Communist/Socialist Revolution in the First World

[Rakshas]

A lot of people having been waiting for a "genuine" socialist/communist revolution to take place in highly advanced first world countries. They have been waiting for the last one century and a half and the "genuine" proletarian revolution still looks elusive. While, many would gleefully deride the achievements of USSR, Cuba and socialist China and happily lap up every kitschy, worhtless and dishonest bourgeoisie propaganda about those socialist experiments, the truth is First World proletarians never really cared for a genuine revolution and at times sided with extreme reactionary/imperial/bourgeoisie forces to side. Beside carrying out protest marches, delivering lectures in universities and other public meetings, the contribution of first world proletarians and communists to the communist movement worldwide has been next to zilch. While the third world peasents/workers took up arms against their ruling classes and overthrew them, the first world proletarians chose to turn a blind eye and carried on with their day to day life as it the revolutions occuring in other parts of the world were "their" revolutions and not "ours". Wouldnt the world have been different today, if the proletarians in the first world would have taken cue from the revolutions of third world nations and trigger a rebillion against their ruling classes?

Comrades, your contribution of views will be highly appreciated. Thanks.

[Sadena Meti]

Slaves that are comfortable are not motivated to revolt. The first world proletariat, though exploited, is overwhelmed with bread and circuses. More over, when they turn on the TV and look at the world, they are deluded into thinking they are the ruling class. They live in the most powerful countries, they can feed themselves to obesity, and the rest of the world makes products for them to buy cheaply. The illusion of democracy makes them feel they have some degree of control over their masters. And when they do grumble, they are given religious or racial groups to blame.

So long as they are comfortable, they will never be interested in revolution. Things will have to get much worse before they get better. Until the bread and circuses are taken away, attempting to organize or energize the first world proletariat is a waste of time.

Revolutionary activists in the first world should comes to term with this, get off the intellectual high-horse, and realize they only have an extreme minority to work with in their home country. Then look for constructive action to assist revolution in more revolutionary countries, and undermine the counter-revolutionary actions of their own country.

Though that is not to say to stop working for long term revolution in the first world. But people like, say, the RCP, who are deluded into thinking that the revolution could happen tomorrow need to wake up.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 28 2006, 10:55 AM
Slaves that are comfortable are not motivated to revolt.
I disagree. The main task - working mechanism of socialist/communist economy - has not been solved till today

[namepending]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 28 2006, 06:55 AM

So long as they are comfortable, they will never be interested in revolution. Things will have to get much worse before they get better.
That is the part of Marx's theory which is most important today.

The First Internationale and the Communist League are gone today and we shouldn't kid ourselves that there is even one near surrogate for a true revolutionary movment in the western world that could inspire an early revolution through sheer charisma and influence-- no way-- Marx is going to have to pull the prophet and prove the capitalists will let it get to full imperialism (where capitalists begin to war amongst themselves for monopoly) and that they will be unable for their own greed to significantly slow recessions- decisively divisive class polarization- pauperization of the proletariat and other pathways to revolution. Indications are they are headed exactly in the direction Marx predicted- but when revolution happens, it will be intresting to see if they call it a "marxist" revolution- and not something else.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 28 2006, 10:55 AM
Slaves that are comfortable are not motivated to revolt. The first world proletariat, though exploited, is overwhelmed with bread and circuses. More over, when they turn on the TV and look at the world, they are deluded into thinking they are the ruling class. They live in the most powerful countries, they can feed themselves to obesity, and the rest of the world makes products for them to buy cheaply. The illusion of democracy makes them feel they have some degree of control over their masters. And when they do grumble, they are given religious or racial groups to blame.

So long as they are comfortable, they will never be interested in revolution. Things will have to get much worse before they get better. Until the bread and circuses are taken away, attempting to organize or energize the first world proletariat is a waste of time.

Revolutionary activists in the first world should comes to term with this, get off the intellectual high-horse, and realize they only have an extreme minority to work with in their home country. Then look for constructive action to assist revolution in more revolutionary countries, and undermine the counter-revolutionary actions of their own country.

Though that is not to say to stop working for long term revolution in the first world. But people like, say, the RCP, who are deluded into thinking that the revolution could happen tomorrow need to wake up.
I agree completely. Except religious and racial groups don't usually take all the blame. The nations common set enemy takes the blame. Terrorists, communists, Nazis, Hippies, abolitionists, and etc... Something the average American can easily hate.

[Ol' Dirty]

I agree with Rev-stoic and Rakshas.

The masses of First world countries are deluded by popular culture and elitist propaganda -panem et circenses, as rev-stoic would put it-. To expect them to revolt is rather unwise.

[CombatLiberalism]

The amerikkkan so-called "working class" is a petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. They are enemies of the proletariat of oppressed nations in the Third World. amerikkkans are not exploited, they are exploiters of the Third World.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:57 AM
The amerikkkan so-called "working class" is a petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. They are enemies of the proletariat of oppressed nations in the Third World. amerikkkans are not exploited, they are exploiters of the Third World.
Americans themselves are not the exploiters, the United States government is the exploiter. And since the government (at the national and usually state level) is made up of the upper class, it's the upper class that is causing this exploitation. American people are not the American government.


Slaves that are comfortable are not motivated to revolt. The first world proletariat, though exploited, is overwhelmed with bread and circuses. More over, when they turn on the TV and look at the world, they are deluded into thinking they are the ruling class. They live in the most powerful countries, they can feed themselves to obesity, and the rest of the world makes products for them to buy cheaply. The illusion of democracy makes them feel they have some degree of control over their masters

Agreed. It's our jobs as radicals to inform them that a slave in the kitchen and a slave in the field is still a slave. Just because the chains are little bit more comfortable doesn't change that.

[CombatLiberalism]

Wrong, amerikans as a whole are net exploiters who benefit from imperialism. And, it's pretty much obvious to the entire planet except for deluded first world "leftists."

Here are some films about the labor aristocracy: http://redvid.castpost.com/ ( the films on the bottom)

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by sanpal+Aug 28 2006, 12:21 PM--> (sanpal @ Aug 28 2006, 12:21 PM)
rev-[email protected] 28 2006, 10:55 AM
Slaves that are comfortable are not motivated to revolt.
I disagree. The main task - working mechanism of socialist/communist economy - has not been solved till today [/b]

I disagree. The main task - working mechanism of socialist/communist economy - has not been solved till today

www.technocracy.ca

[KC]

The amerikkkan so-called "working class" is a petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. They are enemies of the proletariat of oppressed nations in the Third World. amerikkkans are not exploited, they are exploiters of the Third World.

Yeah yeah, I already debunked this shit in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52280&view=findpost&p=1292108163) post. American workers are being exploited and your MIM shit about them not is complete bullshit. Let me quote myself so you can understand:



This is most definitely untrue. Let's say Worker A is creating a part for a product, and Worker B is putting all the parts together to create the finished product. Let's say that this part that Worker A is creating is worth $5. So Worker A is creating $5 in product, yet getting paid only $0.50. There is $4.50 in surplus value being extracted from Worker A.

Worker B takes this part, and the others, and puts them together to create a product worth $20. Worker B gets paid $10 per product, yet the product is being sold for $20. There is $10 in surplus value being extracted from Worker B.

Now, what determines value? Cost of production. The sum of the value of raw materials, wages, and upkeep of the means of production, as well as profit, constitute the value of this commodity. We know that the part that Worker A made is worth $5, and that Worker B got paid $10. The other $5 is divided up between the value of the rest of the raw materials, the upkeep of the means of production, and profit.

What raiin is saying is that the value of this commodity is:

Raw materials of the part + Worker A's wage + Upkeep of A's MoP + Profit from Part + Raw materials of product + Worker B's wage + Upkeep of B's MoP + Profit from product.

We are left with the following equation:
X + 0.50 + Y + $0 + $5 + $10 + $5 = $20.50 + X + Y

X = Raw materials of the part
Y = Upkeep of Worker A's MoP

Since we're already above raiin's set price of $20 (and we didn't even add in the value of the other parts that made up this product!), we can see that raiin's situation simply doesn't exist.

As you can see, the person that came up with the idea that American workers aren't exploited is a complete fucking idiot, and has absolutely no knowledge of Marxist economics.

Moreover, your use of the term "petty-bourgeois" is so unfounded that it's laughable. It seems that you're just using it as an insult without any substantial evidence to back it up.

Your "theories" about this "labour aristocracy" and the fact that you are against US workers is so anti-Marxist that it's not even funny. Your views pit worker against worker, and that is unbelievably reactionary and anti-Marxist.

[CombatLiberalism]

Wrong. You haven't proved that amerikans are exploited and creating surplus value. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Just because profit is realized in the first world doesn't mean that is where the value is produced. Marx makes this point in Vol III of Capital. You're problem is that you put down Capital after misreading the the first few chapters. In order to show that the profit that is being realized in the first world originates from first world so-called "workers" you have to show that they are being paid less than the value of their labor. This involves deriving a value for labor and showing that first worlders are being paid less than this value. This involves some empirical study regarding wages and the international value of labor. IRTR has a methodology for setting the value of labor, you have so far offered nothing to counter IRTR's approach.

All of this is plainly obvious to the masses. Nobody with half a brain thinks that amerikans have "nothing to lose but their chains."

[KC]

Wrong. You haven't proved that amerikans are exploited and creating surplus value. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Just because profit is realized in the first world doesn't mean that is where the value is produced. Marx makes this point in Vol III of Capital. You're problem is that you put down Capital after misreading the the first few chapters. In order to show that the profit that is being realized in the first world originates from first world so-called "workers" you have to show that they are being paid less than the value of their labor. This involves deriving a value for labor and showing that first worlders are being paid less than this value. This involves some empirical study regarding wages and the international value of labor. IRTR has a methodology for setting the value of labor, you have so far offered nothing to counter IRTR's approach.

If you would like to offer something more specific than "No, you're wrong" then please provide me with something of substance that I can actually reply to.



All of this is plainly obvious to the masses. Nobody with half a brain thinks that amerikans have "nothing to lose but their chains."

Yeah, it's so painfully obvious that that 23 year-old working a minimum wage job 60 hours a week trying to feed his family isn't exploited. :rolleyes:

[CombatLiberalism]

I already provided why you are wrong, you just don't understand the point.

Your model is assuming that the majority the profit that is being realized at the final point of sale originates in the first world rather than the Third World. This actually makes the rate of exploitation GREATER in the first world because it traces all that realized profit to the last steps in the production/distribution chain. Just because lettuce is sold in a super market doesn't mean it is grown there, ie. the value originates there. Just because the price of lettuce is marked up at the point right before sale in a supermarket doesn't mean the supermarket cashier's work is the source of that markup-profit. The majority of value in the lettuce comes from the field work even though the majority profit is realized at the point of public sale.

I already provided you with what you need to do to make you case. You need to come up with a methodology establishing the value of labor, then you have to show that first world so-called "workers," on average, are being paid less than that value. The fact that the majority of profit is realized in the first world does not automatically mean that the first world worker is the source of that surplus value. So, far, this is the false assumption of your model.

As for establishing our case, IRTR explains their method and provides page after page of scientific data on their forums. Anyone who is genuinely interested in the issue can look up how Maoists go about things and make a criticism. There is no point in reproducing here information that is already available there.


Yeah, it's so painfully obvious that that 23 year-old working a minimum wage job 60 hours a week trying to feed his family isn't exploited.

This is typical. You site a very ATYPICAL situation in order to make a point about the majority of amerikans. If you want to be convincing then you need to show how TYPICAL situations are exploitative. The majority of whites (amerikkkans) do not make minimum wage nor work 60 hours. And, minimum wage jobs are usually temporary or occupied by youth. So, even if it was the case that the above case was truly exploitative (which it isn't), you still have not made your case. Maoists are talking about the vast majority, they are not talking about anomalies.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, you have yet to set a value for labor in order to set a bar for exploitation. You are just making some emotional appeal to the labor aristocracy who always think they deserve more imperial pie.

Maoists stand with the vast majority of humynity who make less than 2.50$ a day. We don't agitate for the labor aristocracy. After all, even an amerikan who makes minimum wage falls around the top 15% on the measure of the world's wealthiest population. All this is obvious except to a few deluded members of the labor aristocracy "left."

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Urm, First world workers are still forced to sell their labor to capitalists.

Capitalist relations do exist between working class people in the first world and the actual capitalists.

So long as people are forced to sell their labor, capitalism makes people into workers. thats true for the first world and the third world.

[CombatLiberalism]

Urm, First world workers are still forced to sell their labor to capitalists.

Just because people are being hired does not make them exploited. Even managers and CEOS and security guards get hired. It doesn't make them exploited. Just because people are hired does not mean they are contributing value and producing surplus value.

[Leo]

Maoists stand with the vast majority of humynity who make less than 2.50$ a day. We don't agitate for the labor aristocracy. After all, even an amerikan who makes minimum wage falls around the top 15% on the measure of the world's wealthiest population. All this is obvious except to a few deluded members of the labor aristocracy "left."

Maoists stand (as they always had) with the national bourgoeise, or maybe feudal land owners of the unsuccesful nations or they try to become the national bourgeoise. Maoism had always been extremely nationalistic, even the usage term "people" instead of class shows this very well, as people is an equilivilent of "nation", maybe it is more material as nation is usually a 'sacred' term, yet "people" is a term which was commonly used in Nazi Germany, people=volk in German, volkswagen for example mean's "People's Wagen", isn't that somewhat similar to people's "People's Republic" or "People War" etc. Of course this so-called 'people' is actually divided into classes so it goes without saying that the term 'people' ias contrary to the Marxist theory.

Anyways, what I wonder is what are the Maoists doing in America? I mean seriously what the hell are you doing in America? There are no 'peasants' in America, you hate the american workers so what do you aim? Or do you even aim something? I think Maoists in America are a bunch of rich kids who were too influenced by the Matrix and who wants to play revolutionaries, and of course there are cult leaders who use this excitement very well. Send my regards to Chairman Bob.

[CombatLiberalism]

Anyways, what I wonder is what are the Maoists doing in America? I mean seriously what the hell are you doing in America? There are no 'peasants' in America, you hate the american workers so what do you aim? Or do you even aim something? I think Maoists in America are a bunch of rich kids who were too influenced by the Matrix and who wants to play revolutionaries, and of course there are cult leaders who use this excitement very well. Send my regards to Chairman Bob.

If you want to know about how Maoism is applied in a majority exploiter country like the u$, then you should visit the IRTR and MIM web pages. There are plenty of ways that people in the belly of the beast can contribute to revolutionary struggle. The best class to go with is the lumpen since there is no significant proletariat in majority exploiter nations. This is also the view of the Black Panthers when they were Maoist.

Bob Avakian is leader of the rcp=u$a. They basically say in their Draft Program that 90% of amerikans should be looked upon as people who can be united with. This view is completely different than the view that I am advocating. The Maoist view I am advocating says that the majority of amerikans are the enemy and cannot be united with. There are plenty of Maoist criticisms of Bob Avakian by IRTR and MIM here: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/crypto.html and https://irtr.org/forums/forum-3.html&sid=f4...707d3164578f77d (https://irtr.org/forums/forum-3.html&sid=f4360b99f1ae34353707d3164578f77d)

I'll leave it at that.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by CombatLiberalism+Aug 30 2006, 05:06 PM--> (CombatLiberalism @ Aug 30 2006, 05:06 PM) The best class to go with is the lumpen since there is no significant proletariat in majority exploiter nations. [/b]

What percentage of the population owns a factory? <sarcasm>It&#39;s clearly 90%...</sarcasm>


Originally posted by [email protected]
After all, even an amerikan who makes minimum wage falls around the top 15% on the measure of the world&#39;s wealthiest population

How much money you make doesn&#39;t necessarily decide which class you are a part of. To my understanding, Marx&#39;s conception of the class system was based on how much power you had in your workplace.

Lumpenproletariat = Cannot find work on a legal basis. Example: Homeless

Proletariat = No say in the control of the mans of production. Example: Anyone working in a factory

Petty Bourgeoise = Small business owners. They may employ others, but they tend to work with their employees. Example: Anyone who employs someone and works with them.

Boureoise = Capitalist class. Doesn&#39;t work with his employees. Owns the factories and extracts value from the Proletariat. Ecample: CEOs and factory owners.

A member of the proletariat could be earning a very good wage, but would still have no say in the means of prodcution.


Wikipedia
In the Marxist theory, the proletariat is that class of society which does not have ownership of the means of production.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well maybe from your theoretical position, first world workers may not be working class.

But, a person who spends their life working in a shit job, for a shit wage, which mostly goes on rent and mortgages & sustainance doesnt seem to be a natural ally of the Capitalists.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:57 PM


The amerikkkan

Please don&#39;t add KKK to America constantly. It&#39;s become a cliche, and a rather insulting one, at that.

Also, If you can afford to add three "K"&#39;s to America, you can at least capitalize the first later. Proper noun, and all.


so-called "working class" is a petty bourgeois labor aristocracy.

:lol:


I agree. Poor farmers in the Midwest who can&#39;t afford to buy grain and people who live in the ghettos of New York and San Fran are just vile bourgoise pigs. Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:


They are enemies of the proletariat of oppressed nations in the Third World.

Have you been to America, if so, you obviously don&#39;t know much about the working class. Most lower class people in the U.S. are oppressed just like any other society. Stop making blanket statements, please.


amerikkkans are not exploited, they are exploiters of the Third World.

That would be the American Capitalists, not the workers.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

COMBATLIBERALISM:


Just because people are being hired does not make them exploited. Even managers and CEOS and security guards get hired. It doesn&#39;t make them exploited. Just because people are hired does not mean they are contributing value and producing surplus value.

You fail to grasp what i am saying.

workers a REQUIRED to work. Their own wage is what keeps them alive.

A CEO or a manager is not required to sell their labor to survive. CEO&#39;s own stock and have big houses, bank accounts.

See a difference?

[CombatLiberalism]

How much money you make doesn&#39;t necessarily decide which class you are a part of. To my understanding, Marx&#39;s conception of the class system was based on how much power you had in your workplace.

@RedTendecy: The amount of &#036; one makes bares on whether one is exploited or not. And, whether one is exploited or not bares on the question of whether one is part of the revolutionary class. If you want to claim there is a non-exploited proletariat, that is up to you. Engels called the English labor aristocracy "bourgeoified proletariat." The point is that they are not revolutionary anymore and are "bought off" as Lenin said. What makes a class revolutionary is not whether they are *called* proletariat. The point is that the amerikan labor aristocracy has ceased being a vehicle for revolution.

The proletariat is the class of workers who are "free" to sell their labor power, and have no other means of subsistence other than sale of their labor power. Also, they are the class of workers which is exploited and super-exploited. This does not characterize the amerikan so-called "working class." While they may earn a wage, their labor is not even the main source of their income, that is, if it is a source at all. The main source of their income is infusions of super-profits from the Third World. The fact that amerikans make a wage so above the value of labor (which is less than minimum wage) shows this. If you are interested in the method that Maoists use to establish this bar, then you can read IRTR. If you are interested in a global calculation of surplus value, read MIM&#39;s online MIM Theory Imperialism and its Class Structure in 1997.


But, a person who spends their life working in a shit job, for a shit wage, which mostly goes on rent and mortgages & sustainance doesn&#39;t seem to be a natural ally of the Capitalists.

@bloody_capitalist_sham: Shit job? Shitty only by the standards of the super-rich. From the point of view of the international proletariat, amerikans have great jobs and live in luxury. This just reflects how spoiled amerikans are. In any case, "shitty" is not the same thing as "exploitation" and such subjective notions have little place in scientific discussions.


workers a REQUIRED to work. Their own wage is what keeps them alive.

@bloody_capitalist_sham: Wrong, they survive on infusions of super-profits, just like managers, CEOs, and most everyone else in the u&#036; economy. Not to mention the fact that more and more amerikans aren&#39;t even even working in industries that produce commodities. Rather, they are working as paper pushers and in the service sector. That there are so many people involved in these parasitic sectors is just a reflection of how decadent the u&#036; is.


Have you been to America, if so, you obviously don&#39;t know much about the working class. Most lower class people in the U.S. are oppressed just like any other society. Stop making blanket statements, please.

@Muigwithania: Oppression is not the same as exploitation -- at least according to Marx. The amerikans are not "oppressed" like any other society. In fact, they benefit from exploitation of the international proletariat, they benefit from the global gender hierarchies, and whites derive all kinds of privileges from oppression of other nations.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM


I disagree. The main task - working mechanism of socialist/communist economy - has not been solved till today

www.technocracy.ca
What is similar between technocracy and communist economy? :blink:

Technocracy is simply crisis of capitalist overproduction developed to absurd condition when masses of goods are giving to become impoverished people without money.
Unfortunately I have no possibility to learn full course of technocraty to say is it a good idea or a bad idea. If it is good idea I wish to North american people to make this social experiment successfully. I think the people all over the World with enthusiasm will be looking on it if USA will be using its own materials, oil, energy, if its finance oligarchs will stop to get interests from credits all over the World, if american Military Forces will be coming home from all over the World, etc. Russian people has made one social experiment, who is the next in the turn? Perhaps they are North Americans? :P

[Ol' Dirty]

How much money you make doesn&#39;t necessarily decide which class you are a part of. To my understanding, Marx&#39;s conception of the class system was based on how much power you had in your workplace.


@RedTendecy: The amount of &#036; one makes bares on whether one is exploited or not. And, whether one is exploited or not bares on the question of whether one is part of the revolutionary class.

In a way, you are both right. These are both same thing: to gain more capital in the workplece, one must have more control. The abverse is true, as well.


@bloody_capitalist_sham: Shit job? Shitty only by the standards of the super-rich. From the point of view of the international proletariat, amerikans have great jobs and live in luxury. This just reflects how spoiled amerikans are. In any case, "shitty" is not the same thing as "exploitation" and such subjective notions have little place in scientific discussions.

You completely ignore the de facto truth that a shit job is a shit job, American or otherwise.

As for your argument that "Americans are spoiled", you obviously have a limited understanding of the socio-economic, -cultural and -political history of the U.S.

Though it is true that most petit-bourgoise (who are predominately white, of high social standing, and very well educated) Americans live in the laps of luxury, you have neglected to pay attention to those Blacks, Latinos and Lower-class Whites that don&#39;t.


@bloody_capitalist_sham: Wrong, they survive on infusions of super-profits, just like managers, CEOs, and most everyone else in the u&#036; economy. Not to mention the fact that more and more amerikans aren&#39;t even even working in industries that produce commodities. Rather, they are working as paper pushers and in the service sector. That there are so many people involved in these parasitic sectors is just a reflection of how decadent the u&#036; is.

We need to take your ass to Harlem. <_<


Have you been to America, if so, you obviously don&#39;t know much about the working class. Most lower class people in the U.S. are oppressed just like any other society. Stop making blanket statements, please.


@Muigwithania: Oppression is not the same as exploitation --

Yes, but many American citizens are both oppressed and exploited. Take Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cubano citizens of the U.S. They are wage slaves just as any body else in the proletariat, as with anybody of any ethno-cultural background.


The amerikans are not "oppressed" like any other society.

Stop looking at national boundaries and think outside the box&#33; Classwise, the American proletariat is oppressed.

[CombatLiberalism]

@Muigwithania: You can ASSERT that amerikans are exploited, that does not make it the case. Emotional appeals to the labor aristocracy are not science. Marx put forth a scientific definition of exploitation. If you want to abandon Marx, that&#39;s fine. But, so far, all that you have put in place of a Marxism approach is emotional appeals. I have already told you what you have to do to make you case, you have to establish a bar for exploitation. This involves establishing a value for labor. And, merely pointing out that profit is realized in the u&#036; isn&#39;t sufficient for the reasons I have already shown. I would invite you to read some of the threads at IRTR, so you can get an idea of a methodology on how to approach the question. As a scientist, I&#39;d be happy to be proven wrong.

Also, you can background bait all you want also. Once again, that isn&#39;t science.


As for your argument that "Americans are spoiled", you obviously have a limited understanding of the socio-economic, -cultural and -political history of the U.S.

Actually, you are the one who is demonstrating a complete lack of reality. There is no socialist movement among amerikan so-called "workers." And, anyone with any experience with working in the labor force knows this. The only place a socialist movement exists in amerika is in the heads of a few deluded leftists. If you have a religious connection to the idea that the labor aristocracy today are the wretched of the earth, then there is no point arguing about it just as there is no point arguing with someone who has a religious commitment to the idea Jesus is sitting in heaven. Once again, you need to take a scientific approach to these issues and not an emotional one.


We need to take your ass to Harlem.

More posturing.


Yes, but many American citizens are both oppressed and exploited. Take Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cubano citizens of the U.S. They are wage slaves just as any body else in the proletariat, as with anybody of any ethno-cultural background.

Firstly, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Blacks, etc. are not ameriKans. They are separate nations. In the Marxist tradition, there is a distinction made between country and nation. I believe you are confusing the two. In any case, even many internal semi-colonies, like the Black Nation, have huge labor aristocracies as well.

Don&#39;t waste my time with emotional appeals and posturing.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:47 AM
A lot of people having been waiting for a "genuine" socialist/communist revolution to take place in highly advanced first world countries. They have been waiting for the last one century and a half and the "genuine" proletarian revolution still looks elusive. While, many would gleefully deride the achievements of USSR, Cuba and socialist China and happily lap up every kitschy, worhtless and dishonest bourgeoisie propaganda about those socialist experiments, the truth is First World proletarians never really cared for a genuine revolution and at times sided with extreme reactionary/imperial/bourgeoisie forces to side. Beside carrying out protest marches, delivering lectures in universities and other public meetings, the contribution of first world proletarians and communists to the communist movement worldwide has been next to zilch. While the third world peasents/workers took up arms against their ruling classes and overthrew them, the first world proletarians chose to turn a blind eye and carried on with their day to day life as it the revolutions occuring in other parts of the world were "their" revolutions and not "ours". Wouldnt the world have been different today, if the proletarians in the first world would have taken cue from the revolutions of third world nations and trigger a rebillion against their ruling classes?

Comrades, your contribution of views will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
While I agree it&#39;s good for Socialists to rise up against oppressive and Fascist regimes, I think it&#39;s far more rational to wait for the revolution to happen on its own. I don&#39;t believe it&#39;s possible to "start" the revolution.