Concerning classes

[Zero]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 04, 2006 03:41 am--> (D_Bokk @ November 04, 2006 03:41 am)
NWOG
Have any of those restricted to OI for being reactionary, become revolutionary leftists and thus become unrestricted?
I highly doubt it. Which is why I couldn't give two shits if terrorists kill bourgeois Americans... but apparently the vast majority of people here have a thing for these pathetic bourgeois. [/b]
... Yes. Because every American is to blame for the actions of the top 10%.

Fuck you.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Zero
... Yes. Because every American is to blame for the actions of the top 10%.

Fuck you.
Every American is bourgeois?

Learn to read dumbfuck.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 04, 2006 08:57 pm--> (D_Bokk @ November 04, 2006 08:57 pm)
Zero
... Yes. Because every American is to blame for the actions of the top 10%.

Fuck you.
Every American is bourgeois?

Learn to read dumbfuck. [/b]
Not everyone who died because of the 9/11 attacks was bourgeois. In fact, few of them were.

[Zero]

Learn to read? Dude, if you don't mean that you won't care if terrorists kill "Bourgeois Americans" then don't say it.

[England Expects]

Just goes to show that you're all doing a great job of persuading us.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by England [email protected] 05, 2006 10:13 am
Just goes to show that you're all doing a great job of persuading us.
I think a lot of people here just want to act superior ant treat you capitalists like idiots rather than engage you with reasonable debate. Very silly. We ain't going to get our revolution by behaving with children and refusing to engage with you lot.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Not everyone who died because of the 9/11 attacks was bourgeois. In fact, few of them were.[/b]
I beg to differ.

Middle Class = Bourgeois

Zero
Learn to read? Dude, if you don't mean that you won't care if terrorists kill "Bourgeois Americans" then don't say it.
Right, bourgeois Americans. There's like 15% of Americans who aren't bourgeois, those are the people I don't want affected by terrorist attacks. I doubt Bin Laden is going to bomb a reservation or the projects though...

[Jazzratt]

The bourgeoisie is the class that controls, directly, the means of production and are successful, the petit-bourgeoisie are their less successful cousins. You can use whatever terms you want for the people in the world trade center but "bourgeoise" is already taken, and means something different.

[Enragé]

Middle Class = Bourgeois

omfg

middle class is an economic stratification based on how much money you make, most middle class are actually working class

bourgeois means you control the means of production and employ wageslaves

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt) The bourgeoisie is the class that controls, directly, the means of production and are successful, the petit-bourgeoisie are their less successful cousins.[/b]
The Americans, as a whole, control the means of production over the third world; the middle and upper classes in America exploit the labor of the real proletarians. I am completely in line to label the vast majority of Americans: bourgeois.

If you're going to use the literal definition for bourgeois, then you must also use the literal definition for the proletariat... to which I suspect very few Americans can claim to be.

NewKindOfSoldier
bourgeois means you control the means of production and employ wageslaves
Proletariat means you produce something that doesn't belong to you... how many people in the WTC were producing goods?

[Enragé]

The Americans, as a whole, control the means of production over the third world; the middle and upper classes in America exploit the labor of the real proletarians. I am completely in line to label the vast majority of Americans: bourgeois.


does an american worker have a say in how his company is run?
NO
does an american worker have a say in how the branch of his company in Zimbabwe is run?
NO
does an american worker get the wage he deserves?
NO, much less

as such they are
a) not bourgoeis
b) exploited


If you're going to use the literal definition for bourgeois, then you must also use the literal definition for the proletariat... to which I suspect very few Americans can claim to be.


proletarian; a person whose only means of sustaining him or herself is to sell his or her labour power

think about it
thats the vast majority


Proletariat means you produce something that doesn't belong to you... how many people in the WTC were producing goods?

nonsense
proletarian; a person whose only means of sustaining him or herself is to sell his or her labour power

also, services support/enable the (improved) production of goods.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 05, 2006 11:07 pm--> (D_Bokk @ November 05, 2006 11:07 pm)
Jazzratt
The bourgeoisie is the class that controls, directly, the means of production and are successful, the petit-bourgeoisie are their less successful cousins.
The Americans, as a whole, control the means of production over the third world; the middle and upper classes in America exploit the labor of the real proletarians. I am completely in line to label the vast majority of Americans: bourgeois. [/b]
Yeah, you tell an American docker that they onw the third world, or at least a small part of it - they'll be shocked at the news and depending on their ideology they will als obe either elated at this shocking news or angry that some pretentious shit has decided that they own part of a section of the world.


If you're going to use the literal definition for bourgeois, then you must also use the literal definition for the proletariat... to which I suspect very few Americans can claim to be. Very clever argumentative sleight of hand, but we're concentrating on the accusations you're throwing at the American working class.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
does an american worker have a say in how his company is run?
NO
does an american worker have a say in how the branch of his company in Zimbabwe is run?
NO
does an american worker get the wage he deserves?
NO, much less

as such they are
a) not bourgoeis
b) exploited
If the American worker felt as though something should change, they could make it so. Instead of liberating their fellow worker in Zimbabwe, they're perpetuating the said worker's slavery for their own selfish benefit.

That means they're:
1) bourgeois
2) only partially exploited, not nearly as much as the people whom they exploit

proletarian; a person whose only means of sustaining him or herself is to sell his or her labour power

think about it
thats the vast majority
This definition only holds merit if my definition of the bourgeois as middle class has merit as well. Neither are exactly as Marx described.

[Enragé]

If the American worker felt as though something should change, they could make it so. Instead of liberating their fellow worker in Zimbabwe, they're perpetuating the said worker's slavery for their own selfish benefit.

and how would they be able to do so without full fledged revolution?
By which also the zimbabweans can liberate themselves?


That means they're:
1) bourgeois


no, it doesnt, since they do not control the means of production


2) only partially exploited, not nearly as much as the people whom they exploit

but still exploited
the reason they arent exploited as much is because they have managed to organise more, because they therefore have more rights in the US (you cant send out the army to smash a strike, at least, not without a lot of "fuss"), and because cappies like to keep things quiet "at home".


This definition only holds merit if my definition of the bourgeois as middle class has merit as well

no it doesnt
the "class" in middle class refers to income
whereas the class of the bourgeoisie refers to their relation to the means of production


Neither are exactly as Marx described.


and how then did Marx exactly describe it?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)Yeah, you tell an American docker that they onw the third world, or at least a small part of it - they'll be shocked at the news and depending on their ideology they will als obe either elated at this shocking news or angry that some pretentious shit has decided that they own part of a section of the world.[/b]
And I'd ask the docker to take off his boot and look at the tag. The American working class only has a good standard of living because the rest of the proletariat doesn't. It's a payoff by the bourgeois so they don't rebel.

The vast majority of the American working class are traitors.

Very clever argumentative sleight of hand, but we're concentrating on the accusations you're throwing at the American working class.
Right, that they're bourgeois. You claim is untrue because of the definition of the proletariat, however the Americans do not fit in that definition either. So you can't just waive away my argument by saying it was “clever” then moving on.

NewKindOfSoldier
and how would they be able to do so without full fledged revolution?
By which also the zimbabweans can liberate themselves?
You can't stop exploitation without revolution, so they would have to revolt. However, the Americans are the least likely people on Earth to revolt... which is further evidence that Americans are bourgeois.

no, it doesnt, since they do not control the means of production
You're very stubborn. They don't produce anything either. So are you saying Americans aren't bourgeois or proletarian?

but still exploited
the reason they arent exploited as much is because they have managed to organise more, because they therefore have more rights in the US (you cant send out the army to smash a strike, at least, not without a lot of "fuss"), and because cappies like to keep things quiet "at home".
No. That's not the reason. The reason they're in a better position is that the American captialists couldn't profit if there was constant threat of rebellion. So they bribed the, then, proletariat by giving them higher wages and better working conditions while at the same time moving south to exploit the Latin American proletariat.

Americans aren't "better" than the rest of the world, contrary to what you believe.

no it doesnt
the "class" in middle class refers to income
whereas the class of the bourgeoisie refers to their relation to the means of production
So the worker in the US who receives $25 an hour is on the same level as the worker in Mexico who recieves 25 cents an hour and both are equally revolutionary?

and how then did Marx exactly describe it?
Marx's definitions are -

bourgeois: owns means of production
proletariat: produces goods for the capitalists

The newer definitions are -

bourgeois: owns means of production
proletariat: working class

The revisionists of today decided that since America no longer fitted Marx's model that they would encompass a much larger base by including all "working people." However, those "working people" can make a 6 or more digit salary. You can fight for the rights of these wealthy "proletarians" all you want - but I will take no part in it.

My definitions are -

bourgeois: middle/upper class
proletariat: lower class

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 05, 2006 04:03 am--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 05, 2006 04:03 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 08:57 pm

Zero
... Yes. Because every American is to blame for the actions of the top 10%.

Fuck you.
Every American is bourgeois?

Learn to read dumbfuck.
Not everyone who died because of the 9/11 attacks was bourgeois. In fact, few of them were. [/b]
Sad but true.

[Enragé]

You can't stop exploitation without revolution, so they would have to revolt. However, the Americans are the least likely people on Earth to revolt... which is further evidence that Americans are bourgeois.


which class you belong to has nothing to do with willingness to revolt, but with your relation to the means of production.

Workers can be reactionary, but they're still workers.
Bourgeois can have communist ideals, but they are still bourgeois.


They don't produce anything either. So are you saying Americans aren't bourgeois or proletarian?



They dont produce anything "material", in the sense of cars, food, or whatever, they do however provide services.

Are you saying a busdriver isnt proletarian?


The reason they're in a better position is that the American captialists couldn't profit if there was constant threat of rebellion. So they bribed the, then, proletariat by giving them higher wages and better working conditions while at the same time moving south to exploit the Latin American proletariat.


Which is basicly what i said except for the fact that proletarian upheaval did precede it, especially in europe.

the people began to organise, to resist (the membership of the IWW in those days is proof of that in the US, whereas in europe there were many signs of a coming revolution, such as the failed spartakist rebellion), in response the bourgeois conceded some ground, bribing them, to keep them quiet.


Americans aren't "better" than the rest of the world, contrary to what you believe

Ofcourse they're not better
where did i say that?

The point is they had/have more of a chance to organise in comparison to an african, or latin american worker (which suffer a great deal more political and economical oppression, i.e strike and you get shot, or starve), whereas the european working class had the chance to organise even more than the US working class, which lead, in addition to the "worker's paradise" of the USSR, to the bourgeoisie having to concede more ground to the european worker, bribe the european worker more.

However, without continuous pressure this gets rolled back, which you can see in every country from sweden to the netherlands to italy.


Latin american workers, african, asian workers can be equally reactionary as the average american/european worker
thats because the ruling ideas in society are always those of the ruling class.
do you think all latin american workers are revolutionaries?

You know what
i just think you're some yankee who hates everyone around him, so he starts dreaming of mythical "true" workers in latin america etc

face it
those mythical workers dont exist
being a worker does not mean you're leftist, let alone revolutionary
it means that you have a class interest in communist revolution, thats all.


So the worker in the US who receives $25 an hour is on the same level as the worker in Mexico who recieves 25 cents an hour and both are equally revolutionary?


how many workers in the US recieve 25 dollars an hour?
not much
Also, things are more expensive in the US, so that has to be taken into account.
But yes, the american worker is wealthier than the average mexican worker, as is the average european worker wealthier than the average american worker

not because they exploit eachother, but because the one has been able to force the bourgeoisie into more concessions than the other.


Marx's definitions are -

bourgeois: owns means of production
proletariat: produces goods for the capitalists

i seriously doubt he describes proletariat as such, where does he do that?

as far as im aware
proletariat; those who have nothing but their wage labour to sell to the bourgeois to make a living.


However, those "working people" can make a 6 or more digit salary

very few, they are exceptions
but yes
your point being?

those are just workers who have been priviliged by their masters to oversee other workers.

so what?


bourgeois: middle/upper class
proletariat: lower class


which is nonsense.

those are economic stratifications, not classes.
Your class is decided by your relation to the means of production, stratification by your income.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
which class you belong to has nothing to do with willingness to revolt, but with your relation to the means of production.

Workers can be reactionary, but they're still workers.
Bourgeois can have communist ideals, but they are still bourgeois.
You avoided the point altogether. The US working class is completely and utterly reactionary; they're a enemy to their own class. If you support them, then you may as well support the bourgeois.

They dont produce anything "material", in the sense of cars, food, or whatever, they do however provide services.

Are you saying a busdriver isnt proletarian?
I'm saying that the middle class is bourgeois. You're using precise definitions for bourgeois and vague definitions for proletariat to fit your right-wing ideology. If the bus driver is part of the middle class, then yes I would call them bourgeois.

Which is basicly what i said except for the fact that proletarian upheaval did precede it, especially in europe.

the people began to organise, to resist (the membership of the IWW in those days is proof of that in the US, whereas in europe there were many signs of a coming revolution, such as the failed spartakist rebellion), in response the bourgeois conceded some ground, bribing them, to keep them quiet.
There has been much more worker resistance in the third world, yet they still live in utter poverty. Your logic is awful, if mere "organization" made their lives better then places like Bolivia wouldn't be so impoverished.

Latin american workers, african, asian workers can be equally reactionary as the average american/european worker
thats because the ruling ideas in society are always those of the ruling class.
do you think all latin american workers are revolutionaries?

True. However this isn't the case... I'm not arguing that Americans are traitors defined by their DNA - I'm arguing that they are, right now, traitors to their own class.

i just think you're some yankee who hates everyone around him, so he starts dreaming of mythical "true" workers in latin america etc

Not everyone. The "true" worker is oppressed... and I fail to see oppression on a wide scale within the USA. I can understand why only 1% of the people in the USA want a revolution. Then we have fools on this forum who have convinced themselves that Americans want a revolution... it's quite pathetic.

how many workers in the US recieve 25 dollars an hour?
not much
Also, things are more expensive in the US, so that has to be taken into account.
But yes, the american worker is wealthier than the average mexican worker, as is the average european worker wealthier than the average american worker

not because they exploit eachother, but because the one has been able to force the bourgeoisie into more concessions than the other.
Depends if you belong to the actual proletariat (one who produces industrial goods) or if you're part of the service industry. The actual proletariat receives anywhere from $15-25 an hour while the service worker receives minimum wage.

You sound like a reformist, as if merely telling the bourgeois they're doing bad things will help...

i seriously doubt he describes proletariat as such, where does he do that?

as far as im aware
proletariat; those who have nothing but their wage labour to sell to the bourgeois to make a living.
Yes... that's how he describes the proletariat. Your definition is part of his, but not the whole thing... you conveniently left out the other part in order to be all inclusive as to who is and is not proletarian.

Your definition can also include occupations such as judges, policemen, military, lawyers, accountant, and management as true "proletarians." Talk about revisionism.

very few, they are exceptions
but yes
your point being?

those are just workers who have been priviliged by their masters to oversee other workers.

so what?
Point being that they aren't "proletarians."


which is nonsense.

those are economic stratifications, not classes.
Your class is decided by your relation to the means of production, stratification by your income.
Within the West, these two definitions are the only logical conclusions. Otherwise everyone is a proletarian - which is entirely untrue. In the third world, Marx's classic definitions work - outside of the third world he provides us with nothing.

[Enragé]

You avoided the point altogether. The US working class is completely and utterly reactionary; they're a enemy to their own class. If you support them, then you may as well support the bourgeois.

thats not what you said earlier
first you said that the US working class = bourgeois
now that they're as bad as the bourgeoisie

big difference

its still wrong though.


I'm saying that the middle class is bourgeois.

DEFINE middle class
they cant be those who earn a certain amount because that doesnt necessarilly mean they control the means of production, i.e are bourgeois


You're using precise definitions for bourgeois and vague definitions for proletariat

why vague

bourgeoisie; those who control the means of production
proletariate; those who are forced to sell their labour power as it is their only means of sustaining themselves

that is NOT vague.



If the bus driver is part of the middle class, then yes I would call them bourgeois.



so a bussdriver controls the means of production?

becuase thats what being bourgeois means!


There has been much more worker resistance in the third world, yet they still live in utter poverty

in recent years yes
but not historically speaking.

And you can see that their lot is improving, through such reformists as chavez, and that guy in bolivia.


Also, the state has more power to suppress it than it did in the early 1900s in the west. (backed by the allpowerful US)


True. However this isn't the case... I'm not arguing that Americans are traitors defined by their DNA - I'm arguing that they are, right now, traitors to their own class.

how so?!

unless you say any worker accepting capitalism is a traitor to his class, in which case the vast amount of latin american workers etc are also classtraitors.


The "true" worker is oppressed

told ya
the myth of the "true" worker
no such thing


and I fail to see oppression on a wide scale within the USA. I can understand why only 1% of the people in the USA want a revolution. Then we have fools on this forum who have convinced themselves that Americans want a revolution... it's quite pathetic.



You're just a cappie with a hammer 'n sickle fetish

If you do not understand that western workers are exploited, if you cannot see that western radicals have been suppressed, beaten, mamed, killed in the past if they dare to actually make a change
then please
get yourself a brain.

The worker, whether in the west or elsewhere, gets less wealth than he produces. That wealth goes to the owners of production, the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, they are exploited.


You sound like a reformist, as if merely telling the bourgeois they're doing bad things will help...

where did i say that?

All im saying the bourgeois ARE NOT STUPID

when there is a threat to revolution they are willing to concede certain things in order not to lose it all

thats logic

our goal must however forever be to take it all, not just get concessions. That is where the left failed and degenerated into reformism, the point where it settled for some halfassed concessions


Your definition can also include occupations such as judges, policemen, military, lawyers, accountant, and management as true "proletarians."

lawyers, accountants are petty bourgeois
management cpntrols the means of production, whether or not on behalf of someone else
they are in essence bourgeois

judges are often bourgeois (come from bourgeois families, put into office by their friends in the white house etc)

soldiers, policemen, they are proles
ofcourse


Point being that they aren't "proletarians."

yea they are since
as marx said
proletariat; those who have nothing but their wage labour to sell to the bourgeois to make a living.


Otherwise everyone is a proletarian - which is entirely untrue

no, just most
which is factual


In the third world, Marx's classic definitions work - outside of the third world he provides us with nothing.


in third world countries you have richer and poorer workers too you know
a worker in mexico is bourgeois pur sang (according to your definitions) compared to one in say, Sudan.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier
big difference
Not really. I see very little difference when I look at a CEO and capitalist fanboy.

DEFINE middle class
they cant be those who earn a certain amount because that doesnt necessarilly mean they control the means of production, i.e are bourgeois
Anyone who has a comfortable lifestyle... which is a minority of the people in this world. Although it's a majority in the USA.

why vague

bourgeoisie; those who control the means of production
proletariate; those who are forced to sell their labour power as it is their only means of sustaining themselves

that is NOT vague.
Your definition of proletariat is: ANYONE WHO WORKS. How do you not see that as vague? Millionaires "work;" George W. Bush "works."


so a bussdriver controls the means of production?

becuase thats what being bourgeois means!
What does he produce? Nothing. Therefore you look at his economic position. Is he is in the top percentage of the world? Yes. Therefore he's bourgeois.


in recent years yes
but not historically speaking.

And you can see that their lot is improving, through such reformists as chavez, and that guy in bolivia.


Also, the state has more power to suppress it than it did in the early 1900s in the west. (backed by the allpowerful US)

Uhm. No. Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Mexico all had a lot of resistance in the early 1900s... and they've gained nothing in comparison to the US "proletariat."

how so?!

unless you say any worker accepting capitalism is a traitor to his class, in which case the vast amount of latin american workers etc are also classtraitors.
They keep allowing their government sabotage leftist movements and exploit their fellow workers. Not only do they consistently practice inaction, they also support these measures.

told ya
the myth of the "true" worker
no such thing

:rolleyes:

You're just a cappie with a hammer 'n sickle fetish

If you do not understand that western workers are exploited, if you cannot see that western radicals have been suppressed, beaten, mamed, killed in the past if they dare to actually make a change
then please
get yourself a brain.

The worker, whether in the west or elsewhere, gets less wealth than he produces. That wealth goes to the owners of production, the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, they are exploited.
Exploited, in that some of them do not have control over the products they produce, yes. However, they're well paid and that balances out their exploitation. The "exploitation" of Americans is NOTHING in comparison to the exploitation the third world experiences.

Western radicals are rather safe within their own countries. Their governments don't recognize them as a legitimate threat because they, like I, know that their people aren't revolutionary and nor will they be so long as the bribe money keeps coming in.


lawyers, accountants are petty bourgeois
management cpntrols the means of production, whether or not on behalf of someone else
they are in essence bourgeois

judges are often bourgeois (come from bourgeois families, put into office by their friends in the white house etc)

soldiers, policemen, they are proles
ofcourse
See, there you go changing your definition of proletariat again. Accountants, judges and lawyers are selling their labor to the bourgeois... they don't own their own business. Therefore they must, according to you, be part of the proletariat.

Soldiers and policemen are not proletarians... I thought this was common knowledge. I think I know why we disagree...

yea they are since
as marx said
proletariat; those who have nothing but their wage labour to sell to the bourgeois to make a living.
And produces a product they don't own.

in third world countries you have richer and poorer workers too you know
a worker in mexico is bourgeois pur sang (according to your definitions) compared to one in say, Sudan.
Don't even begin to try to draw a comparison between American workers and Mexican workers... do you have any shame?

[Enragé]

Not really. I see very little difference when I look at a CEO and capitalist fanboy

than you should look more closely

the CEO has a class interest in capitalism, a capitalist fanboy not necessarily, he's just deluded.

There are enough "true" workers, even by your standards, who are capitalist "fanboys", but they are still workers


Anyone who has a comfortable lifestyle... which is a minority of the people in this world. Although it's a majority in the USA.



"comfortable" is relative.
There are no objective means to measure comfort, for one guy comfort is having a palace, and any less is simply uncomfortable, while for someone else a small shack with a run down couch and a table with three legs is comfortable enough.


Your definition of proletariat is: ANYONE WHO WORKS.

no its not

proletariate; those who are forced to sell their labour power as it is their only means of sustaining themselves


how often am i going to have to repeat that?
yes millionaires "work"
they work to keep the proletariate exploited, they work to exploit them.


What does he produce? Nothing

he produces the service of people being able to get from one place to the other in a reasonable amount of time, even though they havent got a car.
without busdrivers many wouldnt get to work (on time), the production process would diminish, and the overall produced wealth would as well.
As such a busdriver is part of the production process.


Is he is in the top percentage of the world? Yes.

what "top percentage"?

top 5%?
top 10%?

dont be ridiculous.

where do we draw the line?
im sure that a mexican worker is in the "top" 80% of the world.


Therefore he's bourgeois.

no, since he does not control the means of production

and how often am i going to have to repeat that?


Chile, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Mexico all had a lot of resistance in the early 1900s... and they've gained nothing in comparison to the US "proletariat."

those were peasant and anti-colonial rebellions, not proletarian ones, why? because there wasnt even a proletariate in those countries

Also, this still doesnt negate the fact that western governments have less power to undermine worker movements because they generally allow more freedom
and they dont do so because they are "nice"
they do so because they have been forced to do so by material circumstance.


They keep allowing their government sabotage leftist movements and exploit their fellow workers. Not only do they consistently practice inaction, they also support these measures

yes, indeed they do.
so do most "true" workers

why?
because they do not realise capitalism exploits them and communism is the way to go

solution?
change their minds, and stop *****ing that they're "bourgeois" simply cuz they support capitalism, cuz thats bullshit.

The ruling ideas of society will always be those of the ruling class
marxism 101


However, they're well paid and that balances out their exploitation

no it doesnt

If i break into your house and take everything
and the next day i come back and give you back your couch and your tv, does that "balance out" the exploitation, simply because the other guy i robbed as well only gets his couch back?

ofcourse not.


The "exploitation" of Americans is NOTHING in comparison to the exploitation the third world experiences.


and the exploitation of the mexican working class is NOTHING in comparison to that of the sudanese

these are all just bourgeois dividing tactics.


Western radicals are rather safe within their own countries. Their governments don't recognize them as a legitimate threat because they, like I, know that their people aren't revolutionary and nor will they be so long as the bribe money keeps coming in.



so long as they keep thinking that what they get "balances out" the exploitation, so long as the lie is perpuated that their exploitation is nothing to complain about because the exploitation of others is far worse.


Accountants, judges and lawyers are selling their labor to the bourgeois

no, most accountants and lawyers work on free-lance basis, they get paid by the hour by the highest bidder. they in essence own their own means of production (e.g a law firm).

Judges are a part of the state apparatus, a highranking part, are the protectors of "property", and often come from bourgeois families/are appointed by their friends.


Soldiers and policemen are not proletarians... I thought this was common knowledge. I think I know why we disagree...



no they are proletarians.
why wouldnt they be.

they're just proletarians put against their own people, as they often are.


And produces a product they don't own.

yah.

so you can see why lawyers arent proletariate since they own their product, i.e legal advice.


look
the bourgeois-proletarian divide isnt exact, but it is the general line along which this society is divided
you can have reasonably poor bourgeois, and reasonably wealthy proletarians, but those are the exceptions.


Don't even begin to try to draw a comparison between American workers and Mexican workers... do you have any shame?

your debating skills are astonishing.
as if the mexican worker is better than the american one
he's just more exploited, but they often enough support capitalism as well
and compared to a sudanese worker he's barely exploited at all.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)than you should look more closely

the CEO has a class interest in capitalism, a capitalist fanboy not necessarily, he's just deluded.

There are enough "true" workers, even by your standards, who are capitalist "fanboys", but they are still workers[/b]
They're traitors who are more than willing to blow away their fellow workers if the revolution ever comes. Fuck them.

"comfortable" is relative.
There are no objective means to measure comfort, for one guy comfort is having a palace, and any less is simply uncomfortable, while for someone else a small shack with a run down couch and a table with three legs is comfortable enough.
This is getting annoying...

I compel you to find one person living in the slums in Venezuela to say they're "comfortable." Like I said before, only Americans have a choice to be comfortable... unlike most people in the world they actually have a chance to get out of their poverty. Not that I'm going to say it's easy, but unlike the vast majority of the world -- it's possible.

no its not

proletariate; those who are forced to sell their labour power as it is their only means of sustaining themselves


how often am i going to have to repeat that?
yes millionaires "work"
they work to keep the proletariate exploited, they work to exploit them.
Right... anyone who works. Unless they own a factory they fall into "proletariat." This includes many of the people whom you would call "bourgeois."

he produces the service of people being able to get from one place to the other in a reasonable amount of time, even though they havent got a car.
without busdrivers many wouldnt get to work (on time), the production process would diminish, and the overall produced wealth would as well.
As such a busdriver is part of the production process.
They're needed, however they don't really produce anything. Marx wrote about an alienation from their job - the proletariat puts their blood and sweat into the product they're making and at the end of the day they don't own it.

At the end of the day, the bus driver will always have nothing to show for their labor... why would that change under communism? It wouldn't. I'm not saying that a bus driver isn't proletarian - I'm saying that if you are going to use exact definitions to define the bourgeois - then do the same for the proletariat. If you defined both in the same fashion, then you would be forced to call the middle class bourgeois. In fact, if you read about the bourgeois anywhere the term "middle class" will pop up quite a bit. However, you're a very stubborn person and I doubt you would change your reformist definition.

what "top percentage"?

top 5%?
top 10%?

dont be ridiculous.

where do we draw the line?
im sure that a mexican worker is in the "top" 80% of the world.
http://www.nlcnet.org/resources/wages.htm

I think that should explain my point. The vast majority of Americans are at the very top percentage of wage earners in the world.


no, since he does not control the means of production

and how often am i going to have to repeat that?
So Bill Gates doesn't own Microsoft anymore... is he part of the proletariat too?

those were peasant and anti-colonial rebellions, not proletarian ones, why? because there wasnt even a proletariate in those countries

Also, this still doesnt negate the fact that western governments have less power to undermine worker movements because they generally allow more freedom
and they dont do so because they are "nice"
they do so because they have been forced to do so by material circumstance.
Much of the communist resistance was made possible via the peasants and anti-colonialism.

1) China
2) Vietnam
3) Cuba
4) Nepal (Not complete, but they're in the process)
5) Bolivia (Never succeeded)
6) Columbia (Never succeeded)
7) North Korea
8) USSR (the proletariat was very small, but held the power without peasants rebelling)

Peasants backing was almost always necessary for most of the earliest communist countries.

yes, indeed they do.
so do most "true" workers
Evidence? I don't see the Mexican government signing free trade agreements to allow Mexican companies exploit Chinese workers.

why?
because they do not realise capitalism exploits them and communism is the way to go
Pleading ignorance? Uhm... no. If you bothered to attend high school, there's no way you got through without hearing about US government atrocities against Latin America or about the exploitation of labor in these countries.

solution?
change their minds, and stop *****ing that they're "bourgeois" simply cuz they support capitalism, cuz thats bullshit.
Change their minds? NWOG made it clear that there's no "changing their minds" when it comes to bourgeois. They're either capitalist or communist; the majority have chosen capitalism.

The ruling ideas of society will always be those of the ruling class
marxism 101
And? You forget that Americans don't have that bad of a lifestyle, so they wont care too much for Communism because it does nothing for them. That's why people are sympathetic to Communism, but not supportive.

no it doesnt

If i break into your house and take everything
and the next day i come back and give you back your couch and your tv, does that "balance out" the exploitation, simply because the other guy i robbed as well only gets his couch back?

ofcourse not.
If they aren't living in poverty, they have nothing to complain about. Why change something that's already working? That's their whole philosophy... their life is okay - so why risk Communism? And that's why Americans are so conservative.

and the exploitation of the mexican working class is NOTHING in comparison to that of the sudanese

these are all just bourgeois dividing tactics.
Mexico isn't exploiting Sudan. America is exploiting Mexico. Please, if you're going to post, at least make it relevant.

no, most accountants and lawyers work on free-lance basis, they get paid by the hour by the highest bidder. they in essence own their own means of production (e.g a law firm).

Judges are a part of the state apparatus, a highranking part, are the protectors of "property", and often come from bourgeois families/are appointed by their friends.
So when someone moves from farm to farm to work (like many of the Mexican immigrants) and have a different workplace dependent on their choice - they cease to be proletarian? Lawyers and accountants wouldn't have a job unless someone hired them.

Judgers work, don't they? Police and the military protect property too, but you claim they are proletarian. Hypocrite.

no they are proletarians.
why wouldnt they be.

they're just proletarians put against their own people, as they often are.
They shoot at the proletariat. I think that's self-explanatory

so you can see why lawyers arent proletariate since they own their product, i.e legal advice.


look
the bourgeois-proletarian divide isnt exact, but it is the general line along which this society is divided
you can have reasonably poor bourgeois, and reasonably wealthy proletarians, but those are the exceptions.
You can't own knowledge or an idea.

The proletarian-bourgeois divide is exact, but you changed it to blur the lines to convince yourself that America has a chance to be communist. However the conditions for America to become communist will not be met until Imperialism is destroyed... hence my original statement:

"I highly doubt it. Which is why I couldn't give two shits if terrorists kill bourgeois Americans... but apparently the vast majority of people here have a thing for these pathetic bourgeois."

I work by priority. One step at a time, that's why I've put Americans (and the rest of the West) completely out of my mind. They are, right now, enemies to Communism. Communists within the West shouldn't waste their time trying to "convince" other Americans or sending money to various "Communist" parties within the West. They should focus on aiding the Third World any way they can.

your debating skills are astonishing.
as if the mexican worker is better than the american one
he's just more exploited, but they often enough support capitalism as well
and compared to a sudanese worker he's barely exploited at all.
Better, maybe. But that's on an individual basis. Mexico has been very revolutionary lately. From Chiapas to Atenco to Oaxaca - many Mexicans are rising up against their government. Name one state in the US that is doing the same... Americans are cowards.

patton
WTF Your an asshole.
I know.