History repeats

[EwokUtopia]

Suppose the inneviteble class war marx predicted occurs tommorow. What is to stop the oppressed of today from becoming the oppressed of tommorow, thus requiring a new revolution? Is there any way to stop the violence?



I believe that there is, simply lay down your arms and speak of love, not hate. Do not shoot at the system, the only way to defeat consumerism is to not consume. The new proletariate is drowned with money and want. They are kept in chains of complaicency, so the only way to break those chains is to free them from themselves and their own want. I do not hate based on class. If many proletarians won the lottery, wouldnt they become the new oppressors quite quickly? I am not a marxist, I am an Orwellian socialist. Remember animal farm, Napoleon became the new human. Communist China, I think, is probably the most Capitolistic country around. They have no Sickle and hammer, they have a swoosh and hammer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't want to shoot at the system, I want to organize workers to replace it with one in their intrests. Will that bring opression by the new ruling class (working class)? Only as much as the American Civil War brought opression to slave-owners.

As far as not consuming, well the poor and working poor have got most people beat at this strategy already since they are often unable to consume as much as they'd like. Not consuming will not achieve us anything and is a moral argument, not a political one.

Winning the lottery or being rich do not make you a member of the bourgoise automatically unless you use that money to buy factories and hire employees or invest in companies. Most people on this site agree that socialsim is not a society where some all powerful state owns everything and then divides it up equally for everyone. According to most marxists, socailsim is the rule of the working class by the working class rather than the rule over the workers by a state burocracy (China) or a capitalist class (most other countries).

I agree that China is not a socialist society though.

I would suggest rereading "Animal Farm". Napoleon's rule came after he completely rewrote the principles the farm revolt was based on, not from the farm revolt itself. In the book, what was Napoleon's sin? Carrying through with the revolt or betraying it and eliminating all the principles behind it?

[EwokUtopia]

Well the thing is, your thinking in 19th century terms. The facts of the modern west is that most people, or at least an equal amount, belong to a middle class of consumers. They outweigh the amount of proletarians in the country. Even the Proletarians are wealthy compared to world wide standards, and thus, Marx's vision of revolution is obsolete, In this country at least. And the old slave owners of yesterday are the lower class Southern whites of today, who are very much so oppressed by their country. The oppression that occurs nowadays, however, is different. They oppress us by turning us into parasitic consumers and destroy our humanity. in 20 years, depression will be the leading cause of death. Ignorance is the weapon the new corporate elite of today weilds. "bourgeoisie" is an obsolete term. The true oppressors are the corporations, and since the law regards them as persons, they must be seen as tyrants. What my own personal theory of what should happen is that we should go back to small communities of 1000 so people, ran by a chief or non-heridetary elder, and basically live as the ancient celts did, connected to the earth. Industry is the evil that has made man into the enemy of Earth. People are animals, and we cant forget that. We need the Earth, and we are destroying it. Essentially, we are the Scuba Diver who is hiting his air tank with a hammer. Communism cant be the sollution because look how much Communist countries pollute. The problem with communism is that it is an economic theory that doesnt say much about the environment or spirituality, or creativity, or individuality, or love, or basically anything that makes life good. Equality is meaningless without freedom. Freedom is meaningless without life. Life is impossible without nature.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What you call "middle class" are the proletariet: class in marxist terms is not divided by how much money one person makes compared to another; it's a person's relation to production. Most "middle class" people have to work for a living and do not own factories, offices or their own farming land, so they are workers who, when it comes down to it, are hurt by their lack of control over production and would have an intrest in taking production into their own hands.

Look at Argentina where the "middle class" went from having a "consumerist" lifestyle comperable to many European countries to banging pots and protesting in the streets because an economic crisis ruined them.

Slave owners of the past are the poor whites of today? Hardly. The poor whites in the south like in the Appelations did not own slaves back in the day and many even sided with the North because of this. THe former slave owners held onto their power and position through the Democratic Party in the south and enforcing jim-crow laws.

I really don't get "primitivists" who use the internet. Why would a "chief" be better than democratic organizing? Who's to say that the chief would care about the environment?

The problem with communism is that it has never been sucessful. What you call communism are states run by burocrats, not the workers.

Communism dosn't say much about creativity or induviduality? How creative can you be if you are spending all your daily energy making money for your boss? How much induviduality can you have if you are a cog in the capitalist machine? I want a world where we only have to work in order to live not only live to work so that people can be free to spend their time doing things that are meaningful to them, not just making a buck for their boss.

Look back at communities of 1000 or so people run by a chief or elder: Salam Mass. witch hunts? Is that what you want? Think about it, your theory was already tried by utopians like the Puritans who settled in the Americas.

I happen to think that things like medical vaccines and technology that is more efficient (and has the potential to both make work easier and spare the environment) are good things, just organized in a poor way (for profit not to meet people's needs).

Primative societies need much more resources per population than modern industrial society so to sustain the current world population with primative means would destroy the resources we have left and cause millions of people to die. Really think about it: how much land would it take if the entire population of Los Angeles was suddenly forced to become farmers to grow their own food?

Why dosn't capitalism use the vast resources of the modern world to make production more sustainable? Because it isn't cost effective. Business cares about profits in the short term and if they clear-cut a forrest, they won't replant it, they'll just move onto the next because it's cheeper. If regular people ran things, they would have an intrest in making sure that resources were sustainable because it wouldn't only hurt the environment, it would hurt regular people too.