Why Are The People So Rightwing/capitalistic?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How come the working class support the capitalist class with such zeal?

How come people say proudly, that they want to work for a big capitalist, and if someone comes in and want to take the goods produced to give to the poor, they (the workers) will happily beat these people up and protect their employer?

How come working class people support "business" that close down and move to other countries, leaving their own country without industry? I have talked to working class people who say that the govt deserve it because they put so many restrictions on companies.

How come working class people support the abolishment of the little we have left of a welfare state. How come people support the abolishment of the minimum wage?

How come working class people support the rich man's wars, when they gain nothing, and might only lose benefits, and even their lifes?

How come even people in South America elect leaders which fully or partly support the IMF and other neoliberal organizations (Michelle Bachelet, Vincente Fox, Calderon, Lula, Alan García)?

How come people in Europe elect leaders like Berlusconi, Putin, Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Viktor Yushchenko?

[RedAnarchist]

They are brought up like that, by religion, capitalism and government. If the power of these three was undermined, people wouldn't be so ready to bow down to a God, a politician or social norms.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

People can think for themselves, can't they? It's not like people are ants.

There are a lot of times when a good portion of people, even the majority, brought up in a system, revolts or at least actively despise the status quo.

If it is obvious that capitalism is against the interest of the people, how come they support capitalism fully, even though they do know that they are dirt poor, and there is an elite which is filthy rich?

It's pretty easy to see. They are rich, you and many more are poor. You have little in common, and your interests differ greatly.

Yet the poor wants less healthcare, less education, less welfare, less worker rights, but more rich mans war, more inequality.. And when someone says that poverty should end, they laugh at you and say that the rich should keep their money :mellow:

[Dyst]

People can think for themselves, can't they? It's not like people are ants.


Wrong. People can't think for themselves, and it is like they are ants.

[Dreckt]

How come the working class support the capitalist class with such zeal?

Or even better: how come some people still cling to the fascist ideas? Have they not been prooven to be one of the most brutal regimes in history?


How come working class people support "business" that close down and move to other countries, leaving their own country without industry?

It probably depends on where you live. The Chinese may be "happier" with capitalism because it gives them jobs because companies move to their country. Scandinavian countries have rooted wellfare and not as rampant corporate control (yet) as other western nations have. Some people are more "international capitalists" so they don't care about their government, others, mostly countries like the US, plays much on patriotism, so that could also be the reason... I don't know...


How come working class people support the abolishment of the little we have left of a welfare state. How come people support the abolishment of the minimum wage?

Maybe because people see capitalism as the only ideology left? Mainstream today is to follow globalization, so that could be the reason.


How come working class people support the rich man's wars, when they gain nothing, and might only lose benefits, and even their lifes?

Because people still have feelings for "their nation". Those who support such wars still believs that there are different people, and that different people should have different countries.


How come people in Europe elect leaders like Berlusconi, Putin, Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Viktor Yushchenko?

There is a difference. Berlusconi is known to have manipulated media to give him most coverage than his opponents. Russia is still underdeveloped, people naturally elect leaders that seem strong and "patriotic"/"Russian". Besides, the elections in Russia may not be the most reliable one. And if you take a look at the German elections, then you may notice that the "left bloc" (even if we all know that socdem doesn't really work) had almost as many votes as the "right bloc". I don't know about Denmark, but the eastern bloc have all showed compassion for joining the West and their imperialist aims.


If it is obvious that capitalism is against the interest of the people, how come they support capitalism fully, even though they do know that they are dirt poor, and there is an elite which is filthy rich?

Because those who support capitalism is brought up supporting it, thus refusing to look into "evil ideologies" that disagrees with capitalism. "Normal" people "know" that extreme right ideologies is bad, one only has to look at Germany and Italy. "Normal" people "know" that extreme left ideologies is bad because of what happened in the Soviet Union, China etc.

I mean, to these people, it would be like trying to convince you that fascism is good and that it works, that what happened in Germany and Italy wasn't really fascism, but "Mussoulinism" and "Hitlerism", etc. What can be done is for people to physically feel the pain of capitalism, but of course, a good reason to look at the left.


It's pretty easy to see. They are rich, you and many more are poor. You have little in common, and your interests differ greatly.

Yes - for us it is. But for them, leaders are natural - just like a lion's nest, or ants, etc. They all live in a country, thus they belong together. And since the same thing is happening in other countries as well, then that must be natural. There are still disagreement over futile things such as immigration, racism, discrimination, rights of women and homosexuals, drug policy and so on. That is problem in their eyes, not the government or capitalism.


Yet the poor wants less healthcare, less education, less welfare, less worker rights, but more rich mans war, more inequality.. And when someone says that poverty should end, they laugh at you and say that the rich should keep their money

Do they really want this, or are they unaware of other options? Ignorance is one of the greater weapon of capitalism.

[anechoic]

people are indoctrinated by whichever system they happen to be born into...hence the false consciousness that arises from this...unfortunately the ruling classes hold the keys to media and education which makes it difficult for people to gain the powers of analytical thinking without being brainwashed on a daily basis...the Internet offers a very rich source of information such as this forum where we can discuss and try to ferret out the kernel of truth from political and societal issues...
peace

[More Fire for the People]

Cultural hegemony (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/e.htm). Essentially, the capitalists maintian political rule through two means: direct [state] coercion and cultural [civil] coercion. The capitalists maintain rule through concessions to the proletariat — social democracy, social liberalism — and through creation of false consciousness — religion, the 'middle class', fascism, etc.

[Avtomatov]

This is why i have been thinking we need groups of people to move to reclusive settlements like the huttarites do, and then we need to grow and eventually replace the infidels.

Think of all the things we could get rid of that way. Religion, drugs and alcohol, tobacco, capitalism, consumerism, hedonism, criminality, violence, homophobia, racism, sexism, waste, etc etc...

I dont think its all that farfetched either, we just need to do what the huttarites do, except we will need to have like 20 children each in order to replace everyone else. It would take long but probably faster then the world revolution. And this way we can get rid of alot of bad things that we couldnt get rid of just by changing the economic system.

I know you guys dont like these things because you think they do nothing and are just indulgence. But my idea would be doing something, we would be repopulating the earth with a better humanity. And the reason it would be reclusive would be to make sure the children dont have bad influences.

I think that reconstructing society is the only way to get rid of all of societys ills.

[Comrade-Z]

Think of all the things we could get rid of that way. Religion, drugs and alcohol, tobacco, capitalism, consumerism, hedonism, criminality, violence, homophobia, racism, sexism, waste, etc etc...

You want to get rid of hedonism? Drugs, alcohol, and tabacco? :o


I dont think its all that farfetched either, we just need to do what the huttarites do, except we will need to have like 20 children each in order to replace everyone else. It would take long but probably faster then the world revolution. And this way we can get rid of alot of bad things that we couldnt get rid of just by changing the economic system.

How are you going to make sure these scores of children retain communist consciousness? Enforced indoctrination??? :o Because the material conditions of isolated rural communes certainly don't naturally give rise to rational, internationalist, free-spirited communist consciousness.


And the reason it would be reclusive would be to make sure the children dont have bad influences.

Oh, I see. Just like the Amish, eh? We can't have our children be free-thinking individuals, now can we? After all, a democratic, self-managing society requires nothing of the sort.... :rolleyes: :angry:

[Axel1917]

For starters, the main ideology is that of the ruling class. They have a monopoly over all sources of propaganda: TV, papers, radio, etc.

There have been some historical factors that are making things like they are, such as the postwar boom, making it appear that capitalism was "delivering the goods." There was a lot of growth in this boom. The isolation of the revolution in backward Russia had made the conditions for Stalinism present. Stalin had taken over the world communist parties, and they became his yes men. Those that did not comply with the Stalinist line were expelled. Then we also have things like McCarthyite witch hunts doing their damage as well.

Stalinism and Bourgeois propganda has also played a large role, as just about everyone thinks that communism is Stalinism.

The period of large booms is over, and there is revolutionary action going on in Latin America. Things have been going downhill since 9/11, and more and more people are starting to question the world they live in. The USA's isolationist past is not making isolationism present anymore. Most people know that what happens overseas has an impact on their lives as well. The retreats made by the left are not happening so much anymore, and we are seeing a reversal. The left can and is starting to move forward, and we are living in a time that will see all kinds of action. The Bourgeoisie are unable to rule in the old way, hence preparations for totalitarianism (phone tapping, PATIROT Act, etcl.), and there will be a crisis in the future. We are in a boom right, now, yet it feels like slump. Imagine the problems when the real slump comes forward! It is practically the 1930's again. There will be all kinds of opponents and such again, like in the 1930's. That is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that they will win.

[Wanted Man]

Stalinism and Bourgeois propganda has also played a large role, as just about everyone thinks that communism is Stalinism
Yes, because the bourgeoisie would never have slandered the international communist movement if Trotsky had led it. :rolleyes:

[Maynard]

Yes, because the bourgeoisie would never have slandered the international communist movement if Trotsky had led it.
Haha, that's the point, no matter what form Communism takes it will be slandered mercifully by the ruling class of capitalist nations and while that makes it a bit more difficult, its nature and should be welcomed. To try and make communism look acceptable to the mass media, is not only dishonest but a waste of time.



How come the working class support the capitalist class with such zeal?
I wouldn't regard it as zeal at all, how many would sacrifice their life for Capitalism itself? How many will go out marching demanding more market reforms? Of course there are some who have bought into the lie that everyone can make it. But is it a majority? Hardly. Most people just think that there is no alternative and even if they do know, they think it won't work. They don't think they can make a difference, so why not accept it? And the media likes to perpetrate this, of course.


How come working class people support "business" that close down and move to other countries, leaving their own country without industry?
I've never heard that..in fact there is a backlash against that here, in Australia, of course for the wrong reasons, nationalistic reasons but I've never seen that sentiment anywhere, let alone on a major scale by working class people.


How come working class people support the abolishment of the little we have left of a welfare state. How come people support the abolishment of the minimum wage?
Most do not..most of the working class accepts a welfare state. Where are you hearing this?


How come working class people support the rich man's wars, when they gain nothing, and might only lose benefits, and even their lifes?
For patrotic reasons, working class people, unfortunately, identify more with their state at the moment, then their class. That can change and of course there are exceptions, the Iraq war, for instance, a overwhelming majority were against it.


Yet the poor wants less healthcare, less education, less welfare, less worker rights, but more rich mans war, more inequality.
Again, who are you talking to? I can't see any acceptance of that at all. Have you any sources for that?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I've talked to quite a few mainstream people and they say that they support capitalism because "there is no other alternative", "this is the best we got", "everything else has failed".

If they could only see a better alternative, they would probably support that alternative.

What do you say to that? What do you say to "because there is no alternative", "this is the best we got", etc.

[Maynard]

If they could only see a better alternative, they would probably support that alternative.
True and that is our task making people aware of the alternatives and showing by example, how it can work.


What do you say to that?
You tell of the alternatives, of your alternative vision, they may not accept it or believe but just by knowing there are alternatives to the current system is a step forward in political conciousness.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How would you present such an alternative?

Would you present some previous experiments? If so, what experiments?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:34 AM
How come the working class support the capitalist class with such zeal?

How come people say proudly, that they want to work for a big capitalist, and if someone comes in and want to take the goods produced to give to the poor, they (the workers) will happily beat these people up and protect their employer?

How come working class people support "business" that close down and move to other countries, leaving their own country without industry? I have talked to working class people who say that the govt deserve it because they put so many restrictions on companies.

How come working class people support the abolishment of the little we have left of a welfare state. How come people support the abolishment of the minimum wage?

How come working class people support the rich man's wars, when they gain nothing, and might only lose benefits, and even their lifes?

How come even people in South America elect leaders which fully or partly support the IMF and other neoliberal organizations (Michelle Bachelet, Vincente Fox, Calderon, Lula, Alan García)?

How come people in Europe elect leaders like Berlusconi, Putin, Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Viktor Yushchenko?
One word, propaganda.
As Marx said the bourgeois pull all the strings so their ideology is the one that dominates, usually.

I remember a conversation I had at work with a friend. We were talking about the housing situation in the UK and I said it was a scandal that whilst we have record homeless figures in the UK, we also have record second home ownership.
(There are over 100,000 homeless families in the UK at the same time as there are nearly 300,000 second homes effectively empty)
He is a working class guy with a family himself and he said that it should be the right of rich people to own what they want. I replied that surely it should be the right of everyone to have a roof over their head. I said he, by his comment, believed that the more money a person has, should mean they have more rights. These ideas were eminating from a worker who was in a low paid job like me and had a large mortgage. If interest rates were to rise, homelessness is a real possibility for him and his family. I wonder will he still uphold the rights of rich if that were to happen.

I think this is an example of how that propaganda works. It is completelly ridiculous for a working class person to hold these beliefs and counter-productive to their own survival even, but you will find such views exist among some, not all, of the working class. Take 1 minute to explain the real situation from a working class viewpoint and usually they will see they were wrong. They defended those that oppress them because they were not exposed to an alternative viewpoint. The ideology of the bourgeois has prevailed in almost all the media they consume.