have it pretty nice, but i find that the point of like is yes to care about yourself, but also to care for others, I wouldnt donate to charities depending on the certain one, instead collect food,clothes for the homeless, well there are plenty of things you can do if you wanna know. Also I would try making your household more equal, as not being pressed down by the bourgeois concept of the family, things will be much better. No your kids sports and cheer wont be taken away from them, instead they will probably thrive in a socialist society, as sports(professional) wouldnt revolve around profit, and wouldnt be an escape from society which is the case alot. they would thrive at it if they enjoy the sport and would play because they truly enjoy it, thats how sports should be. I also agree that it doesnt make sense to proud of your country, or patriotic when you didnt choose what country you were born in and that America does many, many things wrong, and lies to your and your family on to what is going on, and what is good/bad. Im not here to convert you, im just saying that when your eyes are opened, they will be opened for good.

[Clarksist]

1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?


Change your lifestyle? No.

There is no reason to change your lifestyle, except maybe spending more time understanding Leftist ideology. There is so much to know about Leftism, that you should never stop even if you feel you've "grasped" the ideologies.


What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California?


It would be mighty cold in Hell, I guess.

As far as "what ifs" go, the revolution would change California for the better.

Free college education, more capital for research to improve environmental problems, more equality in the workplace, etc.

You will still have to have a job and "earn your crust" through currency. But that is under socialism.

Once communism is in full effect after a withering away of the socialist state, you would find the dissolving of the monetary system and the "Give what you can, get what you need" really starts.


If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?


Which side should you fight?

I can't make that decision for you, nor would I want to begin to tell you whom to kill, and what to die for.

All I can say, is that I would want you to fight for the Leftist revolution. To improve the lives of your family, you, and the workers.

But that would be my humble opinion.


My problem is that I really don't know where I fit in.


Once you've gotten comfortable with Leftist ideology, do some reading.

Goto www.Marxist.org and read.

That will help you very much.

[rachstev]

Thanks to everyone who has taken this seriuosly:

So far I've responded to:

Thanks Che NJ,

San Francisco would probably be the first in California to have the revolution. The problem is that because its residents have 3,000 square foot land properties that are worth 8 million dollars, the revolution might be too expensive. I mean, the People's Revolutionary Auditorium would be worth more than the entire GNP of Cuba. It would be damned embarrassing.

But I agree with you that no where in America is it ripe for revolution. Both our economy AND our constitutional system would have to collapse. And our constitution is very powerful.



Zapata Posted on Sep 14 2005, 06:51 PM
1. You seem to be living pretty comfortably, although as armchairsocialism said, you are technically a proletariat. since you seem to be in a sound economic position, i recommend finding ways to help the lower classes of the world (normally i'd say give back to your community, but it seems to me your community is in pretty good shape as it is). give generously if you can.
2. when it comes to marxist ideology, the lives of your children in their schools would probably remain mostly the same, provided they are using their fair share only of the nation's (or california's) wealth. however, i suspect that your house would fall under the 'unnecessary luxury' category of things. whatever your wife may believe, no one 'needs' a 4,000 square foot home. don't get me wrong, this isn't an assault on you or your family. i live in boston massachusetts, in an affluent town. and much as i love living in a relatively large house with all kinds of luxuries, i know i don't really need them, and i know i could live without them.
3. IF there was a revolution, no doubt your lifestyle would be negatively affected. judging from your property description, you would lose at least some of your luxuries. but then, it takes a selfless idealist, willing to lose much of what they have, of an upper-class person to side with marxism. the choice is yours my friend.

Z: Thank you for your detailed answer. needless to say, I don't need 90% of the shit I've collected, and wouldn't miss it tomorrow. Oddly, though, I'd kill someone if they came around and said they were forcing me to give it to someone else. Go figure. I suppose that if there were such a person who came from People's Party authority, I would presume that one day they would tell me I wouldn't need a 4th television, but the day after that they'd tell me I didn't need my books. It's just the way I think.



NoXion Posted on Sep 14 2005, 06:51 PM
Pretty much what Armchair Socialism said, but with the added corrolary that many countries successfully maintain moderate policies without tying themselves to a constitution.

OK, NoXion. I want to discuss this with you but the last time we had a discussion you called me a cum-stain. If I offended you along the way, I appologize. You and I appear to differ re: the United States Constitution (or, from your point of view, perhaps any constitution.)

I know that in GB you have a genuine government which changes and is named after the PM in power. We don't. There is no such thing as the Bush Government. There is the Bush Administration, the 108th Congress and the (soon to be called) Roberts Court. Together they make up our current government.

I've come to realize why our type of constitution would make revolution so difficult. In any revolution, the leaders need absolute power. But when our founders left British authority, they were very worried about absolute power (or any power for the matter of that) and built in a checks and balances system. Many of the radical left believe this to be an anachronism. Whether it is or not, it is a definate block to universal power requried by any revolutionary leader. Naturally, as your kingdom has demonstrated, one does not have to have a constitution to have a viable government. But we like it. I suppose many of us would die for it. In my view, the 14th Amendment has done more for social justice than all of the so called socialist movements throughout various nations of the world.

So we "tie ourselves" to a constitution to be tied to the Bill of Rights. And the first one places severe limits on what government can do. And as an anarchist, you should appreciate that.




Armchair.Socialism. Posted on Sep 14 2005, 06:09 PM
You seem to me like your a liberal progressive of some sort. Though I am guessing.

Armchair,
I suppose I am moderate-progressive, and view that all change in America must be made on the basis of altering or reinterpreting the constitutional framework.

I suppose my main issues with any socialist revolution is that it has always been betrayed by someone who fills the void of anarchism in its philosophically desirable socialistic dream with hard-ass murder whole sale. Like Stalin, or Kim whatever his name is in North Korea. You might get one leader for a while who keeps peace and cares, but eventually, as in Animal House, Snowball gets ahold of things and the whole thing becomes higaldy-pigaldy.


Dark Exodus Posted on Sep 14 2005, 05:42 PM
May I ask why do you fly the American flag?
Seems illogical to be patriotic when you did not choose the country you were born in.

Dark Exodus, I am proud to be an American, and it gives me feelings of great joy to see our national symbol. It is a beautiful country, and the millions who risk death every year to be a part of it is a testimony to it's beauty.

[Commie-Pinko]

3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?

Wait to see who wins first, then join that side. That's what I'd do.

[workersunity]

and?

[rachstev]

Commie-Pinko:

You gave me a good laugh this afternoon.

Thanks,

Rachstev

[workersunity]

care to comment on my post?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I suppose my main issues with any socialist revolution is that it has always been betrayed by someone who fills the void of anarchism in its philosophically desirable socialistic dream with hard-ass murder whole sale. Like Stalin, or Kim whatever his name is in North Korea. You might get one leader for a while who keeps peace and cares, but eventually, as in Animal House, Snowball gets ahold of things and the whole thing becomes higaldy-pigaldy.

Animal Farm is an incredibly good book, as is 1984. Both I think are some of the best works pointing out the flaws of Vanguard Socialism. Just to explain, the Vanguard is an elitist group that looks after the needs of the worker, because, basically they believe the worker is to thick to look after himself.
Personally I am very much a Democratic Socialist, in that I believe that basically the majority of the power should be given to the workers as quickly as possible. Though this opens the door more for counter-revolution, it is in my opinion a much more appealing option than the kind of Authoritarean Socialism which was around for most of the last century.
Though to be honest I would describe myself as a Marxist, I do find Anarchist ideas very appealing. I suppose I am something of an ideology slut.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

What a terrible misunderstanding of Leninism, Armchair!

Most working class people are not afforded the luxury of having 8 hours a day at uni to listen to lecturers and read books. In fact many people get home from work very tired, cook dinner, slump in front of the TV and get ready to sleep in preparation for the next days toil.

This is why many theorists come from middle class backgrounds, why Marx and Engels themselves did and people standing in their tradition such as Lenin and Trotsky also did plus in the Russian revolution there was the small matter of only about 20% of people being literate.

The Leninist party is made up of immensely dedicated cadre who through the process of hard work and much education will be able to bring socialist ideas into the working class and educate them about Marxist theory. In Petrograd the radical students flung open the university doors to thousands of factory workers who loved hearing the lectures and speaches. Through the process of struggle, strikes and oppression from bosses workers learn how relevent such theory is and will educate each other in and outside the workplace.

It was at about this stage that working class people flooded into the Bolshevik party, with the cadre leadership able to educate (but not control) the membership of what they believed the correcr direction was for the party to bring about revolution.

Stalinism developed from a host of entirely different issues.

[Zapata]

rachstev: noxion is right, you wouldn't have to give up too much. but then, as CHE NJ said, there really is essentially zero chance of a marxist revolution in california. listen to pj o'rourke's call that educating your kids the right way is a good idea. you can, however, safely ignore his point that you might be shot or various other grisly punishments. being an intellectual was only dangerous in pol pot's cambodia.

[Freedom Works]

rachstev: Learn about liberty!

"Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." -Ludwig von Mises

http://mises.org

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

OK, NoXion. I want to discuss this with you but the last time we had a discussion you called me a cum-stain. If I offended you along the way, I appologize. You and I appear to differ re: the United States Constitution (or, from your point of view, perhaps any constitution.)

Well if that really offended you, I'm sorry. But know this: 1) I am a complete and utter stranger on the internet, living thousands of miles away from you. Both of us are under pseudonyms and have not seen photos of each other, so even if we do meet we will not recognise each other.
2) My debating style is abrasive and quite possibly offensive to those who are easily offended, but it's more than just insults - my arguments do have substance.
3) I consider my potty mouth to be a sort of litmus test of my opponent's ability to debate. If at the first whiff of obscenity they cry, then they are not good debators - style over substance is a fallacy. Or they simply have incredibly thin skin and fragile egos that can be damaged by some total stranger on the internet, in which case, I pity their sheltered lives.


I know that in GB you have a genuine government which changes and is named after the PM in power. We don't. There is no such thing as the Bush Government. There is the Bush Administration, the 108th Congress and the (soon to be called) Roberts Court. Together they make up our current government.

Lucky guess about my location. How'd you find out?


I've come to realize why our type of constitution would make revolution so difficult. In any revolution, the leaders need absolute power. But when our founders left British authority, they were very worried about absolute power (or any power for the matter of that) and built in a checks and balances system. Many of the radical left believe this to be an anachronism. Whether it is or not, it is a definate block to universal power requried by any revolutionary leader. Naturally, as your kingdom has demonstrated, one does not have to have a constitution to have a viable government. But we like it. I suppose many of us would die for it. In my view, the 14th Amendment has done more for social justice than all of the so called socialist movements throughout various nations of the world.

Well, the thing about revolution is that it's different things to different ideologies.
Ask a Leninist, and he will tell you that a revolution is the people's revolutionary party overtaking the state apparatus ion the name of the proletariat - in my opinion this reduces the ordinary people to mere cheerleaders for a coup, indeed even if the majority of the people support such a coup. In such a case your argument makes sense, as there is one nominal leader and there must be checks and balances on his power.

(I'm not an anarchist per se but I definately think their arguments against state power have some merit - where I diverge from the classical anarchist point of view is in the matter of collectivism vs individualism. In my opinion there is no conflict.)

However, in an anarchist revolution, the working class consists of various groups with similar goals. This means that the power of such groups is 'atomised' and moderated by the fact that decisions made by such groups are nowhere near as wide-ranging. In this case, a constitution is unnnecessary due to the fact that members of a group will feel more a 'personal connection' because that governing body will consist of friends, relatives and members of the local community, (Direct democracy means the people are the government) and therefore will be far more inclined to consider others, not to mention the fact that career politics is impossible in such a situation and any decisions that negatively impact people's rights will rarely if ever happen.


So we "tie ourselves" to a constitution to be tied to the Bill of Rights. And the first one places severe limits on what government can do. And as an anarchist, you should appreciate that.

Yes, but I also recognise that the only group that can really enforce limitations on government's power is the government itself. The public do not have the resources, and in some cases the willpower necessary to make sure that the government carries out it's duties fully and to the letter. Under anarchism the government and the people are one and the same (Apart from those who choose to abstain from voting for whatever reason)

[saint max]

Rachstev. I'm not a communist, socialist or leftist per se, but similar questions could be posed to my types, so i'll give you a bit of the anti-civilization, "wer'e fucked," egoist-lover perspective...


1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

We're fucking doomed. The old growth trees are never comming back. Even in the event of revolution, the ecological crisis will probably not be able to be managed. And all of the other horrors we read about in 1984-esc dystopias and all the alarmist diatribes are true. The only thing that should impact you lifestyle is if you ask yourself " are there different ways of acting, thinking, and being, that are more fullfilling than the ways you act, think and be now?" if the answer is yes, explore.


2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California? Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class? Since Marxist ideology was for one to "take what he needs", I suppose I would still live where I do, because I need it, as does my wife...GOD, does she have material needs far beyond mine! And I would "give what I could", which means I suppose that I'd still work on video systems, but merely do it without pay as needed for the benefit of all. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Not socialism, or a revolution even, but in the event of industrial, economic and ecological collapse, none of the things you mentioned above will matter. what will matter is your survival, and what ever you give meaning to.


3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?

...I'd sugest fighting for your side, and those you share affinity with and a similar desire for freedom.

This is not a world of saints and sinners. And what ever course history takes, has yet been written. Those who are interested in freedom, find eachother, make love and prepare for war. Becuase that is all we have left. And it's still beautiful.

Rachstev, perhaps you've been on the internet too much, but there's not a revolution brewing, it's something much more sinister and joyous. If you go to apalachia, or the north west, or parts of DC, or even kansas, and the dirty south--if you go to the right parts, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Then again, you could just stair into the black of any 20-30 something servicers eyes.

'ta
-max

[rachstev]

NoXion wrote:

Yes, but I also recognise that the only group that can really enforce limitations on government's power is the government itself. The public do not have the resources, and in some cases the willpower necessary to make sure that the government carries out it's duties fully and to the letter. Under anarchism the government and the people are one and the same (Apart from those who choose to abstain from voting for whatever reason)

Technically, this is very true. However, we have a long and honorable history of a VERY independend judiciary. And any examination of our politics and history show that it has ruled as many times against the government as for it.

The Miranda decision of the 1960's is a prime example.

If you're not farmiliar with it, it requires police officers to give notice of a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights at the time of arrest.

This ruling, by the Warren Court, was hailed as a civil rights victory was, naturally, condemed by the government as unworkable. Now it is part of our national fabric.

One of the problems about having a Marxist point of view, is that every advancement made in a capitalist nation is viewed as a scrap tossed to the masses to keep them quiet. We do not see it that way.

That our judges have life appointments and can only be removed through impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors reenforces this.

Presidents, Mr. Bush included, lose all of the time in court. (That is, the Attorney General, or, specifically, one of his deputies, loses in federal district court in Washington, D.C.)

Your point is that the Suprme Court, arbiter of every law and the FINAL judgment on any issue has ruled so often for individual rights, our right wing believe that we're going to hell in a handbasket.

The Court has also ruled SO often for the government's point of view, that the political left believes we are becoming facist.

I suppose that's a good thing. When the far left believes we are doing a lousy job at democracy at the same time the far right believes we are awful at obedience to authority, life is good. Nature is in balance.

I believe the MOST frustrating thing about America, from your point of view, is that we are outrageously NON-Class Consious.

For that I don't have an answer. We are who we are.

My wife and I think you Brits are incredibly obsessed by class distinction, and wouldn't know what to do with yourselves if you created a classless society.

But then, we only have old movies to go by. Been to Europe twice but never your islands. (Don't worry. We don't believe everyone runs around saying, "Pip pip." and "Cheer-o!" either. But I suppose you better hold your topper in your hand, just in case you meet a lady on the Strand.)

My point is that our courts have, overall, done a very good job at defining what our liberties are. Far better than any People's Party could do. My view on it anyway.

Yours,

Rachstev


Saint Max,

Enjoyed your twisted post a lot. Very poetic, especially the last. On that, when you wrote, "Then again, you could just stair into the black of any 20-30 something servicers eyes." what are servicers?

R.

[Dark Exodus]

Dark Exodus,

I wrote this post to be very truthful, and am not interested in defending who I am and don't wish to debate who I am.

I presume that you will not "win" an argument to make me less patriotic; nor will I "win: an argument to have you see my point of view.

I am only interested here in my questions 1 through 3.

Let's not bore each other with an issue we know niether of us will ever change on.

Rachstev

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you shoulden't mention things that you don't want... mentioned?

I was not actually trying to start a debate, just ask a question that I have not yet found an answer to.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 14 2005, 12:42 PM
May I ask why do you fly the American flag?

Seems illogical to be patriotic when you did not choose the country you were born in.
maybe because you love your country of birth or the one you choose to live in

[Dark Exodus]

maybe because you love your country of birth or the one you choose to live in

Why? The country itself is not an entity that has acheived anything.

[rachstev]

Dark Exodus,

I answered your query on a new thread.

R.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What a terrible misunderstanding of Leninism, Armchair!

Maybe it is a misunderstanding, but, its a misunderstanding shared by Noam Chomsky -

The following is an extract from an interview with Noam Chomsky published in Issue 2 of Red & Black Revolution. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle.


RBR:The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change in society would seem to be self evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous about this in the past. I'm speaking generally, of social democracy, but also of Bolshevism - traditions on the left that would seem to have more in common with elitist thinking than with strict democratic practice. Lenin, to use a well-known example, was sceptical that workers could develop anything more than "trade union consciousness"- by which, I assume, he meant that workers could not see far beyond their immediate predicament. Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice Webb, who was very influential in the Labour Party in England, had the view that workers were only interested in "horse racing odds"! Where does this elitism originate and what is it doing on the left?

CHOMSKY:I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that workers are only interested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial look at labour history or the lively and independent working class press that flourished in many places, including the manufacturing towns of New England not many miles from where I'm writing - not to speak of the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of persecuted and oppressed people throughout history, until this very moment. Take the most miserable corner of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded by the European conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of Europe's wealth, now devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. In the past few years, under conditions so miserable that few people in the rich countries can imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers constructed a popular democratic movement based on grassroots organisations that surpasses just about anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hear the solemn pronouncements of American intellectuals and political leaders about how the US has to teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their achievements were so substantial and frightening to the powerful that they had to be subjected to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more US support than is publicly acknowledged, and they still have not surrendered. Are they interested only in horse-racing?
I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."

RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work - Deterring Democracy, Necessary Illusions, etc. - has dealt consistently with the role and prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. You have argued that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there is a deep antagonism to any real role or input from the mass of people, lest it threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which favours the rich. Your work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, some have been shocked by your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?

CHOMSKY: I haven't actually "equated" the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the "new class." For example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly "free," and about how the "undermanagement" that is "the real threat to democracy" is an assault against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find "shocking," I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it.

[The Grey Blur]

There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, everrr be a revolution in America. Just keep living how you're living and vote for the equivalent of your green party. That's all you need to know - BOOYAH!

[John_worldrevolution.info]

Noam Chomsky is great at pointing out how shit capitalism is but he is also bad at pointing out alternatives. Perhaps there is a book which deals with the question but i havent read it.

In reply to RBR, they are wrong if they they think that workers are likely to become spontainously revolutionary. Whilst workers are on a picket line such as in the British miner's strike in the 80s, they realise alot of things. They realise that there is a torrent of media campaigns against them, that there is a police force ready to taunt them and charge lines with horses, that fighting crime is not the real purpose of the force. They realise that there is a system out to get them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they all think 'we should just destroy capitalism and have a world revolution of working class rule'.

Sorry know that digressed but it had to be said.

[NovelGentry]

1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

Should you? Not if you're comfortable, which you seem to be.


2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California?

Probably not too much. You said you don't own any capital, so it's unlikely that you would really lose anything you have.


Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class?

I don't know if it'd be a "class" -- there might be like a cheerleader club type thing. Certainly if there is enough people who want to be cheerleaders they will form something. As far as your kids other sports, same deal. You'd obviously need a number of people interested, can't play baseball with two people.


Since Marxist ideology was for one to "take what he needs", I suppose I would still live where I do, because I need it, as does my wife...GOD, does she have material needs far beyond mine! And I would "give what I could", which means I suppose that I'd still work on video systems, but merely do it without pay as needed for the benefit of all. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Marxist ideology was never for one to "take what he needs."


3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?

Well I think you should fight for socialism -- I think everyone should fight for socialism, even the bourgeoisie... but then again, capitalism doesn't treat me very well.

Which side do I think you will be fighting for? I'm gonna go with 70% chance for socialism 30% chance against -- it's going to be extremely dependent on your conditions at the time, but it will be unlikely that capitalism will be working very well for any working class person, which you claim to be, so I doubt you'd be having much fun with lack of work, dwindling pay, and having to give up luxuries you used to be able to afford.

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:01 PM
Noam Chomsky is great at pointing out how shit capitalism is but he is also bad at pointing out alternatives. Perhaps there is a book which deals with the question but i havent read it.


There are plenty of both audio and books by Chomsky regarding this question. In the book Chomsky: on Anarchism, he not only goes into the ideological depth of libertarian socialism, but he also give his opinion on how to achieve such a society.

[rachstev]

Keep Chomsky discussions off my thread please; psydo-intellectuals not invited.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:15 PM
Keep Chomsky discussions off my thread please; psydo-intellectuals not invited.
This post is more pervasive of your intellectual bankruptcy than Chomsky's. It is spelled pseudo-intellectual, genius. :rolleyes:

[saint max]

rachstev, servicers are the service class, the only workers left in the US (and probably all post-industrial society), but perhaps I should have used the more inclusive term: the multitude of excluded.

This a particular interest for would-be-revolutionary/insurrectionist types, becuase the old ways, and the old economies are longer relevent. For those interested in a liberatory world and the destruction of oppression/hierarchy in the "first world" we can no longer rely on a religious-esc fantasy of dialectical materialism where the Prole (read: worker-producer) realizes their revolutionary potential and develops a class-consciousness (sp?). Instead, there is us, the excluded (read: all radical ontologies) and there is Power and the way it is made manifest. dig?

But my ideas are a hodgepodge of pre-,anti-, and post-moderns. Sure we're doomed...

cheers,
-max

[rachstev]

Thanks, max:

Now I'm totally confused.

I'll stick to the Constitution and deal with things as they come along.


Rachstev

[workersunity]

alright keep avoiding my point, its all good, ill take it that you understood it

[rachstev]

Workers Unity ,

I'm sorry. I wasn't ignoring your post. It's just been a heluva day. You wouldn't believe it.

God, it would be nice to be a socialist every now and then. No worries.

I'll get around to responding to it soon. the problem was you wrote too well and it's too easy to play with most of the posts. Yours is real and it takes me time.

Rachstev

[rachstev]

What you wrote first:
I know so many people in a position like yours, i dont even know what to say. Firstly Standard of living wouldnt decrease, in fact for the majority of the population it would increase. to put it bluntly i dont know how a socialist society would deal with excess like a couple of cars, but i would say that its hard to fathom socialism in your position because if you know it or not, your still thinking inside the box,

All your needs would be met, as you and your family would be taken care of, you wouldnt have to worry bout food,housing,education,healthcare etc...

This is interesting. I understand the expression, "thinking inside the box", but I don't think I would want to get out of the box. As it happens, I am far less afraid of giving up some or 1/2 of my standard of living so others can improve theirs, as I am of the statment you made, "All your needs would be metetc." That is chilling. I would kill any person or group who would strap me to such a circumstance. I don't think that anyone could design my home but me, and if it were different than others, too bad for them. Design your own home.


So putting that aside, yes you are in the working class, as the capitalists are taking profit from your labor power. you are creating surplus labor which they are turing into profit. that is why i feel for your position, although in order for you and your family to have a life that isnt plagued with materialism,oppression,racism, sexism etc.. you have to do something.

This absurd notion that for capitalism to exist, there must be racism and sexism is so rediculous. I realize it is a tool communists use to enlist minorities and women, but it disregards capitalist nations versus various socialistic experiments: The USSR oppressed its MAJORITY Asian-Russian population in favor of its MINORITY "White Russian" population. France, is more socialistic than the U.S. and horribly mistreats its black-African population, England has many minorities living in London in squaller. I could go on. As a black man, I'd rather live here in the U.S. and be "oppressed", than live in a socialist nation and be "taken care of". You can't say what you do and live in the U.S. Where do you live, anyway? That's not a put down, but it amazing how very few people grasp nearly total freedom.

I understand you have it pretty nice, but i find that the point of like is yes to care about yourself, but also to care for others, I wouldnt donate to charities depending on the certain one, instead collect food,clothes for the homeless, well there are plenty of things you can do if you wanna know. Also I would try making your household more equal, as not being pressed down by the bourgeois concept of the family, things will be much better.

Overall I don't understand this comment. I live the life I choose to live, although honestly, my wife spends like crazy, and her standard of living is through the roof. But it was our labor that produced what we own, so...

No your kids sports and cheer wont be taken away from them, instead they will probably thrive in a socialist society, as sports(professional) wouldnt revolve around profit, and wouldnt be an escape from society which is the case alot. they would thrive at it if they enjoy the sport and would play because they truly enjoy it, thats how sports should be.

Here history has shown you wrong. Special treatment for sports super stars has always been the case. Special homes along the river in Russia; better lifestyle in the nicer Chinese cities, etc. what a crock. Everyone wants the best seats and to be around such people, so party leaders, in any such state you propose, would exploit there position. At least under capitalism, ANYONE with the $$ can have the good seats. Our country is full of middle and even lower-middle people who put aside $$ for good season tickets. In your society, everyone will have to beg Commisar X for such treatment. I know you don't invision it to be that way, but long experience has shown this to be the case from my point of view.

I also agree that it doesnt make sense to proud of your country, or patriotic when you didnt choose what country you were born in and that America does many, many things wrong, and lies to your and your family on to what is going on, and what is good/bad. Im not here to convert you, im just saying that when your eyes are opened, they will be opened for good.

You're right, unlike your idea of a state socialism, where the media is controlled by the party, and only party b.s. is blarred out, our open media society must scare you the most. It's all out there, you just have to find it. No one takes the government at face value, and I'll take the corporate controlled media over Pravda, or what ever they got in Cuba or China, where the government is literally telling people what to believe.

Thank you for your comments,

Rachstev

[*Hippie*]

I don't think that sports should be encouraged at all under Socialism. It promotes competition and agression to be the "best", kind of like Capitalism. Not to mention all the players who take steriods and indirectly influence children to do the same. The sexism in Sports is disgusting. I think sports should be discouraged for sure, at least in the public school system. Professional sports should be gone, after all, it is worthless labor. What exactly do they produce to benefit humanity? I know, "the entertainment factor". But they don't need to be paid for it. I think sports should be a leisure activity and people can decide on their own whether or not to play them, it shouldn't be funded by the government like they are through the school system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think that sports should be encouraged at all under Socialism. It promotes competition and agression to be the "best", kind of like Capitalism.

See this is bullshit liberal thinking. Competition in sports is nowhere near comparable to competition in capitalism - top athletes don't force other athletes to work for them for a shitty wage.


Not to mention all the players who take steriods and indirectly influence children to do the same.

Taking steroids is almost universally condemned as poor sportsmanship.


The sexism in Sports is disgusting.

What sexism? You do realise that men and women are different physically and therefore it is unfair for them to compete in the same events.


I think sports should be discouraged for sure, at least in the public school system.

Why? Sports are fun and healthy.


Professional sports should be gone, after all, it is worthless labor.

No it isn't. It entertains and provides role models for young people.


What exactly do they produce to benefit humanity? I know, "the entertainment factor". But they don't need to be paid for it. I think sports should be a leisure activity and people can decide on their own whether or not to play them, it shouldn't be funded by the government like they are through the school system.

I think someone is confused - professional sports that you see on the television is not funded by the government, but by private interests.
School sports is funded by the government as part of a well-rounded education. You wonder why kids are getting fat as school sports fields get paved over?

[John_worldrevolution.info]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:20 AM
This absurd notion that for capitalism to exist, there must be racism and sexism is so rediculous. I realize it is a tool communists use to enlist minorities and women, but it disregards capitalist nations versus various socialistic experiments: The USSR oppressed its MAJORITY Asian-Russian population in favor of its MINORITY "White Russian" population. France, is more socialistic than the U.S. and horribly mistreats its black-African population, England has many minorities living in London in squaller. I could go on. As a black man, I'd rather live here in the U.S. and be "oppressed", than live in a socialist nation and be "taken care of". You can't say what you do and live in the U.S. Where do you live, anyway? That's not a put down, but it amazing how very few people grasp nearly total freedom.


Rachstev, you are using examples of the USSR, China (and France!!!) to give examples of a negative impact of socialism. Many people on the boards who are not anarchists would not regard these countries as socialist.

There are very few so-called socialists who aspire to China (which i think is now capitalist), North Korea etc. however this board does seem to have some unhealthy obsession with Cuba which thankfully is not too common in the left overall.

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by rachstev
You're right, unlike your idea of a state socialism, where the media is controlled by the party, and only party b.s. is blarred out, our open media society must scare you the most. It's all out there, you just have to find it. No one takes the government at face value, and I'll take the corporate controlled media over Pravda, or what ever they got in Cuba or China, where the government is literally telling people what to believe.

I don't see any contradiction in Karl Popper's view on what he characterized as The Open Society, and, take say, a market socialist system. In fact the media control in a relatively free society such as the 'democracies', is quite astonishing. If you read Walter Lippman's The public mind, where he describe the "manufacture of consent" as "a revolution in the practice of democracy." He describes it as a technique of control, that's useful and necessary so that the "common interests very largely delude public opinion", the interests, that "can only be managed by a specialized class". This level of indoctrination is far more effective than in a totalitarian state, where the use of force is used to control individuals. If you take a look at the Stalinist soviet, a very high percentage of the intellectual class read alternative media.

[John_worldrevolution.info]

I think part of that is concious too, in that most socialist newspapers do not try and be 'impartial' and 'unbiased' like the corporate media because they see impartiality and neutrality as something which does not exist. This leads readers to think about what they are reading and where the news is coming from rather than news services like the BBC, CNN and broadsheet papers which pretend to be impartial but in fact are from in it. It makes viewers more inclined to believe what they are being told and not to question it.

[*Hippie*]

See this is bullshit liberal thinking. Competition in sports is nowhere near comparable to competition in capitalism - top athletes don't force other athletes to work for them for a shitty wage.

Look at how much the top athletes make though? Why should they have more than a working class person who works hard everyday? What is the difference?



Taking steroids is almost universally condemned as poor sportsmanship.

But people can still be influenced to take them by the desire to "be the best".


What sexism? You do realise that men and women are different physically and therefore it is unfair for them to compete in the same events.

It is no secret that sports are male dominated. My boyfriend's friends make fun of female athletes on TV, calling them "dykes" and all that. Then you have "cheerleaders". Male teams get the most coverage in the media.


Why? Sports are fun and healthy.

I have never found them "fun". How many children go home crying everyday because they were not good enough to make the team? I agree in physical education but there are other activities besides sports.


I think someone is confused - professional sports that you see on the television is not funded by the government, but by private interests.

I meant the public school sports are funded by the government. But I think professional sports are ridiculous as well and I don't see how they would last with Socialism.

[FleasTheLemur]

I can take or leave sports, but I do know if you try to dramatically reform the core of sports, exspecially at the high school level, all those people under the socialist system would crawl back to capitalism faster than you could say "First and down". Becides the overtly capitalistic aspects of it (like being payed millions of dollars) and the drugs, you can't do much of anything to it.

Though, it would be nice to see the Cinniatti Reds as a communist team, with a nice foam headed Karl Marx...

[rachstev]

FleasTheLemur,

It's "First and Ten!"

What are you? Some kind of commie?

[shyam]

1)"if you want to make your life;
as you like it;
at least try this;
as much as you can."


2) dont limit your life with in small circles.


3) have u gone through maxim's novel "the mother". if you have time please go through....

[shyam]

you can not go to the imginary haven,
you have to bring it to real world(earth).

the only way to bring haven, ie making our place as haven is communism.
and the very first step to communism is revelution.

you have to decide that.......
but you have to follow your own way....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Chomsky told people to vote for Kerry. The end.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sports should be organized as the are in Cuba, see this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40561).


Say goodbye to professional sports period. No more steroid pumped mental giants getting paid millions to run into each other like savage beasts while the workers that actually create wealth make miserable salaries, no more sale, manufacture (in sweat shops), marketting, and sale of over priced sports merchandise, no more exclusion of women from activities they wish to participate in.

You will see something similar to Cuba, were everyone is welcome to enjoy all sporting facilities, and all sporting events are free to attend. Because of the transformation of the relations regarding this, sports are much more enriching now. Cuba also has more Olympic Medalists per capita than many other nations, while dedicating very few resources to sports.

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:52 PM
FleasTheLemur,

It's "First and Ten!"

What are you? Some kind of commie?
Maybe. ;)

I don't care for sports. Except CEO hunting.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, everrr be a revolution in America. Just keep living how you're living and vote for the equivalent of your green party. That's all you need to know - BOOYAH!

You're an idiot.

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:32 PM
Chomsky told people to vote for Kerry. The end.
Considering that he was running against Bush.. I voted for him. Hell, I'd would have voted for damn near ANYTHING! (http://http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=tictacs)

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:43 PM

Considering that he was running against Bush.. I voted for him. Hell, I'd would have voted for damn near ANYTHING! (http://http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=tictacs)
Fuck Kerry. He wanted to invade Venezeula, he is just as much of a bad, rich, white, capitalist corporate ***** as Bush is.

[quincunx5]

Look at how much the top athletes make though? Why should they have more than a working class person who works hard everyday? What is the difference?


It's called supply and demand. Learn it. They get paid that much because spectators want to pay them that much (whether they know it or not).

I'd like to see a whole stadium full of people who paid to see YOU work very hard.



It is no secret that sports are male dominated. My boyfriend's friends make fun of female athletes on TV, calling them "dykes" and all that. Then you have "cheerleaders". Male teams get the most coverage in the media.


Maybe men are better at sports? Like women are better at multi-tasking and verbal abbilities?

Men have outcompeted women in every single sport, except one: endurance running. Unfortunately for women - this is perhaps the most boring event to watch.

You mean to tell me that channels devoted solely to women's sports do not exist?



I have never found them "fun".


Your opinion does not matter. The point is that others find it "fun", hence they will do it.



How many children go home crying everyday because they were not good enough to make the team?


Uhm. Team = FIXED # of players. Should the extras be made into an incomplete team? Should the best players not participate?

Should these children feel "good", or should they make themselves good?



I meant the public school sports are funded by the government. But I think professional sports are ridiculous as well and I don't see how they would last with Socialism.


Uhm. Socialism will have people, no?
If there is people in Socialism, they will play competitive sports.

It's an axiomatic thing, there is nothing to deduce - you can bet that it will happen.

[Led Zeppelin]

It's called supply and demand.

Subjectivism is dead and buried, well it should be by now.

The Subjectivist Outlook (http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/hilfer/ch03.htm)

[quincunx5]

Subjectivism is dead and buried, well it should be by now.


Subjectivism is alive and well. I can post MUCH more links to prove this point, but I will refrain and point out that: IT keeps YOU and ME alive.

I'd like to see LTV put to practice. No you don't need the whole world to do that. Subjectivism works with two people.



The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values.


Are you so blind to see how rediculous this is?

A crappy car that breaks down every mile that took me 2 years to build would be more valuable than a car rolling out of a modern factory?

War and Peace must be much more valuable than the Communist Manifesto, right? Afterall it took much longer to write it, no?

The turd that I produced in my body in 24hrs is more valuable than your comment, right? Should you disagree - you would agree with subjectivism.

Are your arguments better than mine? Well, isn't that subjective?

Actually believing that value is anything but subjective should be grounds for some kind of mental disorder. Of course no one would have it simply because judging it would be subjective.

The irony of your link, is that Hildering is practicing subjectivism with his criticism. If HE did not feel his idea was better, why would he be arguing it?

Is any of this sinking in? Or are you too buried in non-workable ideology to see clearly?

[Led Zeppelin]

Subjectivism is alive and well. I can post MUCH more links to prove this point, but I will refrain and point out that: IT keeps YOU and ME alive.

I'd like to see LTV put to practice. No you don't need the whole world to do that. Subjectivism works with two people.


:huh: What are you talking about?

Subjectivism is a tool to analyze the economy, it has nothing to do with the functioning of the current economic system, i.e., capitalism. Subjectivism cannot be "put to practice", it is not an historical stage, neither is the LTV.


A crappy car that breaks down every mile that took me 2 years to build would be more valuable than a car rolling out of a modern factory?


No, I don't see how you came to that rather absurd conclusion from that chapter.


War and Peace must be much more valuable than the Communist Manifesto, right? Afterall it took much longer to write it, no?

What?


The turd that I produced in my body in 24hrs is more valuable than your comment, right? Should you disagree - you would agree with subjectivism.


Wow, one false conclusion based on false assumptions after another.


Are your arguments better than mine? Well, isn't that subjective?


And another one.


Actually believing that value is anything but subjective should be grounds for some kind of mental disorder. Of course no one would have it simply because judging it would be subjective.


Do you even know what subjectivism is? (the economic theory, not the meaning of the literal word)


The irony of your link, is that Hildering is practicing subjectivism with his criticism. If HE did not feel his idea was better, why would he be arguing it?

Is any of this sinking in? Or are you too buried in non-workable ideology to see clearly?

It seems to me that you are confusing the bourgeois economic theory of "subjectivism" with the literal meaning of the word "subjectivism".

Nice try though.

[quincunx5]

Subjectivism is a tool to analyze the economy, it has nothing to do with the functioning of the current economic system,


WOW. You sir, are a GRADE-A moron.

Subjectivism is the basis of an economy. There is no economy without it.
LTV is the basis of a dis-economy. There is no economy with it.

I read your link and I drew the correct conclusions. Now please respond to them with your head, not your ass.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, so you don't know what subjectivism is, let me explain:

"Subjectivism states that things do not have inherent value; they have value only insofar as people desire them.

The labor theory of value holds that the value of an exchangeable good or service lies in the amount of labor required to produce it; the source of profits under capitalism, then, is value added by workers not paid out in wages."

Now you know what it is, try again.

[quincunx5]

Wow? Really? That's what subjectivism is?

Oh thanks for enlightening me, professor!

Despite this new found knowledge that you my lord have endowed me with, my arguments still stand.

At least you have acknowledged that they are the basis of economy, not its analysis.

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow? Really? That's what subjectivism is?

Yes, apparently you didn't know and was flaming me because of it.


Oh thanks for enlightening me, professor!

No problem.


Despite this new found knowledge that you my lord have endowed me with, my arguments still stand.

How can your "arguments" still stand when they have nothing to do with the bourgeois economic theory of subjectivism?


At least you have acknowledged that they are the basis of economy, not its analysis.

They are not the basis of economy, it is possible to argue that it is in regards to the stock market, but we all know that the stock exchange is of minimal importance in Capitalist economics.

Also, even if you try to argue that, I will still be able to refute it, given your lack of knowledge on the subject.

[quincunx5]

Yes, apparently you didn't know and was flaming me because of it.


My understanding of subjectivism was clear. My examples show the ridiculuos nature of LTV.



No problem.


Sarcasm is lost on you.



How can your "arguments" still stand when they have nothing to do with the bourgeois economic theory of subjectivism?


Again, my examples were about absurdities of LTV.

In case your head is to far up your ass, subjectivism is not a bourgeois economic theory - it is existed prior to this. It is the basis of civilization itself. Merely being pointed out by the bourgeois, does not prove it's lack of existence prior to it.



They are not the basis of economy, it is possible to argue that it is in regards to the stock market, but we all know that the stock exchange is of minimal importance in Capitalist economics.


I don't know why you brought up stock markets. I'm starting to get the feeling that you are against collective ownership. Would it kill you to be ideologically consistent?

Be as idiotic as you wish, but the economy starts at the smallest level - when people decide to trade things.



Also, even if you try to argue that, I will still be able to refute it, given your lack of knowledge on the subject.


Merely responding is not refuting.

There is no lack of knowledge on my part.

In fact, if you are human, subjectivism is that obvious - whether or not you understand its economic implications.

You can pretend to refute all you want, All I have is just 6 thousand years of written history to prove that value is subjective.

[Led Zeppelin]

My understanding of subjectivism was clear. My examples show the ridiculuos nature of LTV.

Any 5 year old, including the mentally retarded, would say otherwise.


Sarcasm is lost on you.

No, it's lost on you.


Again, my examples were about absurdities of LTV.

No they weren't, they were attempts at doing as such, they failed miserably.


subjectivism is not a bourgeois economic theory - it is existed prior to this.

Wrong, it was developed by the Austrian school of economics in the late 19th century.


Merely being pointed out by the bourgeois, does not prove it's lack of existence prior to it.

Yes it does, it's a theory developed by the bourgeois, a flawed theory.


I don't know why you brought up stock markets.

Because they are the "pefect example" of subjectivism "at work", at least that is what the bourgeois economists of today are claiming.


I'm starting to get the feeling that you are against collective ownership.

Your feelings are shit.


Would it kill you to be ideologically consistent?

No.


Be as idiotic as you wish, but the economy starts at the smallest level - when people decide to trade things.


A well-known fact, we call that petty-commodity production.


There is no lack of knowledge on my part.

Evidently there is.


In fact, if you are human, subjectivism is that obvious - whether or not you understand its economic implications.


It is an economic theory, get that threw your head, i'm not talking about the literal meaning of the word.

[quincunx5]

A well-known fact, we call that petty-commodity production.


This really proves your an idiot.

Perhaps you are right, economy does not require people?. Which maybe the reason why you are so hell bent on destroying economy.

Subjectivism needed to be formulated, I guess by your logic, just like electricity needed to be discovered.

Neither existed prior to discovery, right?

Trade did not occur before the Austrian economists, right?
It wasn't subjective either, right?

I tire of arguing with a baffoon that wishes not to acknowledge history prior to the 19th century.

You might want to learn about the Yapese. Maybe you can point out the Austrians among them.



It is an economic theory, get that threw your head, i'm not talking about the literal meaning of the word.


That's why the word did not need to be applied prior to its application.
The economy existed despite the word's application.
The Austrians did not create a system of economy. They merely put it into writing.

Subjectivism is indeed superior (besides the fact that it explains why we are all relatively wealthy), because it does not discount the fact that two items may be exchanged if the labor behind them is equal.

With, LTV one can only trade goods of equal labor time, or with 'labor time' currency.
Which just becomes a disadvantage to the intelligent man that comes up with a creative way to reduce his labor time.
---
Let's try this again, but this time READ



The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values.


Now tell me how this makes sense?

[Led Zeppelin]

This really proves your an idiot.

This really proves that you don't know what you're talking about.


Perhaps you are right, economy does not require people?

I suggest you come to these forums sober.


Subjectivism needed to be formulated, I guess by your logic, just like electricity needed to be discovered.

Subjectivism did not need to be formulated, since it's flawed.

The only reason it's still around today is because bourgeois economists still adhere to it, they adhere to it because, get this, their not Marxists. :o


Neither existed prior to discovery, right?

Trade did not occur before the Austrian economists, right?
It wasn't subjective either, right?

How is this of any importance when it is proven that subjectivism is flawed as an economic theory? It isn't.


That's why the word did not need to be applied prior to its application.
The economy existed despite the word's application.
The Austrians did not create a system of economy. They merely put it into writing.


Are you human? Do you have a brain?

The literal meaning of the word subjectivism has nothing to do with the economic theory of subjectivism.


Subjectivism is indeed superior (besides the fact that it explains why we are all relatively wealthy), because it does not discount the fact that two items may be exchanged if the labor behind them is equal.


Neither does the LTV, actually.


The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor.

First of all, where did you get this from?

I will reply in length once I know the source, I hope you won't say capitalism.org. :lol:

[quincunx5]

You are unbelievable.

You simply deny the existence of history.

My quote is from your source, you jackass.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:35 PM
OK,

I won't discuss the politics of what I am. Suffice to say I don't know. Perhaps I am a lacky. I really can't say.

I am in my mid-thirties, have a beautiful wife and three kids, live in an upper-middle class home (4,000 square feet) in a very nice community (It's a city called Hermosa Beach, California, and is in the South Bay, as we call it, of the Los Angeles area, about 12 miles south of the Los Angeles Airport.)

My backyard looks over a cliff, where below is the beach and an ocean view. We have a flagpole that's pretty high, 40 feet, can be seen for miles and we fly the Stars and Stripes proudly.

I do not own stock or any investment in capital, but make my money through my own talents. People ask voluntarily for my help, and I don't work in an area where one NEEDS to have me. (That is, I don't do anything that anyone could argue one has a RIGHT to expect from society. It has to do with the installation of audio/video equipment
In your mind!

[Led Zeppelin]

:lol:


My quote is from your source

Yes, and you quoted him out of context:

"The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values. Böhm-Bawerk, entangled in his subjectivist interpretation, mistakes this condition for a condition of exchange in general. But it is obvious that the exchange of commodities at their values, while on the one hand it merely constitutes the theoretical starting point for a subsequent analysis, on the other hand directly controls a historic phase of the production of commodities, a phase to which a specific kind of competition corresponds."

Are you kidding me?

[quincunx5]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Led Zeppelin]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

No, what is wrong with you?

You just tried to "fool me" with an half-assed quote from the link that I provided, did you really think that I wasn't going to look it up?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:44 AM
WOW. You sir, are a GRADE-A moron.
Stop flaming; it makes your argument tedious to read and you are getting a warning point BTW.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
This is spam. Can't you just argue your case? The RevLeft Guidelines are on the top left if you need to review them.

[Hiero]

http://www.answers.com/subjectively&r=67

So as in you look at things subjectively.

I don't see how you can have a economy that runs subjectivly.

[quincunx5]

No, what is wrong with you?

You just tried to "fool me" with an half-assed quote from the link that I provided, did you really think that I wasn't going to look it up?


My quote was not out of context in the least.
Does one need to paste a whole paragraph to be in context, when the first sentence can stand alone?

Fine let's do that:



"The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values. Böhm-Bawerk, entangled in his subjectivist interpretation, mistakes this condition for a condition of exchange in general. But it is obvious that the exchange of commodities at their values, while on the one hand it merely constitutes the theoretical starting point for a subsequent analysis, on the other hand directly controls a historic phase of the production of commodities, a phase to which a specific kind of competition corresponds."


Now tell me how that makes sense. I suppose your next move is to say that it's out of context, at which point you will just paste the whole link. Why don't you stop dancing around the question, and answer it!

Notice how Bawerk resolves why an exhange takes place in the first place,
while this guy merely states that "subsequent analysis" is necessary.

Deja Vu? You are following in this guy's footsteps.



Stop flaming; it makes your argument tedious to read and you are getting a warning point BTW.


So flaming is strictly reserved for the leftists? What a bigot!



This is spam. Can't you just argue your case? The RevLeft Guidelines are on the top left if you need to review them.


Tell it to your comrades.



I don't see how you can have a economy that runs subjectivly.


Open your eyes and look around. You are practicing it right now!

Go back in history and realize that no theory was needed to have an economy in the first place.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:33 AM

Stop flaming; it makes your argument tedious to read and you are getting a warning point BTW.


So flaming is strictly reserved for the leftists? What a bigot!
Yeah, yeah; this is all a big joke. The only flaming I saw was you and you did it repeatedly. Just keep in mind: no more leniency for you.




This is spam. Can't you just argue your case? The RevLeft Guidelines are on the top left if you need to review them.


Tell it to your comrades.

I have before and I am sure I will again, so you can stop pretending to be persecuted.

[quincunx5]

Marxist, the issue basically boils down to viewing value as either subjective or objective, there are no alternatives.

The literal meaning of the word subjective, and the economic implications are one and the same.

I just wish you would stop prancing around avoiding the big question.

If value is indeed objective, what is neccessary is to figure out the social implications.

How does one indeed do this?

I have read many pathetic explantions from the so-called Marxist intellectuals, and yet they still do not actually solve the problem. In fact they create more problems than they solve, and leave other problems simply unsolved.

If you wish to actually convince me that value is objective, please indulge me with examples.

Please describe to me how a modern electrical/mechanical (for example) product would get coordinated, produced, and distributed in an anarcho-communist or marxist-leninist society?

Then tell me how this method would be superior than today.

Convince me that a substantial portion of the current world population (6+ billion) will not die off from lack of division of labor.

You can start a new thread if you wish.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I am in my mid-thirties, have a beautiful wife and three kids, live in an upper-middle class home (4,000 square feet) in a very nice community (It's a city called Hermosa Beach, California, and is in the South Bay, as we call it, of the Los Angeles area, about 12 miles south of the Los Angeles Airport.)

Wow, lucky boy. Well, you seem like a nice guy. I am happy for you.

I am crammed together in a, approximately 112 feet apartment. Right now I have more or less $200 in total. No income, in any possible way.Perhaps you should ask yourself those questions. If you were in my situation, what would you think of people with the amount of wealth you have? Perhaps the question is inside you.

[quincunx5]

I am crammed together in a, approximately 112 feet apartment. Right now I have more or less $200 in total. No income, in any possible way.Perhaps you should ask yourself those questions. If you were in my situation, what would you think of people with the amount of wealth you have? Perhaps the question is inside you.


What are you doing? Why don't you have an income? You need to elaborate.

And what do you care what others do?

Why does he need to be in your situation to compare people of greater wealth?

How the hell did you find a 10' by 11' foot apartment? Are you in a prison cell?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What are you doing?

Sitting in front of the computer.


Why don't you have an income?

Because. There are several reasons.



How the hell did you find a 10' by 11' foot apartment?
I cannot afford anything larger.



Are you in a prison cell?

It sure feels like it. Welcome to the world of the working class.

[rachstev]

NWOG, what city are you in? Are you close by to southern California?

Rachstev

P.S. I will not be able to answer until tomorrow morning. R.

[quincunx5]

Sitting in front of the computer.


You're taking me too literally. I hope that's not all you do.



I cannot afford anything larger.


Do you have a kitchen or a bathroom?



It sure feels like it. Welcome to the world of the working class.


It sounds like you are not a member of the working class. You are a member of the non-working class.

[Zapata]

what does he care what others do? because when youre living in a 112 foot aparment with little to no money, the fact that others are living in mansions with loads of disposable income is of some interest to you. i am, however, interested in knowing NWOGs employment status

[quincunx5]

what does he care what others do? because when youre living in a 112 foot aparment with little to no money, the fact that others are living in mansions with loads of disposable income is of some interest to you.


Why? Their gain is not your loss.

You have to live in a 112 sq ft cell to be envious? Can't you just be a run-of-the-middle class person?

I got along just fine living in my friend's storage closet for about a year. It was also about 110 sq ft. but with a slant - you couldn't stand in it.

EDIT:


If you were in my situation, what would you think of people with the amount of wealth you have?

because when youre living in a 112 foot aparment with little to no money, the fact that others are living in mansions with loads of disposable income is of some interest to you.


I'd be more concerned about my own welfare rather than devising how to bring someone else down.

[Led Zeppelin]

My quote was not out of context in the least.

Yes it was.


Does one need to paste a whole paragraph to be in context, when the first sentence can stand alone?


No, not when the first sentence can stand alone.


Now tell me how that makes sense.

"The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values. Böhm-Bawerk, entangled in his subjectivist interpretation, mistakes this condition for a condition of exchange in general. But it is obvious that the exchange of commodities at their values, while on the one hand it merely constitutes the theoretical starting point for a subsequent analysis..."

Here Hilferding is clearly proving Böhm-Bawerk (and you) wrong, as Hilferding says you are "entangled in subjectivist interpretation", the Marxist law of value starts from that, but it is obvious that the exchange of commodities at their values merely constitutes the theoretical starting point for a subsequent analysis.

"on the other hand directly controls a historic phase of the production of commodities, a phase to which a specific kind of competition corresponds."

Here Hilferding is referring to Capitalism during it's free trade era, i.e., before finance capital (imperialism), Marx was dead before the era of finance capital.

Hilferding's own book "Finance Capital" is a masterpiece and is seen as the fourth volume of Capital. (although he does make some errors in this book, Lenin corrects them in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm))


Notice how Bawerk resolves why an exhange takes place in the first place,
while this guy merely states that "subsequent analysis" is necessary.


Yes, what is your point? Not interested in reading subsequent analyses?


Marxist, the issue basically boils down to viewing value as either subjective or objective, there are no alternatives.


No, the issue does not "basically boil down to viewing value as either subjective or objective", there is a reason we don't call the Marxist law of value "objectivism".


The literal meaning of the word subjective, and the economic implications are one and the same.


You are unbelievable, it's like i'm posting to a brick wall.


Please describe to me how a modern electrical/mechanical (for example) product would get coordinated, produced, and distributed in an anarcho-communist or marxist-leninist society?

How Socialism works (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl8.html)
Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)
Capital volume 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm)
Capital volume 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/index.htm)
Capital volume 3 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm)


Then tell me how this method would be superior than today.

Convince me that a substantial portion of the current world population (6+ billion) will not die off from lack of division of labor.

You can start a new thread if you wish.

Read the above links then get back to me.

[Hiero]

Tell it to your comrades.

What the hell does that mean anyway?


Go back in history and realize that no theory was needed to have an economy in the first place.

In know that, and never said other wise. That is actually sort of subjectivism to imply there was, as things happen around us that are objective and are not control by our will.

That is what is meant by to look at the market objective to see its nature, rather then believe the markets is a depent thing on humans.

Oh and to the original poster of this thread, who cares.


1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

No, no true Communist cares what you do. We are not some cult club that wants to create a lifestyle.


2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California?

Your lifestyle would be revolutionised too, just like the proleteriat. If however you choose not to follow the revolution and tried to continue a lifestyle that contradicted the revolution, then the contradiction would be dealt with.

On the note of sport, community sporting is good for the community. Well any activity that brings people together is good for the community. To use an extreme case using Durkhiems work, people are more likely to commit suicide if they are detached from society. So to prevent things like suicide, activities like community based sport would continue.

But you shouldn't be worried to much about a revolution happening in the USA, wether people here like to admit it or not the working class in the US have reached levels of middle class, through the expliotation of cheap labour and cheap resources in the 3rd world. By expanding imperialism a huge middle section of the US get a good standard of living.

If you choose ideologies on grounds of your lifestyle, then you are lacky. It is a lot safer for you to be a Democrat, because you would never actually change the US foriegn policy enough to damage your lifestyle.

[RedAnarchist]

Why should one man have 10 rooms when 10 people share one room?

You who live in big houses are not lucky. You are greedy.

[rachstev]

xphile2868,

Well, I simply choose to have the amount of space in my home that I do. The amount of space is smaller than others, and larger than others.

We don't live on the beach itself, those who do have nearly no yard. We enjoy a yard. But some would give up their yard for proximity to the beach front.

These choices reflect the decision of the individual.

This 10 people in 10 rooms thing wouldn't work with families too well.

When I was in college (a state Universtiy in California) there were dorms, and I had a roommate, and we shared about 200 square feet. Down the hall was a common bathroom and showers. This lifestyle was acceptable for being in my late teens and early 20's. But now, it would be absurd.

One could build as you suggest. It would be easy. But very few people want to live that way.

In my opinion

As one gets older, they become less tolerant of others differences on an intimate level (not necessarily a social or political level, but bathroom and kitchen habbits and the like.)
Adults don't deal with this as well as college kids do, and so it becomes necessary to create an intimacy that more reflects one personally.
The rooms in the home are not all for living/sleeping. Dining and recreation are also needed.

xphile2868: One could make adult living spaces the way you suggest (though what adults would be attracted to them, I really couldn't say. Obviously, those who do not even have that level of existance. But you wouldn't need to tear down my home to achieve this. You could do it with existing land spaces and materials.

As it happens, I am not particularly greedy. But I know greedy people. Examining various nations throughout the world and their peoples, I don't believe any one nation has a monopoly of greedy citizens.

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

Here Hilferding is clearly proving Böhm-Bawerk (and you) wrong, as Hilferding says you are "entangled in subjectivist interpretation", the Marxist law of value starts from that, but it is obvious that the exchange of commodities at their values merely constitutes the theoretical starting point for a subsequent analysis.


Clearly proves me wrong?

He skirts around the whole issue. The whole link is nothing but Hilfreding claiming Bawerk to be wrong without providing any simple feasible alternative.

Not only that but he uses mere word play "entangled in subjectivist interpretation",
well what the fuck is Hilferding doing other than providing his own subjective interpretation.



You are unbelievable, it's like i'm posting to a brick wall.


You have trouble understanding simple concepts.

In fact I point out to you that I read Capital, yet I still don't have a good answer.

I asked you to put it in your own words. Are you so stupid that you can't even come up with a simple example of how a complex product will be made and distributed?



No, the issue does not "basically boil down to viewing value as either subjective or objective", there is a reason we don't call the Marxist law of value "objectivism".


More of your idiotic word play. The Marxists believe that a good has inherent value determined by its relationship to society. THAT is objective.



That is what is meant by to look at the market objective to see its nature, rather then believe the markets is a depent thing on humans.


The nature behind the market is the fucking people that are in it. What is wrong with you?

[Hiero]

The nature behind the market is the fucking people that are in it. What is wrong with you?

That leaves alot to be explained. The most important one would be why the markets doesn't change its basics laws, untill technology allows it.

People are born into the market, so they follow its laws, they can not changed them without a revolutionary change. A individual can not act in the market according to what he decides, he can not sell tings for what evry price he choose. The nature of the market dictates what he can sell and buy.

Also why are you so angry and why are you swearing? What is wrong with you?

[*Hippie*]

When I was in college (a state Universtiy in California) there were dorms, and I had a roommate, and we shared about 200 square feet. Down the hall was a common bathroom and showers. This lifestyle was acceptable for being in my late teens and early 20's. But now, it would be absurd.

So you think a lower standard of living is acceptable for persons in a specific age group and once they are older they are somehow entitled to higher standards just because of their age?

[quincunx5]

So you think a lower standard of living is acceptable for persons in a specific age group and once they are older they are somehow entitled to higher standards just because of their age?


They are not 'entitled' to anything. They earn it and choose to spend it as they see fit.

[*Hippie*]

What if they work as hard as they can, but still can't "earn" it? Why are they less deserving? There is no reason why one deserves a higher standard of living than someone else regardless of gender, age, race, etc.

[rachstev]

Hippie,

I am speaking for myself, but I believe the views I have reflect a great number of people. It has been my life experience that as one gets older, their needs change, that's all, and their ability to accept different lifestyles "invading their space" becomes harder.

I am not referring to the workplace, or going to the movies, or a Broncos game, or a visit to Mt. Rushmore. I'm talking about one's home, which, by the nature of humans, needs to be a source of solace and comfort.

My life at college was not a "lower standard of living", as much as it was an ability to accept a lot of different conduct by others during more intimate areas of my life.

As I grew older, and having a family, I am less likely to accept others effecting my home environment. I wish it to bea reflection of my vision of what happiness is.

Let's say, Hippie, that we take you at your name, and that your desired life reflects more communal living and greater acceptance of differences affecting your living space. Well, then find or constrct a lifestyle in such a way to make YOU happie.

Naturally, I don't know how you live, and if you're in America, you have great freedoms in having this home life designed the way you wish it to be. Often, with a wife and children, your vision becomes clouded by the needs and vision of others. But that's a family, which for us is a weird combination of dictatorship and anarchy all at the same time.

But what is your life like, and is it how you wish it to be?

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

What if they work as hard as they can, but still can't "earn" it? Why are they less deserving? There is no reason why one deserves a higher standard of living than someone else regardless of gender, age, race, etc.


You think backwards. One does not deserve anything at all. One can work very hard at things that no one else values. Value is indeed subjective.

[*Hippie*]

I just moved to Toronto from Prince Edward Island, a shithole. Now I am in a bigger city, so I hope to get a job. I still can't afford to go back to school yet, because of course our system only likes to make sure the rich kids get into the universities. I am living with a guy "friend" who bugs me for sex.
It is a small area, a basement in someone's house.
Of course I would like some better living arrangements, but I don't have that opportunity and neither do many others. I might someday have that opportunity though.
But..... I don't want that opportunity at the expense of others. I want a society where everyone has the same opportunities. If 5 Katrina refugees (hypothetically) needed to stay here, I would gladly let them in, no matter how small this basement is. I don't know how some corporate tard can have like 5 houses in 5 different cities, huge mansions and so much property, while there are others suffering and dying. It disgusts me how little compassion they have for humanity.

[rachstev]

Someone wrote:

What if they work as hard as they can, but still can't "earn" it? Why are they less deserving? There is no reason why one deserves a higher standard of living than someone else regardless of gender, age, race, etc.

While there are general statistics to show single women an minorities have a lower standard of living, this has nothing to do with the issue posted:

Where I live, in Hermosa Beach, there are many people of various colors, and, needless to say, PLENTY of single women. I don't know how these issues of race and gender became part of this discussion. This has to do with individual choice. Nothing more than that.

I do not stereotype about what people of what skin wish to live at what address. Any address is open to anyone once the property is on the market. There are, where I live, mixed race couples, homosexual couples, and plenty of single women. I don't see anyone who believes they are "less deserving".

Come one, come all. Who cares about these details?

Can someone explain to me what the issue is that is being raised by these comments.

Thanks,

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

I still can't afford to go back to school yet, because of course our system only likes to make sure the rich kids get into the universities.


The alternative is to enslave the professors. They value their profession highly - that's why you have to pay the big bucks for them to spend their time on you.

Have you ever heard of a loan?

Yes, there is an interest to pay, but why would you go to school if you didn't think it would improve your station in life?

If you merely wish to learn, there is no reason to go to school.



But..... I don't want that opportunity at the expense of others. I want a society where everyone has the same opportunities.


Then you want a free market society, with less government interference.

[*Hippie*]

They value their profession highly - that's why you have to pay the big bucks for them to spend their time on you.

Everyone should have the right to the same education. Why does a rich person or their children deserve a better education?


but why would you go to school if you didn't think it would improve your station in life?

If you merely wish to learn, there is no reason to go to school.

Part of the reason I want to go to school is so I can get a job so I will not starve or end up homeless which is a possibility when you are only paid minimum wage in a Capitalist world.

And I also want to learn of course. There are still ways to learn on my own but I would also like to have a teacher to help. Education should not be wasted on people who just want to learn so they can make more money. It should be for people who really want to learn. Under socialism, people could learn because they want to, not because they have to just to survive.


Then you want a free market society, with less government interference.

How would a free market society stop exploitation? Would inheritance be abolished? Would everyone have the same chance as everyone else to live a happy and fulfilling life? Noone would be living in poverty in a totally free market?

[Freedom Works]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Sep 22 2005, 07:09 PM
Everyone should have the right to the same education.
Why?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom Works+Sep 22 2005, 02:03 PM--> (Freedom Works @ Sep 22 2005, 02:03 PM)
*Hippie*@Sep 22 2005, 07:09 PM
Everyone should have the right to the same education.
Why? [/b]
You’re fucking kidding me? This is in the rhetoric of American institutional superiority, that "we" offer free education for the kids...

How about everyone deserves equal opportunity? Why don't you just admit to your bigotry and fascist tendency?

[rachstev]

Just to help everyone out:

The federal Constitution does not say anything about education. It is not garunteed. The document is from a time where such a thing was not envisioned, though Jefferson had his ideals. It is state constitutions which had protected these rights.

THOUGH>>


The federal constitution becomes applicable where you have a state education system (or any system for the matter of that)

So if there is an education system, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause is in force, even though the education system is a creature of the state, and not the federal government.

[quincunx5]

Everyone should have the right to the same education. Why does a rich person or their children deserve a better education?


Again, you cling to "deserve". How about I put a little spin on it and ask "why does a mentally retarded person deserve more education?" How does that sound? Is it even possible to have equality?



Part of the reason I want to go to school is so I can get a job so I will not starve or end up homeless which is a possibility when you are only paid minimum wage in a Capitalist world.


Yes, please ignore the whole getting a loan point.



And I also want to learn of course. There are still ways to learn on my own but I would also like to have a teacher to help. Education should not be wasted on people who just want to learn so they can make more money. It should be for people who really want to learn. Under socialism, people could learn because they want to, not because they have to just to survive.


That's nice You want people to learn for the sake of learning, not for using that knowledge for practical purposes. You don't seem to understand money at all. And apparently you do support enslaving teachers.



So if there is an education system, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause is in force, even though the education system is a creature of the state, and not the federal government.


Yes, there is also a "guarantee" against "involuntary servitute" yet what the fuck do you think a school is but ~involuntary servitude.

The key difference is that school are generally for children so technically the parents are involuntary masters. But having compulsory schooling laws transfers the choice of parents to the wardens of state.



How would a free market society stop exploitation?


Private property rights - that only exist under actual usage. You can always ignore society by claiming land and working upon it to feed yourself.



Would inheritance be abolished?


No.



Would everyone have the same chance as everyone else to live a happy and fulfilling life?


No, people are different. They have the same chance to achieve their own personal goals. There is no way to measure "happiness" and "fulfilling life" it is subjective.



No one would be living in poverty in a totally free market?


Exactly! Everyone is entitled to land, provided they use it.

Povery strictly exists as a statistical measure under a government.

[*Hippie*]

How about everyone deserves equal opportunity? Why don't you just admit to your bigotry and fascist tendency?

How is making education available for all people and not just for wealthy people a fascist view? I am not saying to force people to get educated but if they want to, I think those resources should be available to them. Maybe you misinterpreted what I was saying.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Sep 22 2005, 03:31 PM

How about everyone deserves equal opportunity? Why don't you just admit to your bigotry and fascist tendency?

How is making education available for all people and not just for wealthy people a fascist view? I am not saying to force people to get educated but if they want to, I think those resources should be available to them. Maybe you misinterpreted what I was saying.
Please re-read the quote. I was responding to Freedom Works' commentary on your statement.

[*Hippie*]

That's nice You want people to learn for the sake of learning, not for using that knowledge for practical purposes.

Using it for practical purposes and for acquiring capital are two different things.


And apparently you do support enslaving teachers.

People have a choice to become a teacher or not.


Yes, there is also a "guarantee" against "involuntary servitute" yet what the fuck do you think a school is but ~involuntary servitude.

What about the person serving your coffee at Starbucks? Isn't that involuntary?


Exactly! Everyone is entitled to land, provided they use it.

What about the children, the elderly and the sick who can't work the land? Who or what will take care of them if they have no labor to offer to this type of system?

And inheritance ensures that someone is getting an unfair break. If they start out with "more" in life, then how is that fair for someone who starts out with "less" or nothing?


Yes, please ignore the whole getting a loan point.

I may do that in the future but I am not at the point yet where I am ready to do that because of personal circumstances.
And loans aren't guaranteed for everyone. I don't have any credit rating, nothing.
I was told in high school by the counselor I could not get a loan to go to school out of my province and the one university in my province didn't offer what I wanted.

[*Hippie*]

Please re-read the quote. I was responding to Freedom Works' commentary on your statement.

Oh, sorry. I see now. ;)

[workersunity]

Thanks for the response, and right now im sick and am not going to go piece by piece, but like i said earlier, when i mean needs will be met, i dont mean like a house exactly you would want it, i mean universal human needs, those that i mentioned earlier. I find it irrelevant to talk about china, and russia, because our government wants the populace to believe that they were socialist countries, I believe those revolutions were needed at those times, but i believe that both countries were FAR away from any coherent socialism. I do know that many mistakes were made in those countries, and socialism was never implemented, Ill go into why they werent socialist if you really want me to, but for the sake of this discussion i am just going to say that US imperialist pressure on these countries, made it near impossible, and the fact that the peasantry was the majority of the force of the revolution. The peasantry is by nature reactionary, as they have land of their own, and dont have to necessarily sell their labor like the worker does. All communists that i have talked to recognize the problems with these societies, They were nothing better than a centralized state, be it feudalistic or capitalistic. All TRUE communists realize that they werent communist nor socialist, the same goes for Cuba, History at that time didnt fulfill itself, and the time wasnt ripe for a socialist revolution, not to mention socialism. I do understand that you are content in your life, as are most of the populace, but the time to act is now before this society even further goes to shit, you can see the things that are going wrong, i.e. war in iraq, horrible response of the us govt in the face of katrina, environmental destruction, etc... You may not think socialism is relevant nor necessary now, but if we wait till it gets really bad, humanity might be beyond the point of saving.

[Freedom Works]

You’re fucking kidding me? This is in the rhetoric of American institutional superiority, that "we" offer free education for the kids...

How about everyone deserves equal opportunity? Why don't you just admit to your bigotry and fascist tendency?

Why do people deserve education?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 22 2005, 04:10 PM

You’re fucking kidding me? This is in the rhetoric of American institutional superiority, that "we" offer free education for the kids...

How about everyone deserves equal opportunity? Why don't you just admit to your bigotry and fascist tendency?

Why do people deserve education?
Deserve as far as being allowed the basic human right to know social conditions and run ones own life. Do you disagree with basic human rights?

Mostly though we would all be better off as a society if we were more knowledgeable and thereby more able, increasing productivity. Also, the conflicts we have day to day would be decreased if we all understood sociological models and political theory. If people were not ignorant of these issues, they would be less pliable for manipulation and exploitive treatment but then, that wouldn't sustain capitalism or fascism. We would no doubt move forward in social development.

[Zapata]

quincun you're missing a big part of the point. a poor person is concerned about their own welfare, more so than that of another, perhaps richer, person. but the wealth of the CEO and the poverty of the proletariat at either end of the corporate structure is inevitably tied together. if the ceo diverted more of his profits to the benefit of the workers rather than to himself, the balance would tip, if just a little at first.
but nothing of this sort will ever happen in a free market system. its against the average human's psyche to give up extraordinary wealth, especially if they know nothing of poverty. some amount of force is necessary

[rachstev]

I thought I would discuss the Supreme Court's view of what Hippie called involuntary servitude and public education:

It was settled about 8 years ago, and im sorry but i don't remember the citation, but:

A student was given an assignemnt that included having to work in one of many capacities, including working in a hospital helping th aged.

He sued the school district under the 13th Amendment, citing that he was being required to perfomr involutary servitide. The teacher's purpose was to teach community solidarity and societal help.

The Court ruled nearly 9-0 that they (the Court) weren't going to decide just WHAT a homework assignment was; that school teachers give a wide variety of assignments, including helping other students, grading each others' work, obtaining information, you get the picture.

So the Court ruled that such an assignemtn (working in a hospital) was no different than turning in a report of Columbus or completing algebra questions.

It really made sense, as drawing a line would become such a wildly difficult thing that who COULD say what was work and what was servitude.

Anyway, Hippie, that's how the Court ruled.

Rachstev

[Commie Girl]

This isnt just about the U$ and its constitution...I could give 2 shits about your constitution. Can we respond to some of this in a more generic, worldly manner please?
:D

[Led Zeppelin]

Clearly proves me wrong?

He skirts around the whole issue. The whole link is nothing but Hilfreding claiming Bawerk to be wrong without providing any simple feasible alternative.


What the hell? He proves Böhm-Bawerk wrong by pointing out his flaws in analyzing the Marxist law of value.


Not only that but he uses mere word play "entangled in subjectivist interpretation",
well what the fuck is Hilferding doing other than providing his own subjective interpretation.

Ok, it is quite clear to me that you can't get over the fact that the literal meaning of the word subjectivism has nothing to do with the bourgeois economic theory of subjectivism, therefore your argument will always remain a joke.


In fact I point out to you that I read Capital

I don't believe you.


yet I still don't have a good answer.

That's why I don't believe you.


I asked you to put it in your own words.

I can't put the sole reason of Communism "in my own words".


Are you so stupid that you can't even come up with a simple example of how a complex product will be made and distributed?


Are you so stupid that you can't look at historical examples of this happening? Like for example in the USSR, oh wait, it's not like the USSR was the first nation on earth that sent the first human to space.


The Marxists believe that a good has inherent value determined by its relationship to society.

"The Marxist law of value starts from this, that commodities exchange at their values, this meaning that commodities exchange one for another when they embody equal quantities of labor. The equality of the quantities of labor is solely a condition for the exchange of commodities at their values."

That contradicts your statement.

This proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

[quincunx5]

Ok, it is quite clear to me that you can't get over the fact that the literal meaning of the word subjectivism has nothing to do with the bourgeois economic theory of subjectivism, therefore your argument will always remain a joke.


You take things too literally. You read the definition of subjectivism. Then you read the economic theory. They may use different language, but the concept REMAINS THE SAME. You disassociate the individual from the economy - this is your problem.



Are you so stupid that you can't look at historical examples of this happening? Like for example in the USSR, oh wait, it's not like the USSR was the first nation on earth that sent the first human to space.


Now tell me how sending people into space by extracting wealth from society benefitial to your society?

I don't remember anyone in my family benefiting in anyway from having been the first to send one dude then two dogs into space.

Are you aware of the fact that USSR typically required twice as much labor, twice as much resources to make 80% of output of the US. Not only that but the products were inferior in almost every way. The products were also bland and undistinct.

Oh, your refrigerator is broken? Well you can't fix it yourself - you have to wait for someone to come. One week was pretty typical.

Need to move to a different location? Fill out a form, wait 10 months, then move to another shithole studio apartment. There were three of us living in it.

I can tell you that in 1989, where I lived I got 2 TV stations that were on 12 hours a day.

My father got his first black and white TV in 1971. It was considered top of the line.

Need water? No problem! just fill up buckets 2 hours a day. That's all you get.
Need a telephone number? Share it with 3 other neighbors.
Need food? Visit the supermarkets with 10% stocked shelves, or rent a little garden outside the city.

Have a handicapped person in your family? No problem! just use the collapsing stairs.

And yes I did live in a big city.

Talk about marvelous achievements of the USSR. Contrary to what you may have read, living there was a fucking nightmare when compared to the civilized world!



This proves that you don't know what you are talking about.


And yet you still take pride in your dear theory when I tell you that the thinking man that reduces his labor time is at a disadvantage.

I hope you take pride in debasing the thinking man. Your dear theory is truly scientific. I wonder if other humans fall for it . Oh no, capitalism won.

Oh by the way, I have a sneaky way of reading more from your source, drawing conclusions, but not quoting it in. If you really read your own link, you'd know what I'm talking about.

[Led Zeppelin]

Now tell me how sending people into space by extracting wealth from society benefitial to your society?

It doesn't, but it does prove that "a complex product can be made".

And that was just one example, maybe you are forgetting the fact that the USSR was an economic superpower.


Are you aware of the fact that USSR typically required twice as much labor, twice as much resources to make 80% of output of the US.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Maybe you are forgetting that the USSR achieved in 10 years what the US and western-Europe achieved in 100.


Not only that but the products were inferior in almost every way. The products were also bland and undistinct.


Non-Sectarian-Bastard lived in the USSR in the 80's, he says otherwise.


Oh, your refrigerator is broken? Well you can't fix it yourself - you have to wait for someone to come. One week was pretty typical.


Yes, and if it can't be fixed you will get a new one for free, that's how things work in socialism, even in social-imperialism, which is what the USSR was from 1955 to 1991.


Need to move to a different location? Fill out a form, wait 10 months, then move to another shithole studio apartment. There were three of us living in it.


You do know that you got a house from the government when you applied for one, right?

I don't know what you mean by "There were three of us living in it."


I can tell you that in 1989, where I lived I got 2 TV stations that were on 12 hours a day.

Ok, interesting, I don't care.


My father got his first black and white TV in 1971. It was considered top of the line.


Ok, again I don't care.


Need water? No problem! just fill up buckets 2 hours a day. That's all you get.
Need a telephone number? Share it with 3 other neighbors.
Need food? Visit the supermarkets with 10% stocked shelves, or rent a little garden outside the city.

First of all the above is not true, Non-Sectarian-Bastard, a member of this board has lived in the USSR and says otherwise.

Secondly, how is Russia doing today?


And yes I did live in a big city.

I believe Non-Sectarian-Bastard over you.


Talk about marvelous achievements of the USSR. Contrary to what you may have read, living there was a fucking nightmare when compared to the civilized world!

Sure it was a nightmare, that's why the majority in Russia want it back.

Even Poetin said "the fall of the Soviet Union was a tragedy".


Oh no, capitalism won.

Sure, Capitalism won, class struggle is all over now.


Oh by the way, I have a sneaky way of reading more from your source, drawing conclusions, but not quoting it in

That is not sneaky, that is pathetic.

Also, I would like to add that the USSR was not socialist, nor did it ever achieve socialism.

[quincunx5]

Do you have a source for this claim?


Looking for it...



It doesn't, but it does prove that "a complex product can be made".


That has no consumer value what so ever. The real motive is political, not economical.



And that was just one example, maybe you are forgetting the fact that the USSR was an economic superpower.


Military superpower, I agree.
Economic superpower?

Not on any per capita basis. It's richness came purely from it's size and wealth of natural resources. It was better than china and india, but US, Europe and Japan always kicked its ass economically.



Maybe you are forgetting that the USSR achieved in 10 years what the US and western-Europe achieved in 100.


This just proves that one can achieve something faster once the knowledge is already present and has been obtained through trial and error. Japan transformed itself in 30 years. What's your point?



Yes, and if it can't be fixed you will get a new one for free, that's how things work in socialism, even in social-imperialism, which is what the USSR was from 1955 to 1991.


Unfortunately it was always possible to fix it. We just had to wait for someone to do it.

That's how things work in theory - but not always in practice.



Non-Sectarian-Bastard lived in the USSR in the 80's, he says otherwise.


You actually think every region was the same? Get real. He must be from Moscow. The majority of the wealth was closest to the rulers.



You do know that you got a house from the government when you applied for one, right?


Houses? Only people in downtown lived in historic houses. Everyone who didn't had to live in a building in a center of buildings, very much like the "projects" in NYC.



I don't know what you mean by "There were three of us living in it."


My parents and I lived in a studio apartment. That is what was designated for us.



Ok, interesting, I don't care.
Ok, again I don't care.


The point was to compare to living there to the US or Western Europe during that time.



First of all the above is not true, Non-Sectarian-Bastard, a member of this board has lived in the USSR and says otherwise.


Again, he must have lived in Moscow or maybe St. Petersburg.



Secondly, how is Russia doing today?


What the fuck do I care? I never lived there.

Though upon visiting Moscow in 2002, I was very pleased. I found the downtown area to be thriving. I did not however have time to visit the fringes of the city.



Sure it was a nightmare, that's why the majority in Russia want it back.

Even Poetin said "the fall of the Soviet Union was a tragedy".


Was there a vote put to place? Or just someone's opinion?
You think things move that fast - in a country that skipped the capitalist phase?



Also, I would like to add that the USSR was not socialist, nor did it ever achieve socialism.


Only proving that your theory can only remain in theory form. USSR is what happend in practice.



That is not sneaky, that is pathetic.


Not as pathetic as avoidng my point about the thinking man for the second time!

[Led Zeppelin]

That has no consumer value what so ever. The real motive is political, not economical.

Tell that to Bush.


Military superpower, I agree.
Economic superpower?

Economic superpowers are required for military superpowers.


Not on any per capita basis. It's richness came purely from it's size and wealth of natural resources.

How about "it's richness came purely from it's industrialization"?

Russia had it's size and wealth of resources during the Tsar era.


It was better than china and india, but US, Europe and Japan always kicked its ass economically.

If I recall correctly the USSR was more wealthy than most European nations.

Anyway, how is this relevant? The "richness" of a country does not prove it's socialist.


This just proves that one can achieve something faster once the knowledge is already present and has been obtained through trial and error.

Really? Explain to me why Africa isn't able to achieve this "something" while the knowledge is already present and has been obtained through trial and error.


Japan transformed itself in 30 years

Japan was imperialist pre-WW2.


Unfortunately it was always possible to fix it.

Yes, unfortunately. :rolleyes:


You actually think every region was the same? Get real. He must be from Moscow. The majority of the wealth was closest to the rulers.


Actually he has lived in several Soviet republics, including some of the lesser developed ones.


Houses? Only people in downtown lived in historic houses. Everyone who didn't had to live in a building in a center of buildings, very much like the "projects" in NYC.


I'm not going to take your word for it, even if this is true it is irrelevant.


The point was to compare to living there to the US or Western Europe during that time.

Sure, living in a imperialist welfare state is always better, but what about the majority of other capitalist countries? Is it pleasant to live there?


Again, he must have lived in Moscow or maybe St. Petersburg.

He did live in Moscow, but also in other places.


Though upon visiting Moscow in 2002, I was very pleased. I found the downtown area to be thriving.

I visited in 2005, I was not pleased, and I found the downtown area was not thriving.


I did not however have time to visit the fringes of the city.

I did, drug addicts, corrupt police and maffia roam the streets, it was so much fun.


Was there a vote put to place?

I believe it was an opinion poll.

But who cares? The president agrees.


You think things move that fast - in a country that skipped the capitalist phase?

How did it skip the capitalist phase? It was capitalist from 1965 onwards.


Only proving that your theory can only remain in theory form. USSR is what happend in practice.


How is this true when the USSR didn't even apply the theory?


Not as pathetic as avoidng my point about the thinking man for the second time!

What?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

NWOG, what city are you in?
A city close to Oslo.



Are you close by to southern California?
No.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You're taking me too literally. I hope that's not all you do.

Should I not take you literally?




Do you have a kitchen or a bathroom?

Combined kitchen and living room, and bedroom. The bathroom is really high-tech. After peeing standing, I can simply turn around to my left to wash my hands, without lifting my legs.



It sounds like you are not a member of the working class. You are a member of the non-working class.

How so?


what does he care what others do? because when youre living in a 112 foot aparment with little to no money, the fact that others are living in mansions with loads of disposable income is of some interest to you. i am, however, interested in knowing NWOGs employment status
I am a student.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Fuck Kerry. He wanted to invade Venezeula

Documentation?

[rachstev]

That eminent, worldly soccer mom, Commie Girl, wrote:

This isnt just about the United States of America and its constitution...I could give 2 shits about your constitution. Can we respond to some of this in a more generic, worldly manner please?



1. This isnt just about the United States of America and its constitution.

Well, yes it is. And it is ONLY about the United States Constitution. Hippie's issue involved a situation in the United States of America. The Constitution is THE controlling authority of our nation, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court is the FINAL ruling on ANY matter. PERIOD.


2. I could give 2 shits about your constitution.

Well, you are a Canadian citizen, and I suppose that you can easily go about your life not caring about our Constitution. (However, if you visited the United States, many parts of the Constitution would apply to you, and if you were threatened by state action, such as a search or seizure, or arrest, or fine, and you wanted to fight these matters, the Constitution would mean a lot to you, especially the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment, and parts of the Fourteenth Amendment.)


3. Can we respond to some of this in a more generic, worldly manner please?

Well, no. I really can't, and have no interest in doing so. Nothing supercedes the Constitution, not even treaties w/ foreign nations. Any section of a treaty that is in conflict with the Constitution is void as binding on any U.S. citizen. (Needless to say, when one leaves the territory of the United States and, let's say, goes to Canada, the Canadian Constitution is controlling authority on that U.S. Citizen for that time.)

While there are currently international laws, they do not apply to most of the human transactions involved in daily life in the United States.

But, as you have probably deduced by now, I view myself as a citizen of the the United States of America far more than I view myself as a citizen of the world. For this reason, I have an American view more than I have a generic, worldly manner.

Rachstev

Also Commie Girl:

There appears to be a defect in your computer keyboard.

Everytime you have attempted to type United States of America, it has come out "U$".

Weird.

Well, equipment can be that way.

I want you to know that as I responded to your recent comments, where you note your interest and enthusiasm for our Constitution, I corrected this problem, as my computer's keyboard functions properly.

Yours,

Rach$tev

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Che [email protected] 14 2005, 07:06 PM
2.) California is the last place I expect a socialist revolution to take place. From what I see, it is a very materialistic and hollywood obsessed place. That's probably a sterotype, but that is the only image I get.
Come on, give the west coast something. The fifth largest capitalist economy in the world, yet downtown LA has no emergency room, they won't build another school for a decade, and a police force trained on the deathstar! Not to mention history like the San Francisco general strike, the Black Panthers, the farmworkers movenments. I'd say california would be one of the first places (after New Jersey) that a revolution would happen in the US.

[Zapata]

maybe california is the first place a revolution would happen in the US, but the chances of one happening there or anywhere else in america are still extremely small

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:26 PM
maybe california is the first place a revolution would happen in the US, but the chances of one happening there or anywhere else in america are still extremely small
Yeah, right now we have a long way to go in the U.S., but there have been very big and very radical movements in the past and I think we are overdue for the next one.

If a revolution happened in Latin America, I think you would see the emergence of a new left in the U.S. almost overnight. The biggest problem with the left in the U.S. is that so many people don't think that any other way doing things is even possible.

[rachstev]

I don't see it, Gravedigger:

Nearly all of the Latin Americans who came here are doing so for the puspose of enjoying the benefits of capitalism w/out the corruption in Latin America.

Let's say what you happens is the case, what is your scenario for this new left movement in America.

Connect the dots for me...

[Zapata]

rachstev its not so much that the latinos in the united states would necessarily take arms immediately after a revolution in latin america, but that the mentality of all americans, (and especially latinos) would change. a revolution could occur in latin america very easily, exactly because of the corruption et. al. in latin america. an largescale revolution would easily change the mindset of most latinos in the US, especially if they were of the same nation as the one in which the revolution took place. unless, of course, the majority of the expatriates of that country were like the cubans in miami, largely member of the former aristocracy, who lost their extravagant lifestyle so that the majority of the country would benefit. in any case, latinos in the US would see some things differently if a successful revoution took place in latin america.

[quincunx5]

I can't see latinos take the entire US. They can possibly take California, Texas, and Florida.
Which would just be an interesting reversal of history.

[rachstev]

Zapata,

Outside of perhaps latinos promoting a higher tax basis for welfare programs (their culture is very family-community-no one starves even if everyone has a little less oriented), I cannot see that such an external movement would lead to genuine revolution or anti-capitalsim. more like a capitalism with a heart is more in line with hispanic philosophy, if one could stereotype it that way.

Also, it could have a backfire effect, and not like you mentioned:

What if a socialist revolution more strictly probhibitted the sending of dollars from the U.S. by, let's say, Columbian-Americans to their Columbian national relations in Columbia. Then there might be a firming up of anti-socialist views by members of the Columbian-American and hispanic community.

I can't see this, "Hey, they're doing it over there, so why not us?" mentality.

Rachstev

[rachstev]

OK,

I’ve been having fun writing this “Opposing Ideologies” forum for a couple of weeks now and have decided to leave.

Recently, I received a third “point” for being a bad boy, and was warned by NoXion about bringing harm to the members. I was also suspended for 48 hours, but, ironically, I didn’t know about it beause it happened on Friday afternoon and I didn’t return to the forum until Monday morning.

It had the effect of the suspension that never was.

I am now at 60% warning and have no interest in being so outragiously deferential, especieally where I can’t “defend myself” by commenting back in similar fashion, that I will not hang around here and become some kind of whipping boy for this forum, where things can be herld at me, but I am unable to return a blow.

While I realize the place is RevolutionaryLeft.COM (there’s something weird abou that, isn’t there, Revolutionary Left, dot COM. And they sell t-shirts. Wonder what Che would think of that? There is a profit margin there, me thinks) the organizers did put up the OI area for, presumably, people such as myself.


After reading many of the previous posts I have come to the conclusion (I don’t care it this sounds like a conceit) that the board is not prepared for someone such as myself.

I think that OI has been created for commies to rant on cappies, and that where an educated cappie brings up issues that cappies can’t resolve, they freak, and get mad, and take their toys and go home.

Consider the forum leader, VoteForMarx, with a bunch of letters for his handle. He is angry about a lot of stuff, and gets even more angry where someone disgrees with him. He has intelligence and well reasoned postions, but his anger over American’s mere existance has clouded every question I have put to him. Where I point out to him that there are non-European Americans once exploited by others (decendants or former slaves, Mexican-Americans, etc.) he simply puts them down as class traitors.

Listen, 3XLGBT-CP3O-Vote-4-Marx, your main problem is that you ONLY see the United States through workers v. the power structure, and American has that aspect, but is not only about that.

Your biggest blunder, in your exibiting your own misunderstanding of your own nation, is that we are NOT a story of workers v. capital, regardless of what you, Howard Zinn, and your sounding board. It is amazing that someone so intelligent has missed one of the greatest understandings about the United States, and perhaps to a lesser degree, Europe.

In your final comments to me you constantly interjected that workers caused progressive movement in the United States. Any, ANY, social scientist who has studied the history of the United States will tell you that the liberal, middle class, led by the upper middle class, have been responsible for social progress in America.

Major examples include: 1) ending child labor; 2) abolitionsim in northers states; 3) creation of the eight hour day (granted, aided by labor protest); 4) the end of TB in the U.S.; 5) the spread of information about birth control; 6) public education; 7) women’s federal right to vote (though it may havee come earlier in your state, Nebraska, as it came to Wyoming in the 1800’s, remember this is a state decision before 1920); 8) urban planning...THE LIST IS ENDLESS!!! The civil rights movment was designed and implimented by the middle class blacks and more affluent whites. PERIOD. The “workers” of American were not leading the way to end Jim Crow.

I could go on but you get the point. Whether you wish to accept it is anohter thing. (Didn’t they require this in college??!? Every educated person knows this about American history.) As I stated, your hatred of the United States has blinded you. I am sorry for that. You are very smart, but it clouds your judgment.

I have decided to continue flying my flag. I have made this decision of the basis of the following:

1. I recently took a walk through a community of homes in Carson, California, as my son, he is 8 BTW, had a football game there. Many people were plying their flags. Carson is a city known for great ethnic and financial diversity.

2. Did you see the pre-game show of the San Diego Chargers v. the Pittsburgh Steelers? That was fucking awsome!

3. I don’t think you could make a beer commercial without an American flag. I don’t know why this is true, but is seems to be the case.

I wish you good luck, CP3O. And good fortune.

If you are interested, I happen to beieve that, in fact, there is a battle coming over the secession of certain areas of the United States. I will personally lead the army that will destroy any actions by such traitors. Perhaps we will meet on such a field.

Until that time,

[email protected]



NoXion,

You, Sir, are an asshole. There, give me two more marks and ban me. I love your attitude. You call me a cum stain while disagreeing with my point of view, then give me a bad boy point and tell me not to abuse members, where you will not identify them.

I can only presume that you were “punishing” me because I wrote the humorous comment that Commie Girl’s keyborad was broken, as she keeps typing U$ for US. I even joked myself about this by signing it Rach$tev.

Commie Girl, who needs no protection by the way, and she and I have exchanged mail w/ one another, wishes I become more of a world view person. I wrote quite elloquently on defending the authority of the United States Constitution, and how its authority, as interpreted by the Supreme Court WAS THE AUTHORITY of the land.

It is a lost cause for Commie Girl that I become more worldly, and that I accept the Constitution as being less that what it is.

I suppose here is my cardinal sin and reason for my continuously receiveing points, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU WILL WRITE OR REPLY:

You wish the OI board only have “preachers”, idiots who spout off pro-American crap and dicks showing pics othemselves in t-shirts who live in trailers in red states.

The fact that someone uses the constitution to demonstrate the absurdity of your attempt to leftist revolution probably bothers you beyond measure.

As I don’t expect you to turn your point of view into action, but presume you will be cowaring in your bed when the Revolution comes to Wales, let alone fight in America (unless there’s a video game version of Revolution In America, then I suppose you’ll win in Virtual Reality world.)

I don’t worry about you stabbing your bayonet into anything.

I think your problems stem from one or more of the following:

1. two inches

2. have not been laid in years (see 1)

3. you need to upgrade your Scotch to a better brand

4. you were turned down in requesting to participate in Beltane festival in Scotland this year (I was not turned down, and yes, it was a fucking orgy) (see 1)

5. you didn’t pass eighth grade promotion exam. Again.

6. you’re not an American (probably the root of many issues you have)

7. you take yourself and your cause seriously

8. the Royal Family keeps fucking up

9. no American flag ot fly (contact Vote4Mrax, he’s hording them to sell for bonfires.)

10. your boyfriend left you (see 1)


I’d wish you good luck, but you’d squander it.



To the rest of you, the very best. I enjoyed the fun.

Rachstev

[workersunity]

Our constitution is currently just a symbol no one follows that shit anymore, cops break it every fucking day, bush pisses on it, and the rest of of the christian conservatives interpret it, and it a majorly fucked up way

[Freedom Works]

It's been dead since Lincoln, the Great Centralizer, annihilated the right of secession.

[rachstev]

workersunity, you are a monnoic idiot who doesn't know shit about ANYTHING.

freedom works, it is a common misconception that there was every a state's right to secede. In fact there is no such thing as states' rights. It was not annihilated, it simply didn't exist.

I will write a brilliant essay regarding this on a separate post.

Rachstev

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:45 PM
OK,

I won't discuss the politics of what I am. Suffice to say I don't know. Perhaps I am a lacky. I really can't say.

I am in my mid-thirties, have a beautiful wife and three kids, live in an upper-middle class home (4,000 square feet) in a very nice community (It's a city called Hermosa Beach, California, and is in the South Bay, as we call it, of the Los Angeles area, about 12 miles south of the Los Angeles Airport.)

My backyard looks over a cliff, where below is the beach and an ocean view. We have a flagpole that's pretty high, 40 feet, can be seen for miles and we fly the Stars and Stripes proudly.

I do not own stock or any investment in capital, but make my money through my own talents. People ask voluntarily for my help, and I don't work in an area where one NEEDS to have me. (That is, I don't do anything that anyone could argue one has a RIGHT to expect from society. It has to do with the installation of audio/video equipment.

Now, I am not saying all of this to brag. In fact, plenty of people I know have it better than me. We don't spoil our kids and teach them to be kind and fair to others and to play by the rules. We teach them to be respectful of others.

1. Should I, at this moment, change my lifestyle, from your point of view? If so, how?

2. What would happen to my life should there be a socialist revolution in California? Would my kids still play in little league and football (our kind of football, the Broncos, Colts, etc.); would my daughter still be in cheer class? Since Marxist ideology was for one to "take what he needs", I suppose I would still live where I do, because I need it, as does my wife...GOD, does she have material needs far beyond mine! And I would "give what I could", which means I suppose that I'd still work on video systems, but merely do it without pay as needed for the benefit of all. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

3. If there were a revolution, on which side should I fight?


Thanks for taking up this challenge. My problem is that I really don't know where I fit in. I have passed the California Bar, but rarely practice law, but I do write appellate briefs for a friend who does that for a living, or I sometimes review his work.

So why do I hang out here? Well, for sometime now, I have been concerned that our constitutional government is failing in the one thing it was always brilliant at: change. It seems there are intrenched powers that place serious barriers to change and this worries me for the future of my counrty. So I see something coming, politically, and I am wondering where I will stand.

Please don't bore me with dogma, and why I need to see things YOUR way. Instead, you can really help me by answering my 3 questions. Doing so will be of a great benefit to me, more than reading about how I'm doomed to X if I don't do Y. I know all that. Please only pontificate while answering question 1.

Thanks,

Rachstev
sounds like you got it good dude, be thankfull for yourself and your family
p.s. commies like football too! :D

This would be your new life according to your narrow minded reality..........
enjoy

[Zapata]

rachstev im not gonna lie your true colors have shone through. i can see i was wrong to think you were the calm and composed opposite of some of the other cappies on the forum. enjoy beverly hills

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:46 AM
After reading many of the previous posts I have come to the conclusion (I don’t care it this sounds like a conceit) that the board is not prepared for someone such as myself.
...
I will write a brilliant essay regarding this on a separate post.
Great points and yes; you are quite arrogant but I haven't seen any shred of real intellectual ability from you, just hollow rhetoric.


I think that OI has been created for commies to rant on cappies, and that where an educated cappie brings up issues that cappies can’t resolve, they freak, and get mad, and take their toys and go home.

So you are taking your toys and going home? Way to run away ;)


Consider the forum leader, VoteForMarx, with a bunch of letters for his handle.

Wow, you said "VoteFor," when it is Elect; aren’t you clever :rolleyes:


He is angry about a lot of stuff, and gets even more angry where someone disgrees with him.

:lol: Yeah, I'm full of rage. You on the other hand, are full of shit and refuse to prove your points (likely because you can't), preferring to run away.


He has intelligence and well reasoned postions, but his anger over American’s mere existance has clouded every question I have put to him.

Perhaps I am just not reasonable enough to entirely avoid the issues like you do.


Where I point out to him that there are non-European Americans once exploited by others (decendants or former slaves, Mexican-Americans, etc.) he simply puts them down as class traitors.

Way to narrate, but I find making points is also helpful.


Listen, 3XLGBT-CP3O-Vote-4-Marx, your main problem is that you ONLY see the United States through workers v. the power structure, and American has that aspect, but is not only about that.

Right; there is so much more that you simply chose not to refer to.


Your biggest blunder, in your exibiting your own misunderstanding of your own nation, is that we are NOT a story of workers v. capital, regardless of what you, Howard Zinn, and your sounding board.

If you really knew about my "own misunderstanding," it is likely that your over-inflated ego would compel you to post about it but considering you didn't, I suspect that you are just a pathetic lair.


It is amazing that someone so intelligent has missed one of the greatest understandings about the United States, and perhaps to a lesser degree, Europe.

Right; that quality you don't ever seem to mention, yet claim to know so much about?


In your final comments to me you constantly interjected that workers caused progressive movement in the United States. Any, ANY, social scientist who has studied the history of the United States will tell you that the liberal, middle class, led by the upper middle class, have been responsible for social progress in America.

So your great "proof" is hersay? For that matter, if they ignore the massive worker-run movements throughout history; like you, they are full of shit.


Major examples include: 1) ending child labor; 2) abolitionsim in northers states; 3) creation of the eight hour day (granted, aided by labor protest); 4) the end of TB in the U.S.; 5) the spread of information about birth control; 6) public education; 7) women’s federal right to vote (though it may havee come earlier in your state, Nebraska, as it came to Wyoming in the 1800’s, remember this is a state decision before 1920); 8) urban planning...THE LIST IS ENDLESS!!! The civil rights movment was designed and implimented by the middle class blacks and more affluent whites. PERIOD. The “workers” of American were not leading the way to end Jim Crow.

So if you put something into law or claim to lead a movement, that makes you responsible for all the gained ground? Why don't I make a similar claim, "I own your house!" Well; do I?


(Didn’t they require this in college??!? Every educated person knows this about American history.) As I stated, your hatred of the United States has blinded you. I am sorry for that. You are very smart, but it clouds your judgment.

What do you do with your "sight?" You run away. You are about as objective as you are responsive.


I have decided to continue flying my flag. I have made this decision of the basis of the following:

1. I recently took a walk through a community of homes in Carson, California, as my son, he is 8 BTW, had a football game there. Many people were plying their flags. Carson is a city known for great ethnic and financial diversity.

2. Did you see the pre-game show of the San Diego Chargers v. the Pittsburgh Steelers? That was fucking awsome!

3. I don’t think you could make a beer commercial without an American flag. I don’t know why this is true, but is seems to be the case.

I wish you good luck, CP3O. And good fortune.

If you are interested, I happen to beieve that, in fact, there is a battle coming over the secession of certain areas of the United States. I will personally lead the army that will destroy any actions by such traitors. Perhaps we will meet on such a field.

Until that time,

[email protected]

If we do meet on that field; I'll be the one burning your flag, you disgusting bigot.