Union of Action

[Leo]

Greetings,

I have just recently become a member of this site, and I want to share some of my opinions/ ask some questions. First thing I noticed about the site and its members was the fact that it had lots of different opinions, from Stalinist-Maoist line to Anarcho-Communist line and everything in between. Such variation is a positive thing, because by itself, variation is good. However, some of the discussions I read troubled me. An example to that are discussions regarding interpretation of historical personalities that became more serious that discussions.
A new revolution, another world is pushing the gates of our world. Despite all the efforts done by the hegemony to hide what’s going on in our world with their spectacles using the so-called free press, the rebellion had begun. We can see it everywhere; people are reacting against the system. They are rebelling. However, a rebellion, which is so well hidden, cannot overthrow the system. The rebels must organize in the international arena. If we are going to fight against capitalism, not only we, as intellectuals, should unite but also we should unite all workers of the world. We should be like a fist against capital. Such an organization will not be easy to achieve, but only than can a revolution be achieved, and I don’t mean violent revolution, at least not necessarily. If armies are sent to attack people, obviously people will defend themselves, but other than that, a mass strike can bring the revolution, or even through bourgeois elections, there can be a revolution. (This will probably result in the army attacking people, in a similar way to what happened in Chile to Salvador Allende.) Nevertheless, to make a revolution, we must first be the revolution, we must be unique individuals and we must respect individual values of others. This doesn’t mean that we should respect nationalist justifications for wars, or racism etc, because right is never an equal of left. It has never been. Left should have been called forward and right should have been called backward. One develops his or her own leftist ideas through observing the society and the world, rightist ideas are not developed, and they are lies chosen to be believed.
Some of the discussions I read that troubled my about historical personalities was that I thought, if there was a movement right now, it would be split! If the movement is split, it has no chance to succeed. One remembers Bernstein’s famous quote "The Final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing; the movement is everything." This is exactly the opposite of what we should think! The final goal is everything: the liberation of the working class, the victory of labor over capital. We fight for the future; it is the future that we care about. This is why I think fighting over the people who lived and died years ago is pointless. Discussions are of course helpful to reveal the truth, but even the truth regarding the past isn’t more important than the victory of labor over capital. No matter what we think about works of people like Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Makhno, Goldman, Kropotkin, Stalin, Mao etc. those people are irrelevant if nothing else. We can learn from them, have new perspectives by reading them, tell others about what we think and discuss the ideas, even like them or dislike them, but if we are fighting about dead bodies of the past, we will never be able to build a better future. We
must be responsible for the future. The ecological disaster is growing every day. If Labor doesn’t defeat capital, capital will destroy the world itself!
As freethinkers, as intellectuals, we have a duty towards the future of humanity and the earth. We must promote free thought; we have the key to free the minds of the people of the world, and when unleashed, the minds of working people will go as much as it is possible, and we will have a world with billions of unique individuals, realizing their differences and appreciating things they have in common, a world where every voice is unique and every voice is equally heard, a world of peace and sharing and equality and justice and participation and cooperation and friendship and freedom and love, most importantly love. We can have such a world, without hunger, corruption, oppression, injustice, after all, we all know what we want, but if only we united for action...

[Macchendra]

And I want to add, given the state of militarism, we must look at realistic strategies that do not grant the them license to murder us. Armed resistance is not realistic.

The entire American people could rise up against the combined armed forces of the US Government and would lose. That is reality.

Even more real is that you won't get the entire American people to rise up because they will be conviced that you want to set up authoritarian slavery.

The capitalists are vulnerable, though. They are bankrupt. They are maxed out on credit. They can't back the value of their economic system. But their monopoly stands unchallenged. And would-be challengers want the monopoly to continue also because they are afraid it will fall and take them down too.

But it seems to be a thoughtcrime to attack them on their weakest point.
"Oh no, we must be 'realistic' and attack them on their strongest point, with military might."

Whatever.

[Leo]

I mostly agree with you, a military resistance, especially at the beginning of the movement would be meaningless and suicidal. The current capitalist utopian mentality in America is caused by the richness of the country, even tough there are a significant amount of poor people, and this richness is provided by the exploitation of resources and labor force of third world countries.
The process of attacking capitalism can begin in America, by organizing labor, unions dedicated to mass strike, and by direct and peaceful practice of communal life. Nevertheless, the process of crushing the state cannot begin in America; it can only happen when the Third World is free from influence and American economy is ruined by combined effects of strikes and lack of resources. What I am saying is, at one point or another, during the process of crushing the state; they would attack us with their strongest point, yet soldiers are human too, there might come a point when the rifles are turned at commanders. The institution of state can be crushed without a single gunshot. We must remember that we are not trying to kill capitalists, or high-rank state officers. It isn’t personal hatred against the ones who practice injustice that motivates us; it is hatred against injustice as an idea.

[Macchendra]

Right, I hope you understood I was echoing your points, in one particular context.

[Leo]

Yeah, I just wanted to add few more points on the topic, it is always possible to write more and more and more and so on. Slavoj Zizek says "The moment I am at the end of one project I have the idea that I didn’t really succeed in telling what I wanted to tell, that I need a new project – it’s an absolute nightmare." I think it is true for most of the people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Macchendra
The entire American people could rise up against the combined armed forces of the US Government and would lose. That is reality.

While this possibility is in no sense "on the agenda" in the foreseeable future, the statement is untrue.

Approximately 300 million civilians vs. 3 million military personnel = no contest.

As was demonstrated in Petrograd (February 1917), a really massive uprising of the civilian population utterly demoralizes the armed forces...most which either defect to the revolution or simply desert and "melt" into the civilian masses.

Even the most patriotic soldier can understand odds of 100-1...he's toast! :lol:

The American people could still be as many as three generations away from revolution...so it's a "moot question" at this time.

But we should not allow ourselves to be "terrorized" by what Mao quite properly called "paper tigers". In the face of really massive resistance, all that imposing weaponry is just so much expensive scrap metal.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Macchendra]

The reality is that violence is not an option.
Whether it will be an option in three generations is fantasy conjecture.
Capitalism needs to be destroyed today.
We need revolution now, and we can have revolution now.
Especially if we throw off the shackles of thinking inside the coffin and start working with living ideas that haven't coagulated into an inert sap.

An American revolution by violence is a pathetic fantasy at this point.
(Visions of french-like parkour mimes going against navy-seals who have taken an oath to shoot unarmed American civilians come to mind.)
People here have chided me for being unrealistic. Well, that's laughable.

They will actually be encouraging you to violence in the hopes of fueling their booming privatized prison industrial complex, so they can have sweatshop labor at slave labor prices.

It is time to develop strategies that will work:
http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader...ing.asp?iLink=8 (http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/includes/inc_hitting.asp?iLink=8)

[Leo]

I agree that we can't even imagine a revolution occurring in the United States in near future, but the near future we think we might foresee is merely ten maybe fifteen years, because the momentum of change is incredibly fast, much faster even then the beginning of the last century, and when we look at it, we can see how unlikely the world might seem twenty years later. This by itself means that our time is coming. World conditions can be so different twenty years later and we might find ourselves not only discussing but also actively working for that revolution.
I also agree that a popular uprising demoralizes the armed forces, first of all they are human too, and the people demonstrating are their children or their parents etc. Secondly, the system of an army is very similar to capitalism, higher classes, generals, who are few exploit simple low rank soldiers, who are not only low class, but also generally poor in civil life. The difference is the amount of brutality; it is the lives of low rank soldiers that are exploited.
On the high-tech weaponry, it is more for intimidation. If all those weapons are used against demonstrating people, then not only state but also the executives of the state will meet the most brutal end. Hopefully things will never come to that point, but if does, the anger of the masses cannot be controlled. A massive and conscious demonstration will be invincible, even if the state magically had the power to kill everyone because that too will be defeat for them because simply they need the people they are exploiting.
A revolution begins before the revolution itself. Our goal is to get to the point where massive resistance occurs in order to destroy the capital but we must start showing what we are going to do even before that. It is a long process, a complicated and a hard process. There are steps we need to take before it, we need to organize in the international level, and we need to think in the international level. It can start soon, indeed very soon but the actual and complete revolution will take time.
The most effective place to strike capitalism is the United States, events such as the recent New York transit workers strike proves this. Yet, the United States will probably be the last place where the state is crushed. It will take reclaiming all of the third world, second world and European ‘allies’ to reach the fatherland of capitalism.
On violence, well, anyone can see most of violent actions do not bring solution to anything. The way governments all around the world use ‘terror’ to impose more and worse terror is a solid proof for that. Violence is a rather irrelevant topic, because for most of the time, it is unnecessary, and when it is necessary, which might be at one point, it is hardly a matter of discussion because it is a matter of self defense and it might not even come up to that because of the situation of soldiers. As Michael Albert says, it is much easier to organize in institutions like police forces or army than actually fighting with them. State-supported paramilitary counter-revolutionaries might be more dangerous. The biggest danger however is the possibility of violence being necessary too early. No matter how peacefully we organize, if the capitalists realize our serious threat towards their hegemony when we don’t have enough mass support, we will be beaten up, thrown into jails, killed and finally destroyed. At that point, everything we can do to avoid destruction, violent or non-violent ways will be ineffective. Here’s a worthy dilemma to discuss. I think the only option will be acting cautiously in order to avoid attention of the capitalists. We must first gain global mass support, and the way to do that will start the process of the communal life. This way people will be able to see the truth, see that it works. Only after we have an international organization of masses, which will be the roots of the community of the future, then we can start actively fighting in full strength against capitalism and therefore starting the actual process of world revolution. We must also keep in mind that we don’t have too much time; we don’t know how close the threat of ecologic disaster is. Our timing can’t be too early or too late, it must be perfect.

[MKS]

An American revolution by violence is a pathetic fantasy at this point.

Another Ivory Tower Red unwilling to put his life on the line for the liberation of the masses. If you really want to help the revolution leave it to the workers and take your idealistic pacifism somewhere else.

Violence is the only means to establish a new world, and to destory the systems and people who stand against liberty.

[Leo]

I don't think making such polemics against any member of this forum really helps anything. You should explain yourself reasonably if you care enough to criticize. ;)

Without a union of action, without an international organization, what violence are you talking about? Violence against whom? Don't misunderstand me, I am not judging you, besides who am I to judge anyway, I am just trying to understand, will killing a fat capitalist or bombing a military institution magically abolish capitalism or even raising a guerilla army abolish capitalism? Did it in the past? Convince me without polemics, and let's do it together.

We are fighting against the current situation, for the future but we only want what we deserve. If someone stands against liberty, we will kindly push them out of the way, or make them run away, we don't need to rip their hearts, we are higher than that. We should even let the ones who want join us as our equalls. The key is to get to the point where we united the masses against capitalism. After that violence probably won't even be necessary, if it does become necessary I will gladly give my life for the liberation of humanity, yet I don't think it will be necessary after that point but don't be disillusioned by that, if you want excitement, getting to that point will be dangerous -in a life threathning way- enough for a revolutionary intellectual.

[Leo]

I don't think making such polemics against any member of this forum really helps anything. You should explain yourself reasonably if you care enough to criticize. ;)

Without a union of action, without an international organization, what violence are you talking about? Violence against whom? Don't misunderstand me, I am not judging you, besides who am I to judge anyway, I am just trying to understand, will killing a fat capitalist or bombing a military institution magically abolish capitalism or even raising a guerilla army abolish capitalism? Did it in the past? Convince me without polemics, and let's do it together.

We are fighting against the current situation, for the future but we only want what we deserve. If someone stands against liberty, we will kindly push them out of the way, or make them run away, we don't need to rip their hearts, we are higher than that. We should even let the ones who want join us as our equalls. The key is to get to the point where we united the masses against capitalism. After that violence probably won't even be necessary, if it does become necessary I will gladly give my life for the liberation of humanity, yet I don't think it will be necessary after that point but don't be disillusioned by that, if you want excitement, getting to that point will be dangerous -in a life threathning way- enough for a revolutionary intellectual.

[MKS]

We must use violence, or war because the enemy is more than willing to use violence against us. Idealism cannot deflect bullets. The people in power will and have held their power using brutal tactics. These people and the systems they have created must be destoryed with quick violent action.

I have always proposed a secession/defense revoutionary tactic for the USA. Small communities or states would seceed from the Union and defend thier territory rather than wage an offensive war against the Federal powers. Such a tactic would be costly on both sides, but has a greater chance for success.

[Leo]

We cannot start violence, when the time comes and we start pushing for the overthrow of the Capitalist system, we must act in a way which will be non-violent. There is nothing personal here, workers don't want to die, whatever they do they do for the future, for their future and the future of the loved ones. We cannot attack the enemy from the military, from its strongest side. If we do, we lose the soldiers from the beginning. A soldier being attacked by revolutionaries will act much differently than a soldier who is ordered to kill his own people. You realize this as well. Yet, I think that there is a possibility that our revolutionary actions will be met with brutal force. A wounded animal is the most dangerous one. The usage of brutal force itself might not work, and the government might end up losing its soldiers, but if it works, we won't be slaughtered like sheeps. Workers will defend themselves and each other. There is no debate going on there. But again, considering that we will be organized in the military itself, it is very unlikely and hopefully it won't happen.
Rather than that, I cannot tell whether tactics we will follow. It is so far ahead that when I think about it I end up imagining rather than calculating facts. Dreaming is not bad, as long as we can wake up. The way the movement develops, and becomes the masses is far more important than the moment when revolution itself occurs, because the development of the movement will lead to the revolution. Violence is far from now, until the moment of revolution it is out of question, because it would be meaningless, it would be suicide and during the revolution, it will be out of our hands at that point. Right now, we must focus on, and discuss how we will unite the revolutionary intellectuals and the workers. That is the first step ahead of us.
Lastly, we should not only think of revolution in US. We must think, and be active and act in the international level. A revolutionary must be like a migrating bird, going wherever the light and heat of resistance is...

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:54 AM
The reality is that violence is not an option.
Whether it will be an option in three generations is fantasy conjecture.
Capitalism needs to be destroyed today.
We need revolution now, and we can have revolution now.
Especially if we throw off the shackles of thinking inside the coffin and start working with living ideas that haven't coagulated into an inert sap.

An American revolution by violence is a pathetic fantasy at this point.
(Visions of french-like parkour mimes going against navy-seals who have taken an oath to shoot unarmed American civilians come to mind.)
People here have chided me for being unrealistic. Well, that's laughable.

They will actually be encouraging you to violence in the hopes of fueling their booming privatized prison industrial complex, so they can have sweatshop labor at slave labor prices.

It is time to develop strategies that will work:
http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader...ing.asp?iLink=8 (http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/includes/inc_hitting.asp?iLink=8)
Voilence in all hands, embrace it if need be. Whenever someone is queasy about the expected violence of the revolution they should remind themselves of the fact that we aim to overthrow the most despicable, savage, bloody, murderous system known in human history and bury it forever.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Macchendra
Capitalism needs to be destroyed today.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "needs" in this context. If you're speaking of some kind of "moral imperative", I doubt that anyone would disagree.

In terms of historical materialism, capitalism is "still working"...though not quite as well as it used to in the "old" capitalist countries.

That's why most people are completely uninterested in any "revolutionary options" at this point.


We need revolution now, and we can have revolution now.

Especially if we throw off the shackles of thinking inside the coffin and start working with living ideas that haven't coagulated into an inert sap.

Very witty; I'll try and remember that "think outside the coffin" quip.

But, alas, we cannot have "revolution now".

Tiny groups of people can't do that...it takes enormous masses of people to do that.

The history of small "revolutionary elites" is one of despotism and terror...not really what we want! ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

I think capitalism entered its very last stage, which is something I call, with inspiration from Debord, Spectacle Capitalism. It is presented as living and unbreakable and the only working system etc. but actually this is only a spectacle. People, all around the world are rebelling against the system but this is desperately hidden by another series of spectacles. When capitalism stops working, in terms of historical materialism, it will either because of the ongoing revolution or the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster. When the revolution begins, the spectacles will disappear one by one, and each day more people will begin pursuing revolution.
We might not have revolution now, but we can start the process now. Not as a revolutionary elite, but as a united group of intellectuals who are dedicated to unite the masses and start the practice of actual communal life.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
When capitalism stops working, in terms of historical materialism, it will either because of the ongoing revolution or the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster.

Scenarios about just "how" capitalism will "end" are necessarily speculative at this point.

My own inclination is in favor of a "Great Depression" writ large...an economic crisis that the system is unable to resolve. But that's just as speculative as anyone else's idea.

One thing I am sure of: we can set aside "the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster". Even a global nuclear war would not "destroy the world" and probably not even all humans; though the survivors would almost certainly be reduced to savagery.

"Ecological catastrophe" is simply a fund-raising tool for professional environmentalists; don't be taken in by their hyperbole.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:25 PM
"Ecological catastrophe" is simply a fund-raising tool for professional environmentalists; don't be taken in by their hyperbole.
Spoken like a true anti-dialectician.

I, on the other hand, lean more torward the Gaian Hypothesis (the ultimate in dialectics), which is supported by what the scientists are telling us today. (All but the privately funded climate-change skeptics.) And what they are telling us, in effect, is that capitalism needs to go sooner rather than later.

Large numbers of people are available for revolution now. We need only to model their understanding through consideration, and to make our ideas accessible by refining them to their simplest elements of unchanging fact. In communication, ideas that are not plain, or that are not explained are just assumptions to the recipients of ideas.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 3 2006, 04:25 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 3 2006, 04:25 PM)
Leo Uilleann
When capitalism stops working, in terms of historical materialism, it will either because of the ongoing revolution or the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster.

Scenarios about just "how" capitalism will "end" are necessarily speculative at this point.

My own inclination is in favor of a "Great Depression" writ large...an economic crisis that the system is unable to resolve. But that's just as speculative as anyone else's idea.

One thing I am sure of: we can set aside "the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster". Even a global nuclear war would not "destroy the world" and probably not even all humans; though the survivors would almost certainly be reduced to savagery.

"Ecological catastrophe" is simply a fund-raising tool for professional environmentalists; don't be taken in by their hyperbole.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I agree with the prediction that capitalism will hemmorage slowly due to economic pressures that the free market just cannot fix. Overproduction is the obvious one. The system forgets that the worker is also the consumer. The market can only function if people are buying its products. It is likely that it will become more and more opressive as it moves toward the conclusion of globalisation, which to me is a race to the bottom, so where is the bottom, 'slavery'. They would all jump at the chance of making us work for nothing, but then we would have nothing to buy products with. We lay golden eggs for capitalism and they feed us less and less. Its unsustainable. If production is continually moved to areas of cheaper labour, they don't care about the person in Detroit who could buy a car he helped make with five years wages. They move to Brazil and the person that makes the car needs 50 years wages to buy one. This is happening faster and faster. This must have a huge effect in the end.

I do not agree with your perspective on the environment. I wasn't aware that anyone other than capitalists and their state lackeys felt like this.

[Leo]

My own inclination is in favor of a "Great Depression" writ large...an economic crisis that the system is unable to resolve. But that's just as speculative as anyone else's idea.

The current economical wealth of the United States is a spectacle; it is caused by the exploitation of the rest of the world, more specifically the third world. When the third world is reclaimed then a natural Great Depression will occur in the United States so I would agree on your inclination and yes, this is very speculative, we don't have any facts to tell how it will happen, we just imagine. But for the rest of the third world, how worse their economic situation can be?


One thing I am sure of: we can set aside "the destruction of the world itself by the ecological disaster". Even a global nuclear war would not "destroy the world" and probably not even all humans; though the survivors would almost certainly be reduced to savagery.

Although the destruction I was talking about is metaphorical, I disagree that we can set aside the ecological damages done to nature by the system. We don't have to be scientists to see the damage done by mankind to nature. Of course if we are scientists, real scientists, we would probably be having nightmares. The hole in the ozone layer, the increase in the CO2, the increase in average temperatures, the melting of glaciers in Antarctica etc. tells us something. We are damaging nature, and nature will eventually react and this reaction will be catastrophic for the humanity.


"Ecological catastrophe" is simply a fund-raising tool for professional environmentalists; don't be taken in by their hyperbole.

The fact that environmentalists use something to raise money doesn't make it wrong. Secondly, I think we should be against labeling and excluding people who might join us. If an environmentalist realizes that the only way to stop the ecological catastrophe is to abolish capitalism, than he or she will be very likely to join us. We must unite every movement with characteristics that are opposing the system in order to unite the workers themselves.


Large numbers of people are available for revolution now. We need only to model their understanding through consideration, and to make our ideas accessible by refining them to their simplest elements of unchanging fact. In communication, ideas that are not plain, or that are not explained are just assumptions to the recipients of ideas.

In US, no, large numbers of people are not available for revolution. There is a rebellion, yes, but revolution is far away right now because the conditions are not met. In US, (relatively) large numbers of intellectuals are available for organization. Where really large numbers of people are available for revolution is the third world. Without the international organization, that revolutionary potential will either remain as anti-imperialist rebellions in power, become tyrannies or simply melt in the system, reach an agreement with the owners etc. Rebellions can turn into a world revolution if an international organization can unite the masses.

For the second part, I agree, this is the way we should explain ourselves in order to unite the masses. Nevertheless, it won't be enough. In order the gain the masses, and abolish private property, we must perform actual practice.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)The current economical wealth of the United States is a spectacle; it is caused by the exploitation of the rest of the world, more specifically the third world.[/b]

But bear in mind that most of this wealth exists outside of the hands of working people. Much of it exists in places that we don't touch (the stock market, "capital gains"). The economic tools of measuring the economy are more often than not totally irrelevent to how well actual people are living.


Leo
The fact that environmentalists use something to raise money doesn't make it wrong. Secondly, I think we should be against labeling and excluding people who might join us. If an environmentalist realizes that the only way to stop the ecological catastrophe is to abolish capitalism, than he or she will be very likely to join us. We must unite every movement with characteristics that are opposing the system in order to unite the workers themselves.

I'm pretty sure Redstar isn't anti-environment. While I'm not sure if I agree with his opinions presented here about ecological collapse, I doubt he's out there cutting down trees for fun.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+--> (The Dissenter)I do not agree with your perspective on the environment. I wasn't aware that anyone other than capitalists and their state lackeys felt like this.[/b]


Leo Uilleann
We are damaging nature, and nature will eventually react and this reaction will be catastrophic for the humanity.

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083629387&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

But bear in mind that most of this wealth exists outside of the hands of working people. Much of it exists in places that we don't touch (the stock market, "capital gains"). The economic tools of measuring the economy are more often than not totally irrelevent to how well actual people are living.

I am well aware of the situation of the workers in US. The wealth of US is still growing because of the exploitations, and keeping this growth is one of the most important causes of US foreign policy. I'll leave the words to Marx here, explaining the situation of workers in a growing economy: "Let us now take a society in which wealth is increasing. This condition is the only one favourable to the worker. Here competition between the capitalists sets in. The demand for workers exceeds their supply. But: In the first place, the raising of wages gives rise to overwork among the workers. The more they wish to earn, the more must they sacrifice their time and carry out slave-labour, completely losing all their freedom, in the service of greed. Thereby they shorten their lives. This shortening of their life-span is a favourable circumstance for the working class as a whole, for as a result of it an ever-fresh supply of labour becomes necessary. This class has always to sacrifice a part of itself in order not to be wholly destroyed.
Furthermore: When does a society find itself in a condition of advancing wealth? When the capitals and the revenues of a country are growing. But this is only possible:
(a) As the result of the accumulation of much labour, capital being accumulated labour; as the result, therefore, of the fact that more and more of his products are being taken away from the worker, that to an increasing extent his own labour confronts him as another man’s property and that the means of his existence and his activity are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the capitalist.
(b) The accumulation of capital increases the division of labour, and the division of labour increases the number of workers. Conversely, the number of workers increases the division of labour, just as the division of labour increases the accumulation of capital. With this division of labour on the one hand and the accumulation of capital on the other, the worker becomes ever more exclusively dependent on labour, and on a particular, very one-sided, machine-like labour at that. just as he is thus depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine and from being a man becomes an abstract activity and a belly, so he also becomes ever more dependent on every fluctuation in market price, on the application of capital, and on the whim of the rich. Equally, the increase in the class of people wholly dependent on work intensifies competition among the workers, thus lowering their price. In the factory system this situation of the worker reaches its climax.
© In an increasingly prosperous society only the richest of the rich can continue to live on money interest. Everyone else has to carry on a business with his capital, or venture it in trade. As a result, the competition between the capitalists becomes more intense. The concentration of capital increases, the big capitalists ruin the small, and a section of the erstwhile capitalists sinks into the working class, which as a result of this supply again suffers to some extent a depression of wages and passes into a still greater dependence on the few big capitalists. The number of capitalists having been diminished, their competition with respect to the workers scarcely exists any longer; and the number of workers having been increased, their competition among themselves has become all the more intense, unnatural, and violent. Consequently, a section of the working class falls into beggary or starvation just as necessarily as a section of the middle capitalists falls into the working class.
Hence even in the condition of society most favourable to the worker, the inevitable result for the worker is overwork and premature death, decline to a mere machine, a bond servant of capital, which piles up dangerously over and against him, more competition, and starvation or beggary for a section of the workers.
The raising of wages excites in the worker the capitalist’s mania to get rich, which he, however, can only satisfy by the sacrifice of his mind and body. The raising of wages presupposes and entails the accumulation of capital, and thus sets the product of labour against the worker as something ever more alien to him. Similarly, the division of labour renders him ever more one-sided and dependent, bringing with it the competition not only of men but also of machines. Since the worker has sunk to the level of a machine, he can be confronted by the machine as a competitor. Finally; as the amassing of capital increases the amount of industry and therefore the number of workers, it causes the same amount of industry to manufacture a larger amount of products, which leads to over-production and thus either ends by throwing a large section of workers out of work or by reducing their wages to the most miserable minimum.
Such are the consequences of a state of society most favourable to the worker — namely, of a state of growing, advancing wealth."
It is pretty self explanatory, workers in First World are still what they are, but compared to workers in the Third World, they are in a better situation.


I'm pretty sure Redstar isn't anti-environment. While I'm not sure if I agree with his opinions presented here about ecological collapse, I doubt he's out there cutting down trees for fun.

I did not mean that Redstar was anti-environment. My point was this: labeling divides the movement, division kills the revolution. We are talking about uniting the intellectuals and workers; we have a responsibility to act in a diplomatic way.

I read Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios. I think Redstar has caught a very good point. I mostly agree on the principal basis and specifically on the way how the "End of the World" scenarios can be used to exploit the workers even more. It is true that the "End of the World" scenarios are manipulative and dangerous and should be dealt with extreme caution. Besides it is a must read for anyone interested in the topic, it is really informing.

Nevertheless, I have some things I feel necessary to comment on. First of I am still behind what I have said on the eventual reaction of nature against human damage. Simply, you get what you give, we all know what we give to the nature and it will give it back to us unless we stop before it is too late. We can realize that it is already giving some of it back to us even right now. Right now it is not fatal, it will be if we continue to act the way we do in the future. I don't know when this will happen, how this will happen, but simply, if we damage nature we will pay for it. Therefore, this is not a fantasy. But, I agree that it doesn't objectively make a difference. Because, no matter how or when it is going to happen, it doesn't affect our goals, which is the victory of labor over capital and after that victory; this problem will be solved by itself. Yet, there is another side to this topic. Redstars shows us how powerful such scenarios can be by giving examples of their usage by the exploiters. However we can use the same idea as well if we accept that;
-Capitalism damages the nature
-If capitalism isn't abolished, the damage done to nature will get back to us, because we live in nature, and nature is our life source.
We see that this is a very powerful idea, and our goal, beyond the victory of labor over capital, is the future of humanity which is directly related to the victory. If someday the sun is going to burn out, then we should find another way to survive elsewhere.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
...we have a responsibility to act in a diplomatic way.

Revolutionaries are not "diplomats".

I think we "have a responsibility" to tell people the truth...in plain, blunt, unmistakable language.

We ,might be wrong...but at least we will minimize confusion. No one should have to "guess" what we think about things.


Simply, you get what you give, we all know what we give to the nature and it will give it back to us unless we stop before it is too late. We can realize that it is already giving some of it back to us even right now. Right now it is not fatal, it will be if we continue to act the way we do in the future.

Planets are a good deal more robust than you imagine. It's quite true that humans can "wreck" an area or region...though not "permanently", of course.

But a whole planet? To make it completely "uninhabitable"?

Most unlikely...to say the least.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

Revolutionaries are not "diplomats".

I think we "have a responsibility" to tell people the truth...in plain, blunt, unmistakable language.

We ,might be wrong...but at least we will minimize confusion. No one should have to "guess" what we think about things.

We don't have to be diplomats, or we don't have to sacrifice the truth in order to act in a diplomatic way. Telling the truth, in the most understandable way is not only our responsibility as revolutionaries, but also it is our responsibility as individual human beings. However, there is a thin line between telling what we believe in plain and blunt language and making polemics, labeling others. If we cross that line, we will either achieve nothing, or if we are extraordinarily talented in organizing and propagandizing we will eventually have to suppress what we labeled and end up with a 'party'. Sounds familiar?


Planets are a good deal more robust than you imagine. It's quite true that humans can "wreck" an area or region...though not "permanently", of course.

But a whole planet? To make it completely "uninhabitable"?

Most unlikely...to say the least.

Just one simple example, air pollution causes about 400.000 lives in the United States and Europe annually and every second, the air gets more and more polluted. Every day humans wreck another area or region in order to obtain more money. Our world is great and robust, and the damage we do might seem little compared to the Earth. Nevertheless we must not forget that it was rain drops that formed the oceans. We must be responsible on this topic.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
Just one simple example, air pollution causes about 400,000 deaths in the United States and Europe annually and every second, the air gets more and more polluted.

Someone was standing there counting and it came out a nice even 400,000. :lol:

This has all the earmarks of an "estimate" -- that is, a number pulled out of someone's ass.

Actually, measured air pollution is growing in some places and declining in others. No one knows how many people actually die from it.

Techniques for measuring pollution are still evolving.

Don't get me wrong; it's a "bad thing" and one should try and live elsewhere if practical.

But it's not the "end of the world". :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

Someone was standing there counting and it came out a nice even 400,000.

This has all the earmarks of an "estimate" -- that is, a number pulled out of someone's ass.

Actually, measured air pollution is growing in some places and declining in others. No one knows how many people actually die from it.

Techniques for measuring pollution are still evolving.

400,000 is an approximate number, well obviously, but every statistic we read can be a number pulled out of someone's ass. That wasn't my point when giving this example, my point was this: People are dying related to air pollution, evem if we don't know about the exact number, but it happens, it is real. Think about this: two hundred years ago there was no such thing as air pollution, also there was no such thing as air pollution two thousand years ago or two million years ago. If you think about this issue from that perspective, you will understand that my worries regarding the ecology aren't empty.


Don't get me wrong; it's a "bad thing" and one should try and live elsewhere if practical.

I think one should instead try to solve this problem with the other problems in the world and living elsewhere might be more pleasant but I don't think it will solve anything.


But it's not the "end of the world".

No right now it's not, and hopefully it will never be.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
...but every statistic we read can be a number pulled out of someone's ass.

YES!

The present-day notion that putting a number on something makes it "scientific" and therefore "true" is a myth!

Unless you actually know all the assumptions (explicit and implied) made in arriving at that "estimate", you don't really "know" anything.

There are many examples of this in the "dis-information age"...people with an agenda play with imaginary numbers to make their agenda "look important".

When someone starts throwing numbers at you, be skeptical! :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

The present-day notion that putting a number on something makes it "scientific" and therefore "true" is a myth!

I agree, this is a good point.


Unless you actually know all the assumptions (explicit and implied) made in arriving at that "estimate", you don't really "know" anything.

There are many examples of this in the "dis-information age"...people with an agenda play with imaginary numbers to make their agenda "look important".


I wouldn't get that skeptical though. Even if someone with agenda played on the numbers, still the given number would hold some truth and would be enough to give an idea about the situation. After what you said, I started a little research on this topic. Here's what I found: The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries. Diseases carried in water are responsible for 80% of illnesses and deaths in developing countries, killing a child every eight seconds. Each year 2.1 million people die from diarrhoeal diseases associated with poor water.

Now, I don't know all the assumptions (explicit and implied) made in arriving at that "estimate", and considering that I am not a scientist, I probably wouldn't understand it. World Heath Organization might have a motive in saying that 6.7 million people are dying every year due to pollution, instead of a real number which is less or more than the number they give but still, the number cannot be different enough from the truth to prevent me from having an idea on the topic. I wouldn't accept the number as the scientific absolute truth, but the number given by a big foundation, or even a small foundation that is trying to grow, must be realistic. Because every foundation or scientist have rivals, rivalry is a norm in the capitalist system, and those rivals will be like sharks against unrealistic statistics.

For example, if in some place soldiers start shooting at the people who are demonstrating and hundreds of people die; newspapers supporting the government can write the minimum number they can write, and the newspapers supporting the demonstrators (if any) can write the real number or the maximum number they can write, but either way, the point for us will be that "Soldiers shot at and killed lots of people."

[LoneRed]

The crisis will be from an environmental stalemate if anything. About 15 yrs shit will hit the fan and the capitalists are going to have to rethink their plan of never ending expansion

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries. Diseases carried in water are responsible for 80% of illnesses and deaths in developing countries, killing a child every eight seconds. Each year 2.1 million people die from diarrhoeal diseases associated with poor water.

Ok, who was there counting? In poor countries, who spends time or resources on determining the "cause of death" of a poor child? Of what validity are the "official statistics" in poor countries?

Modern forensic science generally insists on an autopsy to scientifically determine "cause of death". But even in a "first world" country like the U.S., only something like 10% of the dead get autopsied...most religions are opposed to it.

I have no doubt at all that polluted air and contaminated water kills people; they are known to be fatal.

After Hurricane Katrina, at least four deaths were attributed to cholera -- a disease caused by bacteria from human feces carried by water.

Does the WHO have "an agenda"? Of course it does: they want a bigger appropriation next year to raise salaries and hire more personnel.

Would they "fudge the numbers" to attain those goals; why not? There is a real problem and if a little numbers game will get them more money to deal with it, isn't that "a lie in a good cause"?

You see, everyone thinks it's "ok to lie in a good cause". Not only does that explain much of the content of "holy books" but philosophers have endorsed the principle going all the way back to Plato's "Noble Lie".

Lying to us "for our own good" has been the signature of all the elites in human societies from day one.

In particular, telling us that "we are doomed" unless we carry out some elite's agenda has been especially common. Sometimes, that was true...mostly not!

Skepticism in the face of this appeal has been growing in recent decades...and I expect that growth to continue.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Leo]

Ok, who was there counting? In poor countries, who spends time or resources on determining the "cause of death" of a poor child? Of what validity are the "official statistics" in poor countries?

Modern forensic science generally insists on an autopsy to scientifically determine "cause of death". But even in a "first world" country like the U.S., only something like 10% of the dead get autopsied...most religions are opposed to it.

Good point.



I have no doubt at all that polluted air and contaminated water kills people; they are known to be fatal.

Exactly, that was my point.


Would they "fudge the numbers" to attain those goals; why not? There is a real problem and if a little numbers game will get them more money to deal with it, isn't that "a lie in a good cause"?

They can do the opposite as well, shaving the number a little bit to look nice to polluting companies. But if they are fudging the number for their agenda, they are fudging it for themselves, which doesn't actually make a difference in the capitalist system. Nevertheless, they can fudge it and shave it but they can't enlarge it or chop it. Because they might act in a 'clever' way, but the people paying them are not 'stupid.'


You see, everyone thinks it's "ok to lie in a good cause". Not only does that explain much of the content of "holy books" but philosophers have endorsed the principle going all the way back to Plato's "Noble Lie".

:) :D :lol: This would make a wonderful quote, it's really wise too, I would defiently use it while writing something about organized religion if I... well knew your name. Oh Redstar2000 you must be such a wonderful old man.


Lying to us "for our own good" has been the signature of all the elites in human societies from day one.

In particular, telling us that "we are doomed" unless we carry out some elite's agenda has been especially common. Sometimes, that was true...mostly not!

Skepticism in the face of this appeal has been growing in recent decades...and I expect that growth to continue.

What I think is, when someone lies, they lie for themselves. Elites mostly claimed to lie for our own good but they actually lie for themselves. Telling us "we are doomed" is the climate of this situation. There can be no good coming from a lie. If someone wants to do anything for a good reason, they will use truth. Therefore, I hope skepticism grows too.
But, we shouldn't close our eyes to threats to Nature while being skeptical. Nature is one of those things we should always be watching, not for threats but actually it is a great teacher too. We can screw the numbers, but simply if you hit someone and keep hitting, they will eventually hit you back and we are hitting the nature, and we need to stop, and the earlier the better. This is not telling that "we are doomed", this is telling the situation, exactly as it is and I don't see anything wrong or untrue in that. Wouldn't not telling this, in order to make skepticism grow, will be lying, or at least hiding the truth for the 'good of the people' in an 'elitist intellectual' manner?