Why the Working-Class Favoritism?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Why do you guys immediately assume that just because someone is a member of the working-class, that they're immediately a trustworthy and respectable person?

And vice-versa for the "bourgeiose"? Only that you think they're untrustworthy and disrespectable?

Talk about guilt by association?

You communists never seem to judge a person's character but rather only by their occupation. Thus, if you're working-class, you've got our respect. I mean, what about all of the members of the working class that are complete assholes? Should they automatically be granted respect by you people?

Now, I know what you're going to say: "Their occupation shapes their character, if they're working-class and they're complete assholes, that's not their fault, it's their class and work environment".

Maybe, maybe not.

And yes, there are members of the bourgeoise and the capitalist class that are assholes too but there are also very nice people among them. Ditto for the working-classes.

So why the favoritism only for the working class?

Why not, non-assholes of the world unite?

Who gives a shit what their "relationship to the means of production are"? (to use terminology that you're all familiar with)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why the bourgeois favoritism?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Ok, for one second...disregard my name....

I wasn't expressing "bourgeoise" favoritism.

Read it again!



And yes, there are members of the bourgeoise and the capitalist class that are assholes too but there are also very nice people among them. Ditto for the working-classes.

And besides, I asked YOU first.

And why is it a primary objective among, ummm almost everyone in the country, to go to college, get a good job that isn't repugnant and filled with a bunch of middle-aged, Jerry Springer fans who long for their "glorious high school days"?

You think you'll find those types within the professional ranks?

I'm sure you would, but you'll most likely find them on the lower end of the scale.

[Avtomatov]

Communism is what matters to us, the working class are the only revolutionary class, they are the only class that can bring about communism.

[Janus]

And yes, there are members of the bourgeoise and the capitalist class that are assholes too but there are also very nice people among them.
Doesn't change the fact that they are still inherently exploitative. There were some "nice" slave masters too.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Crapitalist "lawyer"
> Why the Working-Class Favoritism?

As opposed to ruling class favouritism?


Why do you guys immediately assume that just because someone is a member of the working-class, that they're immediately a trustworthy and respectable person?

You must have us confused with some hippy cult dancing around naked to Dead tunes in a field somewhere.

Trust is earned, regardless of what class distinction you hail from.

It just so happens that under capitalism, the working class are the ones getting fucked while the ruling class are the ones doing the fucking.

It only takes common sense to see that when fighting against those doing the fucking, your ranks will come from those being fucked.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As opposed to ruling class favouritism?


Yeah, favoritism towards people who aren't assholes, (rich, middle or poor).


Communism is what matters to us, the working class are the only revolutionary class, they are the only class that can bring about communism.

Communism has never existed, so how can it exist?


Doesn't change the fact that they are still inherently exploitative.

A truck driver making 100k a year is being exploited?

How in the hell do you sell "communism" to high paid "exploitees" (workers)?


There were some "nice" slave masters too.

Doubtful.


You must have us confused with some hippy cult dancing around naked to Dead tunes in a field somewhere.

Talk about stereotyping!

And I thought we were only guilty of that?

Anyway, why the prejudice towards those people? Are you too "manly" for that sort of thing?

I'm sure they express the same disdain for the status quo that you guys express as well?

Aren't they you're allies?



It just so happens that under capitalism, the working class are the ones getting fucked while the ruling class are the ones doing the fucking.

Maybe fast food workers but defintely not the high paid and highly skilled workers.

If you were to go prancing around and selling your communism to high paid workers like mechanics, truck drivers, etc....you would get laughed in the face and then chased away.

Yeah, I know....they're "high pay and high standard of living" won't last forever due to whatever reasons, doesn't mean they'll be receptive to your brand of communism.

I honestly don't know why you still use the term: "communism" as opposed to say, social libertarianism or maybe some other word that you can think of.

It's killing your sales pitch! :lol:


It only takes common sense to see that when fighting against those doing the fucking, your ranks will come from those being fucked.

Tell that to all of the workers who are "being fucked" for 50k-100k a year!

"Being fucked" meaning, getting paid.

I'm sure alot of workers out there are making more than the corner store owner or the upper level manager at some corporation.

[Janus]

A truck driver making 100k a year is being exploited?
100,000? No truck driver makes that much.


How in the hell do you sell "communism" to high paid "exploitees" (workers)?
How high paid? Of course, it's not going to attract those whom you consider "workers" namely lawyers and executives.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

100,000? No truck driver makes that much.

Oh yes they do!

I recently changed jobs working as a dispatcher for a trucking company and I have been told that seasoned truck drivers pull in 100k a year for making trips to various locations in Canada or mid-way through the country, depending on the mileage pay or the average number of trips you take in a given week.

The schedule is rough but they certainly get duly compensated for their work.



How high paid? Of course, it's not going to attract those whom you consider "workers" namely lawyers and executives.

High paid! Duh!

....think of any high number and that's high paid.

I think it's time for you communists to update your theory of reality!

A little 150 years too late if you ask me.

Why hasn't there been a "newer version" of communism lately? If technology and society change as fast as you guys claim it does, then shouldn't a communist manifesto type document that explains reality be constantly coming into existence?

[Janus]

I recently changed jobs working as a dispatcher for a trucking company and I have been told that seasoned truck drivers pull in 100k a year for making trips to various locations in Canada or mid-way through the country, depending on the mileage pay or the average number of trips you take in a given week.
The mean salary is around 40,000. I don't know what kind of truck driver could get paid 100,000.

Truck driver salaries (http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_TR20000005.html)


High paid! Duh!
High paid could be 50,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 depending on who you were.


Why hasn't there been a "newer version" of communism lately?
People contribute to the theory everyday.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

IMPORTANT: Your pay can be dramatically affected by compensable factors such as employer size, industry, employee credentials, years of experience and others.

Apparently, you missed this little disclaimer at the bottom of the graph on your link.

Noticed how I said: "seasoned truck drivers"?


People contribute to the theory everyday.

Who?

You guys?

When is the "next communist manifesto" going to get published and actually have an impact on the world?

[Janus]

Apparently, you missed this little disclaimer at the bottom of the graph on your link.

Noticed how I said: "seasoned truck drivers"?
You need to provide proof rather than just hearsay.

Seasoned truck driver supervisors get paid that much.
Truck driver supervisors (http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?narrowdesc=&jobaltername=Truck+Driver+Supervisor+III&state=&jobtitle=Truck+Driver+Supervisor+III&narrowcode=SC01&metrocode=&geo=U.S.+National+Averages&jobcode=TR20000049&statecode=&searchpage=&narrowdesc=Automotive&pagenumber=1&zipcode=&searchtype=&isswzupdateoptin=&isjswupdateoptin=&isnewsoptin=&choosesignup=0)


Who?

You guys?
Different communist writers have further developed communist theory whether theoretically or by analyzing modern society.

[Janus]

Truck drivers are paid a little more 'cause the job is actually quite dangerous so that doesn't necessarily make their lives better.

Top Dangerous jobs (http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/careerbytes/CBArticle.aspx?articleID=421&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=f7d8eef78b214adab3878939e6bd5057-211599693-XB-2)

[red team]

My friend is a truck driver. He works 12 hour shifts. He hates his supervisor with a passion. Doesn't get paid much and he is a university grad.

[JazzRemington]

Why all the working-class favoritism? Because the working-class is the only class that can bring about communism, which is what we want, if you've noticed.

[encephalon]

The working class is the great majority, and the only class worthy of the title "ruling class."

[Zero]

Why the working-class favoritism? Have you seen the documentery 'The Corporation'?

[mauvaise foi]

How in the hell do you sell "communism" to high paid "exploitees" (workers)?

Uh, you don't. You "sell" communism to those who have "nothing to lose but their chains." Right now, that means the workers of the third world. And right now, its working. In Latin America, leftist governments of various stripes have been elected in Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. In Mexico, a leftist-of-sorts would have been elected had it not been for electoral corruption, and, in any case, lost by a very small margin. The Left Front in India, lead by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), currently holds the government in Kerala, West Bengal, and Tripura.

[apathy maybe]

I support the oppressed against the oppressors. I support those who would help bring about anarchy. If they are bourgeois, then they would be supported, to the limited extent that they are actually helping. Just like the proletariat.

To me it doesn't matter what class you are, unless you are an active member of the ruling class working for the oppression of everyone else, if you want anarchy then you are possibly a comrade.

[Pirate Utopian]

communism comes up for the oppressed the upperclass is not oppressed by the repo, the corporations or whatever.
so the bourgoise doesnt need a revolution they are against it cause they wont be millionairs anymore that's why commies dont prefer them over the working class.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:39 PM
Of course with you guys the middle class giving the orders.
no, working together and the best people will lead that can be middle, low or working class, just diffrent people from diffrent classes, united to lead the revolution.
not just middle class!

[chimx]

communism isn't about playing favorites with either class. it is an socio-economic conception of history that asserts that society develops due to material (and usually economic) factors. there is no "good class" vs. a "bad class", just one class exploiting another for their own financial benefit. the reality of human's historical development is the reaction to the exploitation.

if people's views sound like a moral condemnation of capitalism, that is no doubt a byproduct of their own experiences with capitalism, but is far from being the basis of communism generally.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 15 2006, 04:26 PM--> (patton @ Sep 15 2006, 04:26 PM)
Originally posted by Big [email protected] 15 2006, 03:58 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 03:39 PM
Of course with you guys the middle class giving the orders.
no, working together and the best people will lead that can be middle, low or working class, just diffrent people from diffrent classes, united to lead the revolution.
not just middle class!
Please once you guys sieze power you will screw over the working class exactly like you have in every single other revolution. [/b]
examples?

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 15 2006, 05:36 PM--> (patton @ Sep 15 2006, 05:36 PM)
Originally posted by Big [email protected] 15 2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 15 2006, 03:58 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 03:39 PM
Of course with you guys the middle class giving the orders.
no, working together and the best people will lead that can be middle, low or working class, just diffrent people from diffrent classes, united to lead the revolution.
not just middle class!
Please once you guys sieze power you will screw over the working class exactly like you have in every single other revolution.
examples?
Well lets start with the soviet union were soviet citzen got shit on and you party guys lived like kings. [/b]
:lol: silly capitalists and their soviet argument.
i wanna know where you based this on, you need to stop viewing communism as just stalinism.
as if capitalists arent still dooing that today, like in 3rd world countries where the leaders could be able to feed his people and create many jobs, but they rather keep it for themselves, how is that any better?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Crapitalist "lawyer" er I mean Service dispatcher

Communism has never existed, so how can it exist?


Look up "logical fallacy" and read them all.



Anyway, why the prejudice towards those people? Are you too "manly" for that sort of thing?

No, just to smart.


I'm sure they express the same disdain for the status quo that you guys express as well?

If they can hold a thought that long of course.


Aren't they you're allies?

I highly doubt there are enough hippies left in the world to be considered a large enough force to be "allies" with.


If you were to go prancing around and selling your communism to high paid workers like mechanics, truck drivers, etc....you would get laughed in the face and then chased away.

You're simply ignorant of the facts.

The majority of the revolutionary movement throughout the entire globe consists of mechanics, truck drivers and other low to lower middle class workers you are trying to "pass off" as the executive assistants to Bill fucking Gates.


Yeah, I know....they're "high pay and high standard of living"

Actually, in the real world outside of your own imagination, these individuals are considered sub-middle class.

The fact that you think these individuals are highly paid and have a high standard of living leads me to believe that you are even lower on the totem pole than they are.

When I didn't have proof that you were not a lawyer and thought that you could possibly be from the upper class I could undertand your support for capitalism.

But now we know that you are nothing more than a sub-middle class worker that actually is part of the primary defense force of the system that is designed to make sure you never achieve anything more within this society, I can truly see that there will never be a point to speaking with you about anything.

Unless of course it's "shiny" and has to pointed edges or moving parts. :lol:

Good luck with that "cannon fodder" thing jack, I really hope it works out for you. ;)

No more feeding the animals, they may just stick around for hand-outs! :lol:

Cheers Gomer.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2006, 03:27 AM
Why do you guys immediately assume that just because someone is a member of the working-class, that they're immediately a trustworthy and respectable person?



Short answer: I don't.

Somewhat longer answer: this sort of theology of the working-class is a product of historical social-democracy and its radical off-shoot, Leninism, which bears little relationship to Marx's mature critique of political economy outlined in the three volumes of Capital and in the manuscript constituting the Grundrisse.

Marx's central intent is the critical evaluation of the central categories of a society of generalized commodity production. As a sort of Hegelian conceit, Marx's account proceeds by introducing economic categories, depicting the contradictions inherent in those categories, and by teasing out those contradictions, proceeding to the next, more concrete level of analysis, and accordingly introducing a new category.

The central defining element, and the basic, abstract categories, for Marx, are abstract labor and the value form. What separates our society from previous human societies is the allocation of human productive activity through the mediation of the value form. Instead of consciously planning their activity in accordance with their personal needs, productive activity in a society of commodity production is mediated via the exchange of privately produced commodities.

The imperatives of commodity exchange weighs upon all social actors, regardless of whether they be capitalist or wage laborers. A capitalist is compelled to realize the maximum possible profit with a minimum of investment, or forced to go under through the pressure of inter-capitalist competition. A wage laborer is compelled to sell his or her ability to labor in order to survive.

The central concern of the mature Marx is a thorough critique of this alienated and fetishized state of affairs, where humans are subsumed to objective structural imperatives which appear to have the status of natural laws, but which in reality are merely emergent phenomena of human social relations.

This has very little to do with the heroic space-opera narrative of worker vs. proletariat constructed by the German social democracy under Kautsky and radical students of Kautsky such as Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian social democracy.

One has to separate Marx from Marx-ism, so to speak.

Social classes are merely derivative categories of a society based upon the mediation of the value form and state form. Class struggle figures prominently in Marx's early, propaganda works such as the Communist Manifesto, but one has to consider the context that such a work was written is. Marx's mature social critique is concerned with a whole 'nother set of issues.

I have known sons and daughters of privilege who were the most commited advocates of a free society outside of reified, alienated forms. Alternately, I have known workers who were vile racists and sexists. The reverse is also true. The impulse for human emancipation runs diagonally through societal layers.

Fight the game, not the players.

[MrDoom]

Communism has never existed, so how can it exist?
Television once did not exist. How can it now?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

wow!
that makes even less sense than what he said

you're making us look bad, mr doom

[MrDoom]

How so?

At one point in history the idea of a box that transmits light and sound from one point to another (in the medium of thunder and magic "waves") would be considered absurd by most people. Then, when material conditions progressed enough, television was made. Does this not roughly fit the idea of communism?

Capitalist Lawyer probably does not understand that communism requires a certain material and productive capability, and because of that thinks "if it isn't, then how can it"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

He said very precisely that communism has never existed. If something has never existed, it cannot presently exist. Nor could it have existed in the past. That's what that means. Don't be tricked by that sneaky past perfect verb tense, comrade.

[MrDoom]

Communism is what matters to us, the working class are the only revolutionary class, they are the only class that can bring about communism.Communism has never existed, so how can it exist?
I was under the impression he was referring to it in a future tense.

Nothing more than difference of interpretation of speech, I guess.

[Sabocat]

If you were to go prancing around and selling your communism to high paid workers like mechanics, truck drivers, etc....you would get laughed in the face and then chased away.

More unfounded bullshit. Please try not to speak for actual workers. You obviously know nothing about them.

I belong to a Carpenters Union, working for a hospital, considered "highly paid" and clearly understand the advantages to Communism and Syndicalism. So as usual, your argument is shit. A major portion of our "shop" could be considered radical unionists. People who as a whole, have an open disdain for the employing class.

It should be obvious even to you, that a "highly paid" worker would like to see all his brothers and sisters elevated to such a level. Hence "Workers of the World Unite! and An Injury to One is an Injury to All.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:59 PM

More unfounded bullshit. Please try not to speak for actual workers. You obviously know nothing about them.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The person to whom you are responding is of course wrong to presume to speak for all workers as a whole. But it seems to me that you are repeating this error, this time by presuming that because you "belong" to the working class, you also enjoy the privilege of speaking on behalf of it.

Do you think all workers have a shared way of perceiving the world, drawing conclusions on the basis of experience, and generalizing from these conclusions? Is their a generalizable "working class position" that can be derived from the mere fact of being a wage laborer? Are there no differences, not just of perception, but also of raw experience, on the basis of gender, race, nationality, or even different strata among wage laborers?

I come from a "working-class" family, but I don't think that my personal experience can be generalized to the point of constituting a "class position," nor do I think that my familial background offers some sort of privileged, special position from which one can view social reality unobscured by ideological mystification.

I have some professional experience in the trade union movement, as a member and later as a staffer, and I don't think workers constitute a homogenous mass.

One of the enriching aspects of delving into the Marxian critique of political economy, and social thinkers from within that tradition, such as Lukacs, Adorno, and Holloway, is the dawning awareness of just how much our perceptions, ideas, and very identities are constituted by the web of complex social relationships that we are bound up in. I don't think our mere existence as wage laborers automatically endows us with some special ability to see through the mystifications of commodity society in order to arrive at conclusions about its nature and how to end it. If anything, when one is compelled to sell one's labor-power in order to survive, one is necessarily subsumed to a whole ensemble of structural principles that one *must* adhere to simply in order to secure one's own material existence.

And I think the whole issue of "militancy," or as you put it:


open disdain for the employing class.

Is rather a red herring. One can have a personal dislike for capitalists or managers, and even a militant commitment to fighting for higher wages, better working conditions, etc., without necessarily automatically proceeding to drawing generalized conclusions about the commodity form, the nature of money, and the state. The fight to improve one's conditions within the existing system should be supported, simply because people have to eat and shelter themselves and have relatively bearable existences, but I don't think a "revolutionary consciousness" (for lack of a less awkward phrase) can be automatically derived from one's place in the process of production.

[Sabocat]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The person to whom you are responding is of course wrong to presume to speak for all workers as a whole. But it seems to me that you are repeating this error, this time by presuming that because you "belong" to the working class, you also enjoy the privilege of speaking on behalf of it.

Incorrect. I was merely providing an example that demonstrates that his theory of higher paid labor running from communism is bogus. I don't presume to speak on behalf of workers as I realize that they have been in many cases turned into deluded nationalistic labor aristocracy, oftentimes by the union leadership themselves.


Do you think all workers have a shared way of perceiving the world, drawing conclusions on the basis of experience, and generalizing from these conclusions?

No.


I have some professional experience in the trade union movement, as a member and later as a staffer, and I don't think workers constitute a homogenous mass.

You can thank the "professional trade union leadership" for that.


I don't think our mere existence as wage laborers automatically endows us with some special ability to see through the mystifications of commodity society in order to arrive at conclusions about its nature and how to end it.

Perhaps not, but I would wager that it's infinitely more important an issue to a wage laborer than the employing class, as they have much more at stake don't they? Also, I think it's pretty unrealistic to think that any end to the "the commodity society" is going to come from the employing/ruling class themselves. If the workers aren't going to end it, no one will.


The fight to improve one's conditions within the existing system should be supported, simply because people have to eat and shelter themselves and have relatively bearable existences, but I don't think a "revolutionary consciousness" (for lack of a less awkward phrase) can be automatically derived from one's place in the process of production.

It can't be automatically derived, but the odds of a laborer becoming class conscious is far greater than the bosses or their lackeys becoming so.

[LoneRed]

It's as simple as this, The workers run society, the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois are leeches. The take from the workers what isn't theirs, The workers are the only productive class in society, also the most shit on class, Society has to be changed for the good of those who work.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:28 AM
It's as simple as this, The workers run society, the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois are leeches. The take from the workers what isn't theirs, The workers are the only productive class in society, also the most shit on class, Society has to be changed for the good of those who work.
Er.

Some of the petit-bourgeoisie actually do not employ workers, does that makes them leeches?

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:28 AM
It's as simple as this, The workers run society, the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois are leeches. The take from the workers what isn't theirs, The workers are the only productive class in society, also the most shit on class, Society has to be changed for the good of those who work.

To hell with work. Work is not a trans-historical ontological category.

Work is the alienated form of human activity in a society of generalized commodity production.

Marx was very clear about the distinction. It's a shame that so many Marxists aren't.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:34 PM

It can't be automatically derived, but the odds of a laborer becoming class conscious is far greater than the bosses or their lackeys becoming so.

That seems reasonable enough to me, i.e. the people who benefit from this system would be the less likely to abolish it.

However, I think to the extent that workers are in a position to get rid of it, it is only insofar as they move against their own existence as workers. The task is to abolish their own existence as wage laborers, so to speak, not to positively affirm their existence as such.

And I agree that trade union leadership is pretty dismal, but I don't think every manifestation of backward consciousness among workers can be laid at the feet of the trade union leadership.

[red team]

Some of the petit-bourgeoisie actually do not employ workers, does that makes them leeches?

That really depends on what their work is. Take realestate agents, stock brokers and day traders for example. Their success and in fact the sole reason their job exists in the first place is because of the existence of the Capitalist market.

The petit-bourgeoisie that actually do not employ workers, but work in areas where actual labour is performed instead of taking the role of a middle man by taking a cut simply from faciliating a trade are a lot more closer to workers than they are to the bourgeoisie. Some are simply workers who are sick of being screwed over from working for a boss.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:03 AM
Some of the petit-bourgeoisie actually do not employ workers, does that makes them leeches?
Why should I care about them.

[red team]

Why should I care about them.

Because at the end of the day when all is said and done, Anarchism is the only true Communism. People who work for the sake of making something useful while being rewarded corresponding for their individual contribution have the truest mentality required to get to where we have a society with no bosses and each individual is rewarded corresponding to their abilities and contributions. Nobody leeches off anybody else except only in situations where the individual can't provide for themselves because of physical or mental handicaps.

The other alternative is a society where there's the red bureaucracy which takes a cut from your work for administrative costs sort of like charities now where they take a cut for administrative costs while leaving the remainder for the actual donated funds. People who work for themselves are not petit-bourgeois. That's simply a misnomer since they employ no exploited labour for their work.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 17 2006, 03:26 AM
Because at the end of the day when all is said and done, Anarchism is the only true Communism.
If that's Anarchism that sounds like a pette-bourgeois hippy food store theory, that sounds like it defends the monetary system and privatre property.


People who work for the sake of making something useful while being rewarded corresponding for their individual contribution have the truest mentality required to get to where we have a society with no bosses and each individual is rewarded corresponding to their abilities and contributions.

They own property-- a business which can be passed on to the next generation of brats, and so they own a means of production. Yes they are pette-bourgeois.
Like that class they either fall into the proletariat, or they rise to the bourgeoisie.


The other alternative is a society where there's the red bureaucracy which takes a cut from your work for administrative costs sort of like charities now where they take a cut for administrative costs while leaving the remainder for the actual donated funds.
Um no that isn't the only other alternative.
Where did you get this idea from?


People who work for themselves are not petit-bourgeois. That's simply a misnomer since they employ no exploited labour for their work.
Well they are certainly swiming in middle-classisms if they aren't pette-bourgeois.
But I'll leave it up to you to go talk to some annoying hippies about Communism.

Tofu causes cancer too.

Oh, and I still don't care about them, they seem to be doing alright. If they fail, well I don't want to hear them crying when I work with them for some asswipe-- they need to get over what they lost.

[red team]

Here's the original question to start off this topic


Originally posted by Marmot
Er.

Some of the petit-bourgeoisie actually do not employ workers, does that makes them leeches?

So let me get this. If a skilled trades worker or technical worker who happens to be working for himself as a self-employed contractor because he got sick of being screwed over by bosses profitting from his labour that makes him a member of the bourgeois exploiting class?

Ask yourself this question. How did he exploit other workers by his action of working for himself? If he's simply a middle man who takes a cut along the supply chain simply because he bought commodities from other middle men or from the producer directly like in your example of a store owner (I'm guessing) then that's another story. But, that's not what I was talking about was it?


They own property-- a business which can be passed on to the next generation of brats, and so they own a means of production. Yes they are pette-bourgeois.
Like that class they either fall into the proletariat, or they rise to the bourgeoisie.

Again, not talking about middle men who take their cut of the profits along the way in the supply chain from the original source producer to the customer. They are indeed petit-bourgeois. But somebody who doesn't own a store, but perform all labour himself to make a living in this present economy is bourgeois :blink:


If that's Anarchism that sounds like a pette-bourgeois hippy food store theory, that sounds like it defends the monetary system and privatre property.

Under this current system or under the system after Capitalism has been overthrown? You don't get to choose whether or not you participate in an economy. I never mentioned anything about defending the monetary system or private property, but everybody have to use money now. What else are they going to do? Use LTVs now? :lol:


Um no that isn't the only other alternative.
Where did you get this idea from?

What else is going to happen if you work for administrators and the administrators collect taxes for their salary and furthermore, the official money you get paid with ends up back in the hands of the government for them to budget as they see fit?

The alternative is Anarchism. Nobody works for anybody. Compensation for labour is spent upon purchase not circulated back to a central authority so you are dependent upon being paid by people who owns the store. Who do think the "store owner" is if you got money flowing back to the same people who paid you?


But I'll leave it up to you to go talk to some annoying hippies about Communism.

Tofu causes cancer too.

Boy did you ever get the wrong number.


Oh, and I still don't care about them, they seem to be doing alright. If they fail, well I don't want to hear them crying when I work with them for some asswipe-- they need to get over what they lost.

You don't have to hope for that for too long. Big monopolies are crushing small competitors like independent corner stores faster than you can say Walmart.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

. A major portion of our "shop" could be considered radical unionists. People who as a whole, have an open disdain for the employing cla

If there is such a disdain for the "employing class", then why are they still around?



It should be obvious even to you, that a "highly paid" worker would like to see all his brothers and sisters elevated to such a level. Hence "Workers of the World Unite! and An Injury to One is an Injury to All.

YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT WITHOUT RESORTING TO COMMUNISM!

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Sep 17 2006, 02:51 AM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Sep 17 2006, 02:51 AM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 02:03 AM
Some of the petit-bourgeoisie actually do not employ workers, does that makes them leeches?
Why should I care about them. [/b]
I never said you should.

But nobody should "hate" an invidivual for not being opressed, while such individual doesn't opresses. If someone manages to get the wealth he deserves out of his work, without leeching, good for him/her!

hating him/her is just infantile behavior.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Television once did not exist. How can it now?

A Star Wars type universe complete with an intergalatic councel, aliens of all stripes, evil sorcerers who can read minds, and space ships that travel at the speed of light has not existed, how can it now and will it ever?


Capitalist Lawyer probably does not understand that communism requires a certain material and productive capability, and because of that thinks "if it isn't, then how can it"?

And what exactly are these "certain material and productive capacities" that a communist society requires?

Robots who do all of the "shit work" and we all get to ride roller coasters all day and everyday?


Or how about this? You communists can plow the fields while I ride the roller coasters? That way, I don't have to wait in line.

:lol:

[Avtomatov]

Communism has never existed, so how can it exist?


Nice logic.

[Cryotank Screams]

When I hear slogans such as "working people of the world unite!" I interpret that as meaning "people of the world unite!" and the people as meaning the general society and not the oppressive bourgeoisie leader, and his cabinet.

So thus it is not class favoritism; because the people are not a class.

[JC1]

So thus it is not class favoritism; because the people are not a class.

All struggle is class struggle man. If you dont automaticly favour the workers, youre no comrade of mine. How is our class going to develop its institutions and capture state power if you wana tail multi-movements.

[negative potential]

Hey capitalist lawyer (how is it possible to be a capitalist and a lawyer, incidentally? Are you a lawyer who operates a value-generating enterprise on the side, or are you primarily a capitalist who also happens to have a law degree?)

You seem to be ignoring my post http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292167609 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56094&view=findpost&p=1292167609)

Is it because you don't like debating with somebody who's actually read Marx, and who thus disproves that there is anything like a "working-class favoritism" in his mature social theory? Or did you just overlook the post?

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:28 PM

All struggle is class struggle man. If you dont automaticly favour the workers, youre no comrade of mine.

This is an absurdity. So if white workers engage in racist lynchings of black people, or anti-semitic pogroms against middle-class jewish people, you side with the workers because they are workers?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You seem to be ignoring my post

It looks like you copy and pasted that from another website.

"I have known sons and daughters....."????

Who the hell talks like that?

[negative potential]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2006, 03:04 PM

It looks like you copy and pasted that from another website.

Nope, all material from my own pen, for better or for worse.



"I have known sons and daughters....."????

Who the hell talks like that?


Apparently not monosyllabic "capitalist lawyers."

Shall I interpret that as a concession on your part? Not used to having debating partners who've studied the source material, are you?

[Will Lernen I]

Wow, Negative Potential, I think you better reevaluate your views on Private Property because you just owned Capitalist Lawyer`s ass LOL!!!

Can you accumulate capitalist lawyer's asses??

I can't believe he actually accused you of plagiarism based on eloquence!!!! How enbarassing is that? I guess it's a glaring comment on his own ability to posit well referenced, insightful discourse.

Doubt your opponents, doubt yourself....

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Wow, Negative Potential, I think you better reevaluate your views on Private Property because you just owned Capitalist Lawyer`s ass LOL!!!

All he did was summarize Marx's thoughts as opposed to his own.

That is, if he ever had an original thought.

"Marx said it! Therefore, it must be true!"



You seem to be ignoring my post

And you guys pretty much ignored all of my posts:

What are these necessary productive capacities?

You can have good working conditions, wages and a decent standard of living without resorting to revolutionary communism or being a communist.

Love of the work itself is not the only incentive as to why people work. How do you think the trucking industry and the waste management, along with nursing and a host of other tough professions get workers? By offering more money and benefits than other professions.

I can ride roller coasters almost everyday while you suckers plow the fields?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You can have good working conditions, wages and a decent standard of living without resorting to revolutionary communism or being a communist.

The thing is, the west workers can have good working conditions, wages and a decent standard of living without resorting to revolutionary communism, but so long as the country they reside in exploit developing world workers.

Capitalism in the west only "works" because it uses its own institutions to exploit poor nations.


How do you think the trucking industry and the waste management, along with nursing and a host of other tough professions get workers? By offering more money and benefits than other professions.

We for nursing pay is quite low. And in the UK at least, we have to recruit nurses and doctors from much poorer countries where Uk wages are good.

Though this depletes the medical service in the home country, which im sure you will agree is sucky.

We could have a system of rewarding people who do stuff like Waste management & trucking, but im sure the shitty jobs could be distributed more fairly.

No one can really say how things will be arranged in the future though

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Capitalism in the west only "works" because it uses its own institutions to exploit poor nations.

Evidence.


We for nursing pay is quite low. And in the UK at least, we have to recruit nurses and doctors from much poorer countries where Uk wages are good.

And if your government runned medical care system was smart, it would increase pay and benefits in order to attract more people.

That's what happens in the USA. In most cities in the USA, nursing pay starting off is roughly $40,000 a year. Not bad for someone who's in their early 20's and who only had to go to school for only 2 years. And if you want more pay and responsibilities as a nurse, you could get a BSN or an MSN.

If you want to hear a scarier scenario, where there wouldn't be wages or benefits at all!

(Refer to communism to understand what I'm talking about.)

:lol:


We could have a system of rewarding people who do stuff like Waste management & trucking, but im sure the shitty jobs could be distributed more fairly.

But what's the incentive for people to want to contribute to the grunt work?

Because they just simply "like it" and "want to help"?



No one can really say how things will be arranged in the future though

That's quite a plan you have there comrade.

I would keep your little secret a secret though, it'll ruin your sales pitch.

[KC]

This is an absurdity. So if white workers engage in racist lynchings of black people, or anti-semitic pogroms against middle-class jewish people, you side with the workers because they are workers?

He was talking about the class struggle. Stop trying to be such a smartass.


All he did was summarize Marx's thoughts as opposed to his own.

That is, if he ever had an original thought.

"Marx said it! Therefore, it must be true!"

"E=MC^2"
"Haven't you ever had an original thought? 'Einstein said it! Therefore, it must be true!'"

:rolleyes:


Evidence.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm

[Will Lernen I]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 01:02 PM
Love of the work itself is not the only incentive as to why people work. How do you think the trucking industry and the waste management, along with nursing and a host of other tough professions get workers? By offering more money and benefits than other professions.
Firstly, in the name of intelligent discourse, I apologize for the bravado of my previous post. I think I had just finished watching Punk'd or something. Yes, I am guilty :wub: Sorry about that...

To respond to your opinion:


Love of the work itself is not the only incentive as to why people work. How do you think the trucking industry and the waste management, along with nursing and a host of other tough professions get workers? By offering more money and benefits than other professions.

Yes, this is exactly why truckers, nurses and sanitary workers make more than lawyers, investment bankers and politicians... Sarcasm aside, it is a moot point, as these conditions exist in a very few countries, and even then, it does not account for the gross inequality found in a commodity based society of capital.

The hardest job I ever had was working in a Fibreglass factory; coincidentally, it was also the lowest paying. The factory thrived on immigrants who had no other opportunity for work because of their poor language skills. They were ruthlessly exploited in the name of profit for their shortcomings. Many tried to improve their situation, but working 10 hours per day in 120 degree heat kind of makes it hard to concentrate in a nightschool language class.

I know what you will ask next "Then why did they emigrate?" - well, due to the fact that their country was ravaged by war, and there's no need asking who the agressors were...

The fact that Capitalism creates pretty decent conditions in America is subjective based on your experience; but, admittedly, is a pretty good argument (although I'm sure many Southern Blacks will disagree). However, America isn't humankind. In fact it isn't even 5%. The crippling poverty found in many areas of the World is a direct result of the exploitation of labour and resources in these areas by Western corporations that funnel the lion's share back to their executives; and the history of these constructs perpetuate the condition.

During the 18th Century the economies of the Caribbean were extremely open and highly involved internationally. However, the ability to accumulate capital and subsequently wield political power, in order to reinforce this institution, resulted in the appearance of slave trade and European-backed oligarchies. (Sokoloff, Kenneth, and Stanley Engerman, 2002, “Factor Endowments, Inequality, and Paths
of Development among New World Economies,” Economia, Vol. 3, pp. 41–109)
Many of the current "privileged" families of capital that enjoy the benefits of their status in today's society built their position from this (tainted) economy. Conversely, yet interrelatedly, the situation of the African American in the present day USA can also thank this piece of History.

In the beginning part of our own Century, Latin American economies were dominated by fruit export enterprises that ruthlessly persecuted indigineous farmers and destabilized the political landscape of the countries they operated in, in order to install regimes favourable to their own business interests. Woodward, Ralph Lee, 1999, Central America, A Nation Divided (New York & London:Oxford University Press, 3rd ed.).
This trend has continued into the present day with the American involvement in Central and South American affairs that, due to our exhaustive knowledge of these atrocities in the name of free trade, are redundant to list here (but can be gladly if requested).

And to address probably the biggest of all injustices in the World, that of the unfair trade of a country's natural resources; Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian argue that the "trade in natural resources has a negative impact on growth through worsening institutional quality", citing specifically the case of Nigeria. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, and Arvind Subramanian, 2003, “Addressing the Natural Resource
Curse: Evidence from Nigeria,” NBER Working Paper No. 9804 (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
Of course, the most popular and glaring example of this is the current Middle-East crisis; but we shouldn't forget the NATO backed genocide in the"pipeline gateway" of the Balkans and Afghanistan; the "liberation" of the Chilean copper mines and the Imperial wars in Indochina.

American exploitation of foreign resources through military and political power in order to create a favourable view of capitalism at home is, of course, not a secret to anyone. In fact, members of the current administration laid out in the "Statement of Principles" of the PNAC that they fought "for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century." (Abrams, Elliot et. al. 1997).
They also posit "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad" (Ibid). Why do you need a huge army to conduct fair trade?

The institutions created in the name of free trade are as guilty, if not more so, as the thuggery of the US military in foreign "trade" negotiations. Many economists argue that "larger firms may actually prefer to make institutions worse, ceteris paribus, in order to forestall entry and decrease competition in both goods and factor markets." Rajan, Raghuram, and Luigi Zingales, 2003a, “The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the 20th Century,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 5–50.
Rajan takes the view that "financial development languished in the interwar period and beyond partly because large corporations wanted to restrict access to external finance by smaller firms in order to reduce competition." (Ibid).

The fact that capitalism is pretty good for the average American is why capitalism is so vehemently defended by Americans. However, where is the ethical obligation of accountability for our fellow Humans, regardless of national boundaries and social standing? Where is the indignation at injustice, global injustice, that made Che tremble? That same spark of intolerance of repression that ignited the Civil Rights movement when our domestically opressed brothers and sisters had had enough? Where is the anger at exploitation that makes the revolutionary get up and scream "not of my brothers and sisters"? I suppose it is anaesthetized by a "decent paycheck and good benefits"...

[negative potential]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Sep 19 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Khayembii Communique @ Sep 19 2006, 05:37 PM)
He was talking about the class struggle. Stop trying to be such a smartass.[/b]


I'll stop being a smartass if you stop being a jackass. Regardless of what the poster's intent was, what he actually said was incredibly reductionist. Rather than paying abstract obeisance to "class struggle" as an empty phrase, it might be worthwhile to actually study the history of the working class.

There are some absolutely beautiful examples of solidarity and humanity, like the IWW, the British miners strike in the early 80s, and the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement in Detroit in the late 60s and early 70s.

On the other hand, working class people have done some truly vile shit. Consult the works of Noel Ignatiev and Theodore Allen for accounts of the horrid acts commited by the white working-class in the United States to defend racial privilege against black fellow workers , or books like Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men or Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners for accounts of the passive submission, or worse,the active support of many workers for Nazi Germany.

Coming from a working-class background myself (both parents were active trade unionists, in fact), I hate to see workers treated as objectified caricatures. We're talking about real human beings with real personalities, not fodder for your revolutionary ambitions.

Obviously, to topple the domination of society by the imperatives of valorization, we need to win a substantial portion of the population, most of whom will be wage workers by definition. But can the idealist bullshit, huh? Workers are not superheros in your comic book fantasy of red octobers to come.



Capitalist Lawyer
All he did was summarize Marx's thoughts as opposed to his own.

That is, if he ever had an original thought.

"Marx said it! Therefore, it must be true!"


You mean I agree with Marx? God forbid!

[negative potential]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 01:02 PM

Love of the work itself is not the only incentive as to why people work.


Hahahaha! For once we agree. No fucking shit on that, chief!

Understatement of the year.

In fact, the main reason people work is the fact that they are compelled to, for a wage, in order to stay alive.

Like most of the middlebrow reactionaries haunting this subsection, you need to actually familliarize yourself with the history of the world before capitalism became a generalized social structure. The idea that people have to sell their labor power in order to maintain their existence is relatively recent in human history. Of course, life before capitalism was not ideal by any stretch. There was still war, class divisions, inhumanity, superstition, illness. Nonetheless, the fact remains that "work," as we understand it, is something that arises once an independent, self-sustaining peasantry and self-regulating urban guilds are deprived of access to the means of material production.

So, if people managed to survive for centuries without "work" (not productive activity, mind you, but work, i.e., wage labor), what makes you think they won't be able to do so in the future?

A huge percentage of "work" under capitalism is superfluous bullshit which would be completely unnecessary in a society where humans take an active, conscious role in allocating productive resources to meet their material needs. For example, the so-called FIRE sector (Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate) would be a complete anachronism in a society without commodity exchange.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2006, 03:27 AM
Why do you guys immediately assume that just because someone is a member of the working-class, that they're immediately a trustworthy and respectable person?

And vice-versa for the "bourgeiose"? Only that you think they're untrustworthy and disrespectable?

Talk about guilt by association?

You communists never seem to judge a person's character but rather only by their occupation. Thus, if you're working-class, you've got our respect. I mean, what about all of the members of the working class that are complete assholes? Should they automatically be granted respect by you people?

Now, I know what you're going to say: "Their occupation shapes their character, if they're working-class and they're complete assholes, that's not their fault, it's their class and work environment".

Maybe, maybe not.

And yes, there are members of the bourgeoise and the capitalist class that are assholes too but there are also very nice people among them. Ditto for the working-classes.

So why the favoritism only for the working class?

Why not, non-assholes of the world unite?

Who gives a shit what their "relationship to the means of production are"? (to use terminology that you're all familiar with)
Sorry I kinda jumped into this one a bit late, but anywho..........


Why do you guys immediately assume that just because someone is a member of the working-class, that they're immediately a trustworthy and respectable person?

We Respect the fact that an average joe member of the working class inevitably has life that little bit more difficult as opposed to your Oil tycoons by default.
Trust is a character trait, It does not really play a part in Class distinction. But Lets look at how many US allies have been betrayed in the last 50 years....Talk about trustworthy.


You communists never seem to judge a person's character but rather only by their occupation. Thus, if you're working-class, you've got our respect. I mean, what about all of the members of the working class that are complete assholes? Should they automatically be granted respect by you people?

Calling somebody an asshole is a matter of opinion and yes, your right... If I didn't like somebody's character I wouldn't associate with him/her regardless of Class. Communists Dont judge people by character but by actions, Character is not linked in anyway to Class.


Now, I know what you're going to say: "Their occupation shapes their character, if they're working-class and they're complete assholes, that's not their fault, it's their class and work environment".

Eh...no.



So why the favoritism only for the working class?

Communists recognise that the Fat-Cats have been exploiting the worker since ancient times. So thats where RE-evolution of this state of Class system is our objective.


Why not, non-assholes of the world unite?

Thank Jesus, Mary & the holy donkey that you dont write manifestos!

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by negative [email protected] 21 2006, 04:00 AM




On the other hand, working class people have done some truly vile shit. Consult the works of Noel Ignatiev and Theodore Allen for accounts of the horrid acts commited by the white working-class in the United States to defend racial privilege against black fellow workers , or books like Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men or Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners for accounts of the passive submission, or worse,the active support of many workers for Nazi Germany

I fail to see your point. As discussed earlier, these are character traits and perversion of the masses by a Facist Entity.


Coming from a working-class background myself (both parents were active trade unionists, in fact), I hate to see workers treated as objectified caricatures. We're talking about real human beings with real personalities, not fodder for your revolutionary ambitions.

I respect your background but coming from and living in a working class background my entire life (my mother is a nurse and my Father is Unemployed as a consequence of work Injury) I believe revolutionary ambition is not only suitable but needed for any working class.


Obviously, to topple the domination of society by the imperatives of valorization, we need to win a substantial portion of the population, most of whom will be wage workers by definition. But can the idealist bullshit, huh? Workers are not superheros in your comic book fantasy of red octobers to come.

Workers are superheros. Blue-Collar guys getting up at the crack of dawn working their hands to the bone for poor pay and conditions in order to maintain some sort living standards. Try Getting bill gates to do that.

[Publius]

Communism is what matters to us, the working class are the only revolutionary class, they are the only class that can bring about communism.

How absurdly circular.

"We support the working class in order to bring about communism. Why do we support communism? In order to free the working class! Why do we want to free the working class? To achieve communism! Why do want to achieve communism? To free the working class! ad infitum."

[Janus]

Why do we want to free the working class?
What do you mean by "we"? The working class must free themselves from the exploitation and injustice that they stuffer in this time. No one else can actually do it for them.

[1984]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2006, 05:25 AM
I think it's time for you communists to update your theory of reality!

A little 150 years too late if you ask me.
Capitalist theory and liberalism are even older. Locke, Smith, Taylor... hey, Taylorism has about 150 years also, so don't you think that "scientific menagement" is rubbish too?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The fact that capitalism is pretty good for the average American is why capitalism is so vehemently defended by Americans.

Strong government institutions are needed to create an atmosphere conducive to capitalism.

Read the book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, , by Hernando de Soto. He explains how ineffectual governments keep capital from being raised in many less-developed countries.

He argues that entrepreneurship (I hope that word doesn't hurt you) exists all over the world. The problem of the developing world is that it lacks a legal system to underpin it. OK, says de Soto, Bill Gates is a genius - but his success stems not because of that mystical construct, the "protestant work ethic", but because of the US legal system.


Communists recognise that the Fat-Cats have been exploiting the worker since ancient times. So thats where RE-evolution of this state of Class system is our objective.

If it's been going on since "ancient times", then maybe its the best way to organize a society?

And why shouldn't a "fat cat" exploit a worker? What exactly is a McDonald's employee or some jackass at Jiffy Lube entitled to?

Also, what about the exploited workers who are making well over 50k a year?


Blue-Collar guys getting up at the crack of dawn working their hands to the bone for poor pay and conditions in order to maintain some sort living standards.

The problem is that they don't get "poor pay" and receive a rather good standard of living.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm

I asked for evidence and you post a link to an "e-book"...I want hard objective evidence that demonstrates how the USA along with the other G7 countries are responsible for all the poverty in the world.

[pastradamus]

If it's been going on since "ancient times", then maybe its the best way to organize a society?

So that makes it correct? Hangings,piliging,murder,genocides & slavery have also been going on since ancient times....So you would also agree with these then?


And why shouldn't a "fat cat" exploit a worker? What exactly is a McDonald's employee or some jackass at Jiffy Lube entitled to?

......And why should the fat cat be entitled to something? These Jackass' are making his/her boss enough money to throw your hat at- but despite this they recieve very basic pay.


The problem is that they don't get "poor pay" and receive a rather good standard of living.

Compared to the bourgeois owner who does very little and recieves millions from the labour of others.

[colonelguppy]

very few rich people make millions by doing very little, i don't know why people keep perpetuating this myth.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

All the children of billionaires make millions by doing very little. That's a fair amount of people.

But this is beside the point, CG.

Communists don't object to people being rich merely because they don't "work hard enough". People who are rich systematically expropriate the social product which is capital for themselves. And they perpetuate this by oppressing the masses through means of such appropriations.

So, no, they don't work hard enough. There is no amount of work which justifies the personal acquisition of capital.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

". People who are rich systematically expropriate the social product which is capital for themselves. And they perpetuate this by oppressing the masses through means of such appropriations.

Ok fine....you caught on to "our" little secret about the capitalists' plan to exploit workers and create captial and wealth for themselves.

Happy?

All of this rhetoric about "helping people find jobs" is all bullshit. It's about helping owners stay in business and maybe amass more capital and wealth. They can't do this w/o the workers. Temp agencies don't give a shit about the workers, all they care about is the owners because that's who they work for and not you!

But so what?

If it weren't for these asshole owners, where would we be?

And if this arrangement is so unfair and bullshit, then why hasn't it been overthrown yet?

Are people just stupid and are psuedo-masochists?

Or maybe, there's simply nothing wrong with it and this conspiracy is not really what it's made out to be by people like you?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

very few rich people make millions by doing very little, i don't know why people keep perpetuating this myth.

Ok...make it illegal to receive inheritances?

Fine, but all of the legit rich people and the middle-classes get to stay and be left alone?

So, why all of this talk about communism then? I'm sure you can achieve this goal through electoral politics.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If it weren't for these asshole owners, where would we be?

Capitalism didn't exist before a few people decided to own everything... so Dr. Rosenpenis doesn't really know "what it would have been like."

"What will it be like?"

Well, the only function which bosses only can serve, the only disctinctive characteristic of the capitalist is having money to invest. Once capital is owned collectively, these things will be determined and carried out collectively.


And if this arrangement is so unfair and bullshit, then why hasn't it been overthrown yet?

But it has.


Fine, but all of the legit rich people and the middle-classes get to stay and be left alone?

What's a legit rich person?


So, why all of this talk about communism then? I'm sure you can achieve this goal through electoral politics.

Trust Dr. Rosenpenis... people have tried. And people continue to try.

[Rollo]

A legit rich person is someone who..... Hmmm.... Someone who...... Darn.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think he just doesn't understands why we object to people being rich.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Capitalism didn't exist before a few people decided to own everything

But, a few people don't own everything. A lot of people own things.


What's a legit rich person?

A doctor, an owner of a chain of successful restaurants (keep in mind he also contributes to the labor process), a lawyer that helps prosecutes child rapists and murderers.

...and I also included middle-class people in my classification as well. In case, you didn't catch that.


But it has.

But I thought communism and socialism never existed?



I think he just doesn't understands why we object to people being rich.

Yeah, I do.

I just don't understand why you guys object to people obtaining atleast a middle-class standard of living...which is considered quite rich by world standards.


And people continue to try.

Why the need for a revolution if the only thing you want to do is "skim all of it off of the very rich?"

It appears you're quite content with having a middle-class representative democracy?

And you call yourself a "communist"??

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:35 AM

And yes, there are members of the bourgeoise and the capitalist class that are assholes too but there are also very nice people among them.
Doesn't change the fact that they are still inherently exploitative. There were some "nice" slave masters too.
Janus - Exactly.

Marx did not romanticize workers; he understood that they could be at times, racist, reactionary, and vulgar.

However, they, representing the exploited, are the only members of society that can overthrow the ruling class. Capitalist Lawyer's bourgeois argument is akin to saying "Why the slave-favoritism?! There can be really nasty slaves too! And really nice masters! What gives?"

No matter whether one individual is nice or mean, the point still remains, that wage-slaves, like the slaves a 150 years ago, are the exploited and the product of a system which runs on exploitation, and if you are against exploitation, as socialists are, then it becomes your duty to educate and organize that exploited class to overthrow their oppressor.

Whether some are mean, nasty, nice, kind and so on is irrelevant. It is understood by most adults that there are "good" and "bad" people within every class and every group; this does not change the inherent system of exploitation.

It can also be argued that since the working class make up the vast majority of humanity, that a love of the working class is a love of humanity itself.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

then it becomes your duty to educate and organize that exploited class to overthrow their oppressor.

But the slaves did not overthrow their slave-masters. Nobody did.

Their institution was simply forbidden by the rule of law and it took a civil war to solidify it. And if I'm correct, the slave-masters were duly compensated by the northern carpetbaggers in return for the wealth that they supposedly owned.

The formers slaves didn't control anything afterwards...except maybe themselves and their labor power.

Therefore, your distinction between the slaves of yesteryear and the workers of today is nil.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

this does not change the inherent system of exploitation.

But it's ok for the working-class to exploit?

I think you don't have a problem with exploitation but rather who is doing the exploitation.

[kaaos_af]

Are you fucking stupid or something?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:26 PM
Are you fucking stupid or something?
CL is fucking stupid, yes - but you're worse for not actually making any counterpoints in your post and just spamming.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2006, 02:59 AM

this does not change the inherent system of exploitation.

But it's ok for the working-class to exploit?

I think you don't have a problem with exploitation but rather who is doing the exploitation.
What is it exactly the working class is exploiting?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26 2006, 04:57 PM

then it becomes your duty to educate and organize that exploited class to overthrow their oppressor.

But the slaves did not overthrow their slave-masters. Nobody did.

Their institution was simply forbidden by the rule of law and it took a civil war to solidify it. And if I'm correct, the slave-masters were duly compensated by the northern carpetbaggers in return for the wealth that they supposedly owned.

The formers slaves didn't control anything afterwards...except maybe themselves and their labor power.

Therefore, your distinction between the slaves of yesteryear and the workers of today is nil.
The oppression of the working class is different from the oppression of the slaves; it cannot simply be made 'illegal' the entire structure of bourgeois rulership has to be removed and something new put in place - preferably some form of technocratic system.