Log in

View Full Version : Spent a year arguing with uber-capitalists...



t_wolves_fan
20th September 2006, 21:25
I've spent the last year arguing with the uber-capitalists of the forum at Protest Warrior.

I was shocked at the foolishness of a bunch of young (sometimes old), angry men who are convinced that their theory would work regardless of the evidence because, well, they really really believe in it.

Which naturally reminded me of this place.

:lol:

Matty_UK
20th September 2006, 21:40
What do you advocate?

Your sig implies that maybe you consider yourself "moderate." How can someone be moderate because surely that is subjective? Social relations change and the structure of societies change; at the time of the bourgeois revolutions across Europe towards the end of the feudal system you could not say "oh I'm a moderate, all these bourgeois extremists are nutcases!!!"

Do you suppose we have reached the end of society and there will never be any conflict between classes ever again and life will continue like this till we die out? Do you suppose that workers going on strike and protestors taking to the streets every few months is going to just stop happening? Do you suppose the bourgeoisie are going to desist trying to pay less wages and less tax whilst the workers desist trying to get higher wage and better working conditions?

Do you suppose nothing like the great depression will ever happen again?

"Moderates" are dipshits, you have to be a moderate something. I consider myself a moderate anarchist, but to be a general moderate is just to be a soft conservative.

Gnosis
20th September 2006, 21:46
What does it mean to be a 'moderate anarchist'?

Matty_UK
20th September 2006, 21:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:47 PM
What does it mean to be a 'moderate anarchist'?
I have a loose concept of it so I'm not particularly dogmatic and I'm not opposed absolutely to all power relations. An "extreme" anarchist might have a rigid idea of exactly how anarchism should be organised and be opposed to any sort of police force or compulsion.

colonelguppy
20th September 2006, 23:07
you've yet to get rid of me! how've you been? found the new forum yet?

JazzRemington
20th September 2006, 23:44
oh yah? Well I spent three days arguing with them before I came to realize what hopeless fools they were.

t_wolves_fan
21st September 2006, 00:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:41 PM
What do you advocate?

Your sig implies that maybe you consider yourself "moderate." How can someone be moderate because surely that is subjective? Social relations change and the structure of societies change; at the time of the bourgeois revolutions across Europe towards the end of the feudal system you could not say "oh I'm a moderate, all these bourgeois extremists are nutcases!!!"

Do you suppose we have reached the end of society and there will never be any conflict between classes ever again and life will continue like this till we die out? Do you suppose that workers going on strike and protestors taking to the streets every few months is going to just stop happening? Do you suppose the bourgeoisie are going to desist trying to pay less wages and less tax whilst the workers desist trying to get higher wage and better working conditions?

Do you suppose nothing like the great depression will ever happen again?

"Moderates" are dipshits, you have to be a moderate something. I consider myself a moderate anarchist, but to be a general moderate is just to be a soft conservative.
I advocate common sense policies that help the poor without removing any incentive to work or achieve.

Policies not based on fantasies where people always act rationally and have perfect information (pure capitalism) or where people magically lose their need for material gain and self aggrandizement (communism).

Classes will always fight. Herodotus' history of ancient Greece talks about despots whose soldiers walked off because he wouldn't pay enough. This is like arguing with a biblethumper over homosexuality. Eventually a few thousand years of human history ought to provide some clue.

Moderation is inherently objective because it relies on data and common sense to make a decision. Extremist hacks will only choose policies that make sense according to their subjective philosophical frames.

Being a hack is easier. It meets your needs to belong and to fight the mythical "other".

t_wolves_fan
21st September 2006, 00:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:08 PM
you've yet to get rid of me! how've you been? found the new forum yet?
Did I argue with you there?

And where's the new forum? What happened to the old one?

Matty_UK
21st September 2006, 01:57
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 20 2006, 09:57 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 20 2006, 09:57 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 06:41 PM
What do you advocate?

Your sig implies that maybe you consider yourself "moderate." How can someone be moderate because surely that is subjective? Social relations change and the structure of societies change; at the time of the bourgeois revolutions across Europe towards the end of the feudal system you could not say "oh I'm a moderate, all these bourgeois extremists are nutcases!!!"

Do you suppose we have reached the end of society and there will never be any conflict between classes ever again and life will continue like this till we die out? Do you suppose that workers going on strike and protestors taking to the streets every few months is going to just stop happening? Do you suppose the bourgeoisie are going to desist trying to pay less wages and less tax whilst the workers desist trying to get higher wage and better working conditions?

Do you suppose nothing like the great depression will ever happen again?

"Moderates" are dipshits, you have to be a moderate something. I consider myself a moderate anarchist, but to be a general moderate is just to be a soft conservative.
I advocate common sense policies that help the poor without removing any incentive to work or achieve.

Policies not based on fantasies where people always act rationally and have perfect information (pure capitalism) or where people magically lose their need for material gain and self aggrandizement (communism).

Classes will always fight. Herodotus' history of ancient Greece talks about despots whose soldiers walked off because he wouldn't pay enough. This is like arguing with a biblethumper over homosexuality. Eventually a few thousand years of human history ought to provide some clue.

Moderation is inherently objective because it relies on data and common sense to make a decision. Extremist hacks will only choose policies that make sense according to their subjective philosophical frames.

Being a hack is easier. It meets your needs to belong and to fight the mythical "other". [/b]
In the case of most of the people here we all started off as moderate liberals and eventually found that our concerns cannot ever be dealt with without major social change.

Saying you advocate "common sense" policies-i.e. social democratic is what you seem to advocate-does not mean you're balancing out the best of both worlds. What really made me want a revolution rather than just liking the idea of everyone being equal is when I began to understand that under capitalism my life is never really going to improve when it really could. The bourgoisie have abolished private property for anyone but themselves; most likely for my entire life the bank will own all my property because of debt-and when/if I'm free from debt I sell everything and go to a carehome....there is no reason for me to be enslaved for so long just to have a roof on my head, there's enough houses to go round. Secondly the cost of living is increasing at a faster rate than wages; but the fact is outside of capitalism most goods could be so much cheaper. The full productive capacity of technology like GM foods, robotics, and hydroponics is ignored because if too much was produced prices would drop-Tesco's destroys 40% of what it DOES produce in order to keep prices high. This is a ridiculous system that is stifling progress and in my mind it must go at some point in the near future. Pretending to be a "moderate," as if communism and capitalism are 2 absolutes (false they are different stages of historical development) is meaningless as you're still agreeing with the major problems of the capitalist system.

Classes WILL always fight yes but the material conditions of how production is managed is not always favourable; the shift from agricultural subsistence economies to industrial market economies because of technological change led to the bourgeoisie class supplanting the noble class. And now the seperation of society into only 2 classes, proletarian and bourgeois, and the ability for the proletariat to organise easier makes a worker led society look like the only possible next epoch. Capitalism is too inefficient to last forever and the global economy has been seeing less and less growth since the 1960s, and the only way it recovered from the Great Depression was through fascism and world war. And a permanent state of war is what we're gonna get as long as capitalism is around as rebuilding and starting new markets slows down decline of profit.

If that's how you define moderate then I guess I'm a moderate as data and common sense discrediting capitalism has convinced me it is a system that must go. (although I'm anarchist not communist)

And I think trying to imply anyone who criticises capitalism is automatically an irrational extremist merely finding a new religion is an incredibly insulting and simplistic generalisation, not to say narrow minded.

The Sloth
21st September 2006, 03:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:51 PM

I have a loose concept of it so I'm not particularly dogmatic and I'm not opposed absolutely to all power relations. An "extreme" anarchist might have a rigid idea of exactly how anarchism should be organised and be opposed to any sort of police force or compulsion.
there is no such thing as "no power relations." even equal distribution of power is a "power relation." the word would merely take on fewer negative connotations, but it would still denote the same thing.

Janus
21st September 2006, 03:52
Good for you. Now can we stop with all the spam threads in here?

colonelguppy
21st September 2006, 04:34
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 20 2006, 04:59 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 20 2006, 04:59 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 08:08 PM
you've yet to get rid of me! how've you been? found the new forum yet?
Did I argue with you there?

And where's the new forum? What happened to the old one? [/b]
kfir was being a ***** and decided to close it down.

i'm pretty sure the new one is down to that osme of the regulars put up on invision.

i never really debated towards the end, the forum got ridiculous.

negative potential
21st September 2006, 07:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:57 PM
or where people magically lose their need for material gain and self aggrandizement (communism).


Hell man, I plan to perpetuate my need for material gain and self-aggrandizement long after we have achieved communism. ;)

Seriously, this is one serious source of frustration with me when arguing with non-communists. What makes you think communism is incompatible with material gain and self-aggrandizement?

Have you perused any anthropological studies concerning forms of social prestige and wealth in tribal societies? Those are societies which are, by the definition of most communists, stateless and classless societies, but still maintain forms of prestige, heirarchy based upon age or experience, and other forms of social distinction.

Stop believing the canard that communism is a utopia or some sort of earthly paradise. Communism is simply the negation of capitalism, i.e. a society based upon the twin poles of the commodity form and the state form, with the additional component that communism would also be a classless society (class societies emerged long before generalized commodity production or the modern nation-state).

I could easily envision a communist society where people are aggrandized or held in high esteem due to their expertise in medicine, science, literature, athletic abilities, sexual attractiveness, wisdom, or whatever.

An author puts things very succintly in a tiny little humourous book on the matter published in Germany (appropriately titled "Kommunismus"). Sadly, the book has not been published (yet) in English translation, but here is a relevant little passage:

"Communism is not a cure-all, simply a cure for the ills of capitalism. For example, when a person has coughs and the sniffles, and takes something to relieve the cough, then the cough is relieved, but not necessarily the sniffles. So Communism does not heal all suffering, merely the suffering caused by capitalism."

negative potential
21st September 2006, 07:47
One additional point:


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:57 PM

Classes will always fight.


I don't disagree with you there. As long as classes exist, they will come into conflict.

But what makes you think that classes will always exist? I am not talking about social heirarchies, social distinctions, the fact that some people are more talented, wiser, intelligent, better-looking, competent to make decisions, or generous than others. I am talking about the existence of social classes, i.e. the existence of variegated social strata on the basis of differential ownership of and access to productive resources.

Modern homo sapiens sapiens existed for literally hundreds of thousands of years in classless forms of social organization. If you count our primate ancestors, then we're talking millions of years.

It's a sign of how reified our thinking has become that not only are most people unable to imagine a form of social organization beyond the current one, but they're actually ignorant of how recent and anamolous capitalism is as a social form.

D_Bokk
21st September 2006, 08:04
Originally posted by negative potential

Hell man, I plan to perpetuate my need for material gain and self-aggrandizement long after we have achieved communism. wink.gif

Seriously, this is one serious source of frustration with me when arguing with non-communists. What makes you think communism is incompatible with material gain and self-aggrandizement?

Have you perused any anthropological studies concerning forms of social prestige and wealth in tribal societies? Those are societies which are, by the definition of most communists, stateless and classless societies, but still maintain forms of prestige, heirarchy based upon age or experience, and other forms of social distinction.

Stop believing the canard that communism is a utopia or some sort of earthly paradise. Communism is simply the negation of capitalism, i.e. a society based upon the twin poles of the commodity form and the state form, with the additional component that communism would also be a classless society (class societies emerged long before generalized commodity production or the modern nation-state).

I could easily envision a communist society where people are aggrandized or held in high esteem due to their expertise in medicine, science, literature, athletic abilities, sexual attractiveness, wisdom, or whatever.

An author puts things very succintly in a tiny little humourous book on the matter published in Germany (appropriately titled "Kommunismus"). Sadly, the book has not been published (yet) in English translation, but here is a relevant little passage:

"Communism is not a cure-all, simply a cure for the ills of capitalism. For example, when a person has coughs and the sniffles, and takes something to relieve the cough, then the cough is relieved, but not necessarily the sniffles. So Communism does not heal all suffering, merely the suffering caused by capitalism."
I'm very curious as to how you think that materialism can survive under communism (ie. the phase without a state.) I personally do not see how the people can organize to create many of the luxury items we see today. Outside of the digital realm, there will probably be very little mass-produced material good that doesn't really serve a purpose.

I may be wrong and I hope I am; either way I want communism, with or without the material luxuries. I'm willing to live without a lot of what I have now to end monstrous capitalist system.

t_wolves_fan
21st September 2006, 14:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:58 PM
What really made me want a revolution rather than just liking the idea of everyone being equal is when I began to understand that under capitalism my life is never really going to improve when it really could.


I only have a few minutes and will respond to the rest of your post when I have time, but this is absurd.

My parents improved their lives quite substantially in the course of just 5-10 years. I have done the same.

If we are capable of it, so are you.

The only reason you haven't so far is because you think you can't, which is your own fault.

Capitalist Lawyer
23rd September 2006, 06:46
Stop believing the canard that communism is a utopia or some sort of earthly paradise.

If there are no classes, then there aren't any conflicts between those classes. And end to conflicts seems like a utopian paradise to me.

So what exactly would be a cause of conflicts in a communist society?

Dean
24th September 2006, 00:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:57 PM
I advocate common sense policies that help the poor without removing any incentive to work or achieve.

Policies not based on fantasies where people always act rationally and have perfect information (pure capitalism) or where people magically lose their need for material gain and self aggrandizement (communism).

Classes will always fight. Herodotus' history of ancient Greece talks about despots whose soldiers walked off because he wouldn't pay enough. This is like arguing with a biblethumper over homosexuality. Eventually a few thousand years of human history ought to provide some clue.

Moderation is inherently objective because it relies on data and common sense to make a decision. Extremist hacks will only choose policies that make sense according to their subjective philosophical frames.

Being a hack is easier. It meets your needs to belong and to fight the mythical "other".
There is no fantasy in fighting for or promoting an ideal. In the case of classless society, the ideal is certainly viable, as it's assumption stems from basic human drives. People are not inherantly greedy; before agricultural revolution, for instance, possession was a completely different idea - a utilitarian one. In what became feudalism, people fought each other for survival. Under feudalism, it was the same but power was vested into leaders who controlled larger areas of land and held an economic and social responsibility to the people.

Under capitalism, that economic reponsibility was shed, and individualism no longer meant the advancement of one's social life, but their material possession. This was a necessity for those in power to maintain it, and for those controlled to achieve survival or power for themselves. this society is of course excessively alienating, and cannot maintain itself.

What future do we face, then? Clearly, the introduction of love, or social one-ness, into the individual's lifestyle is the answer. The viability of this stems from our social nature which seeks the same end and acts in regard to this desire coupled with their knowledge of the world. The truth of our nature will become the truth of our future.

I do not see any mythical other, but on your part I do see a clear inability to think outside of the constraints of society. You capture the essence of the current global state: apathy, mild concern, and almost pure conservatism. People like you are common to any era, and deny the possibility of anything but their own current social condition. To paraphrase Marx, you support capitalism as natural because it exists, in the same sense that the church defends itself.

negative potential
24th September 2006, 02:49
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2006, 03:47 AM

If there are no classes, then there aren't any conflicts between those classes. And end to conflicts seems like a utopian paradise to me.

So what exactly would be a cause of conflicts in a communist society?


Wow, so you think that class division is the only source of conflict existing in human societies?

For a "Capitalist Lawyer," you sound almost like a Vulgar Marxist.

Ever read anything about hunter-gatherer tribes? Definitely not class societies. Still, rival tribes sometimes engaged in violent conflict with each other. Maybe you don't consider primitive warfare a "conflict," in which case you might have a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes conflict.

The most amusing thing about this board is that most of the anti-Marxists have no clue as to what Marx wrote, and the alleged Marxists aren't much better.

Matty_UK
24th September 2006, 19:26
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 21 2006, 11:25 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 21 2006, 11:25 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 10:58 PM
What really made me want a revolution rather than just liking the idea of everyone being equal is when I began to understand that under capitalism my life is never really going to improve when it really could.


I only have a few minutes and will respond to the rest of your post when I have time, but this is absurd.

My parents improved their lives quite substantially in the course of just 5-10 years. I have done the same.

If we are capable of it, so are you.

The only reason you haven't so far is because you think you can't, which is your own fault. [/b]
You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

I'm 18 years old and working full time in a shitty cash-in-hand job for minimum wage. I'm doing this in order to save up £3000 so I can go teach English in China for 6 months but my parents can't really afford to help me out because my sister is at UCL and the tuition fees are enormous and my parents earn only just enough not to get benefits, so there's a huge drain on money. My social life has almost disappeared because I'm working so much that the only free time I have is used to see my girlfriend. Life, right now, is pretty crap and my pay is so low that I have to save a lot of it meaning I can't afford anything other than food, transport, and a trip to the pub once a week despite working every day.

This is all so I can learn some Mandarin so I can cope with doing Chinese Studies at University-I don't have any background in languages so it'll be difficult unless I have a head start.

So I'm not a loser who can never rise out of the working class.

But what after that really? The problem is I'm not too happy with any future career and I do not want to be defined in terms of my job. I could be an academic, a teacher, or a translator of some sort but to be an academic I know I'll have no freedom under capitalism because I require funding off the bourgeois. (I have an anarchist comrade who is a history professor and he says it's very difficult to get any research not useful to capitalists) Being a translator is sressful and underpaid. Being a teacher is underpaid. And none of these jobs will be enough for me to pay off debt until I'm very old.

Call me gloomy but I don't anticipate my future as a working part of the capitalist system will be very exciting.

t_wolves_fan
25th September 2006, 14:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:27 PM

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

We need a revolution because you're bored?

Doesn't that define selfishness?

Matty_UK
25th September 2006, 14:41
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 25 2006, 11:35 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 25 2006, 11:35 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:27 PM

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

We need a revolution because you're bored?

Doesn't that define selfishness? [/b]
Capitalism is boring.

Let's have a party!

I see nothing wrong with this sentiment. If a desire for revolution and freedom isn't selfish then it isn't honest.

t_wolves_fan
25th September 2006, 15:16
Originally posted by Matty_UK+Sep 25 2006, 11:42 AM--> (Matty_UK @ Sep 25 2006, 11:42 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:35 AM

[email protected] 24 2006, 04:27 PM

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

We need a revolution because you're bored?

Doesn't that define selfishness?
Capitalism is boring.

Let's have a party!

I see nothing wrong with this sentiment. If a desire for revolution and freedom isn't selfish then it isn't honest. [/b]
Yeah but your entire post simply smacks of the ignorance and arrogance of youth. If you had a nickel for every angry teenager like you, you wouldn't need a revolution.

Matty_UK
25th September 2006, 19:26
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 25 2006, 12:17 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 25 2006, 12:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:35 AM

[email protected] 24 2006, 04:27 PM

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

We need a revolution because you're bored?

Doesn't that define selfishness?
Capitalism is boring.

Let's have a party!

I see nothing wrong with this sentiment. If a desire for revolution and freedom isn't selfish then it isn't honest.
Yeah but your entire post simply smacks of the ignorance and arrogance of youth. If you had a nickel for every angry teenager like you, you wouldn't need a revolution. [/b]
It's not an angry teenager issue, it's an angry young proletarian issue. I have a very good relationship with my parents (who are socialists, so it's not like I'm trying to piss them off) and I'm in a serious loving relationship with my girlfriend so I really don't have too much to be angry about other than capitalism.

What is it I'm ignorant of? Are you actually gonna debate about communism or just sling mud?

Look, I could talk about this a lot more seriously- do you want to discuss the tendency of profit to decline? Overproduction? War corporatism?

I don't care if you think I'm an angry youth, because the fact is being seperated from the product (and the management) of your labour, whatever that labour is, is inherently dissatisfying-what Marx called alienation. And there's the fact that because exchange value has displaced use value, (under capitalism a product is only useful if it can be sold) and because capitalism has a need to grow (see tendency of rate of profit to decline) it must create new markets everywhere so "fun" has been recuperated into a commodity to be bought or to spend money on along with everything else that once would have been lived; so passive entertainment rules the day and it is always going to be inherently dissatisfying.

And then they complain that the kids are bored and turning to petty crime for kicks. I might be bored, angry and dispossessed but at least I know why I'm bored, angry and dispossessed.

It's perfectly valid criticism. "People who talk of revolution and class struggle, without explicitly referring to everyday life and without understanding what is subversive about love and the refusal of all constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth."

KC
25th September 2006, 19:30
It's not an angry teenager issue, it's an angry young proletarian issue. I have a very good relationship with my parents (who are socialists, so it's not like I'm trying to piss them off) and I'm in a serious loving relationship with my girlfriend so I really don't have too much to be angry about other than capitalism.

What is it I'm ignorant of? Are you actually gonna debate about communism or just sling mud?

Being a revolutionary leftist because you're bored is a completely moronic thing to say.


Look, I could talk about this a lot more seriously- do you want to discuss the tendency of profit to decline?

It's the tendency of the rate of profit to decline.

Matty_UK
25th September 2006, 19:47
Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 04:31 PM

It's not an angry teenager issue, it's an angry young proletarian issue. I have a very good relationship with my parents (who are socialists, so it's not like I'm trying to piss them off) and I'm in a serious loving relationship with my girlfriend so I really don't have too much to be angry about other than capitalism.

What is it I'm ignorant of? Are you actually gonna debate about communism or just sling mud?

Being a revolutionary leftist because you're bored is a completely moronic thing to say.


Look, I could talk about this a lot more seriously- do you want to discuss the tendency of profit to decline?

It's the tendency of the rate of profit to decline.
Why are you a revolutionary leftist?

I agree with the works of Marx and can see all the shit that capitalism has done to the world but there's not a capitalist crises right now so I have a fairly comfortable life. The only thing shit about it is the boredom and dissatisfaction that results from division of labour.

I'm not saying I want a revolution for a bit of excitement I'm saying that life under capitalism is boring and it'll be less so post-revolution.

I don't think it's a moronic reason at all.

KC
25th September 2006, 20:05
Why are you a revolutionary leftist?

Because myself and others like myself are exploited and I don't want to be exploited anymore. Moreover, I am a communist not only because of economic necessity but also because of the fact that I recognize the path of history towards communism and the necessity to fight to achieve that goal, which is a society where I will no longer be exploited as a proletarian and will be free to do as I wish.


I'm not saying I want a revolution for a bit of excitement I'm saying that life under capitalism is boring and it'll be less so post-revolution.

That's the same thing. "I want a revolution because capitalism is boring and communism won't be" is the same thing as saying "I want a revolution because I'm sick of being bored." That's a completely idiotic reason for someone to be a revolutionary leftist. You might as well be a bourgeois liberal, because hey, that's fun, right?

:rolleyes:

Matty_UK
25th September 2006, 20:12
Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 05:06 PM

Why are you a revolutionary leftist?

Because myself and others like myself are exploited and I don't want to be exploited anymore. Moreover, I am a communist not only because of economic necessity but also because of the fact that I recognize the path of history towards communism and the necessity to fight to achieve that goal, which is a society where I will no longer be exploited as a proletarian and will be free to do as I wish.


I'm not saying I want a revolution for a bit of excitement I'm saying that life under capitalism is boring and it'll be less so post-revolution.

That's the same thing. "I want a revolution because capitalism is boring and communism won't be" is the same thing as saying "I want a revolution because I'm sick of being bored." That's a completely idiotic reason for someone to be a revolutionary leftist. You might as well be a bourgeois liberal, because hey, that's fun, right?

:rolleyes:
Well yeah same here. Doesn't mean capitalism being boring can't be a reason either.

And being a bourgeois liberal isn't the same because they want capitalism to stay so the thing that is crap will stay the same.

And why is it a moronic reason?

ZX3
27th September 2006, 14:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:27 PM
You completely misunderstand me. I'm not saying that life won't improve because I can't get out of poverty, which I'm not really in to start with, I'm saying that life under capitalism bores me.

I'm 18 years old and working full time in a shitty cash-in-hand job for minimum wage. I'm doing this in order to save up £3000 so I can go teach English in China for 6 months but my parents can't really afford to help me out because my sister is at UCL and the tuition fees are enormous and my parents earn only just enough not to get benefits, so there's a huge drain on money. My social life has almost disappeared because I'm working so much that the only free time I have is used to see my girlfriend. Life, right now, is pretty crap and my pay is so low that I have to save a lot of it meaning I can't afford anything other than food, transport, and a trip to the pub once a week despite working every day.

This is all so I can learn some Mandarin so I can cope with doing Chinese Studies at University-I don't have any background in languages so it'll be difficult unless I have a head start.

So I'm not a loser who can never rise out of the working class.

But what after that really? The problem is I'm not too happy with any future career and I do not want to be defined in terms of my job. I could be an academic, a teacher, or a translator of some sort but to be an academic I know I'll have no freedom under capitalism because I require funding off the bourgeois. (I have an anarchist comrade who is a history professor and he says it's very difficult to get any research not useful to capitalists) Being a translator is sressful and underpaid. Being a teacher is underpaid. And none of these jobs will be enough for me to pay off debt until I'm very old.

Call me gloomy but I don't anticipate my future as a working part of the capitalist system will be very exciting.
You are wrong.

How do I know this?

Because you are 18, have not even begun your life, yet you write as if you are 75 looking back.

All 18 year olds think they have it figured out.
All 18 year olds are wrong

Print out the above note. Put it someplace and look at in in three or four years (I know three or four years seem a lot now, but it really isnt), then read it. You'll be 21 or 22 and still not know anything about life, BUT at that point you will know that you know nothing. That will be the first step.

It will all work out.

Comrade Doug
27th September 2006, 23:44
Im 17, what does it matter? I hate it when people give you no credit just because you're young. Just because you popped out before i did, im ignorent? Communists should love seeing young communists. We are the future. Using age as a debating tool is no better then using faith in a religious arguement.

And to be honest with you it isnt going to be 45 year old coffee shop liberals who are fighting in the streets for the good of their comrades.

ZX3
29th September 2006, 15:24
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27 2006, 08:45 PM
Im 17, what does it matter? I hate it when people give you no credit just because you're young. Just because you popped out before i did, im ignorent? Communists should love seeing young communists. We are the future. Using age as a debating tool is no better then using faith in a religious arguement.

And to be honest with you it isnt going to be 45 year old coffee shop liberals who are fighting in the streets for the good of their comrades.
When an 18 year old starts talking about what life is like (or what it will be like for that person) then sorry, that view is illegitimate. Teens have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in that regard.

But teens will figure out that part in a few years. In their early 20s, those folks STILL won't know what life is about, but al least they will be aware of of their lack of knowledge on that score.

BreadBros
1st October 2006, 02:56
ProtestWarrior? They're still around? The last time I saw them was at an anti-war march, they're was some dude in military camo with his face painted in an American Flag and a ProtestWarrior sign that said something to the effect of "Hippies smell!" and was yelling shit at old grannies with anti-war signs. I thought it was kinda funny in a tragic way.

Qwerty Dvorak
1st October 2006, 03:09
Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 29 2006, 12:25 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 29 2006, 12:25 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 27 2006, 08:45 PM
Im 17, what does it matter? I hate it when people give you no credit just because you're young. Just because you popped out before i did, im ignorent? Communists should love seeing young communists. We are the future. Using age as a debating tool is no better then using faith in a religious arguement.

And to be honest with you it isnt going to be 45 year old coffee shop liberals who are fighting in the streets for the good of their comrades.
When an 18 year old starts talking about what life is like (or what it will be like for that person) then sorry, that view is illegitimate. Teens have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in that regard.

But teens will figure out that part in a few years. In their early 20s, those folks STILL won't know what life is about, but al least they will be aware of of their lack of knowledge on that score. [/b]
Age isn't everything, it's just all you have.