The Average American is in the Top 5% [Archive]

D_Bokk

25th November 2006, 00:27

Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon) Are we supposed to spout out some bullshit hatred of ordinary Americans just because there is so much wealth in America, even the less well off do well compared to most other countries?[/b]
No, you're suppose to stop feeling sorry for people who obviously have a decent standard of living. Maybe focus on more urgent issues like the third world and stop with your feeble attempts to "convince" Americans that communism is going to do wonders for them.

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected]
I doubt you fall into this catagory, and I doubt your argument.
I doubt my income matters because many of the communist revolutions were lead by former members of the bourgeois.

My argument is flawless in the sense that the majority of Americans are reactionary.

violencia.Proletariat
Your statistics don't specify if thats the average for an individual or individuals and families. I'm betting it includes families. $36,000 for a familie of 4 isn't as much as for one person.
Come again?
http://www.bls.gov/cew/state2002.txt

This is what I'm talking about. You guys are so blinded that you'll try your hardest to find excuses that make Americans seem oppressed.

Demogorgon

25th November 2006, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:27 am

No, you're suppose to stop feeling sorry for people who obviously have a decent standard of living. Maybe focus on more urgent issues like the third world and stop with your feeble attempts to "convince" Americans that communism is going to do wonders for them.

I have never had interest in that losing battle. I am not American and see no reason to try and do the hardest thing first. Nonetheless I am not s naive that I am going to think that a country beset with such a huge income gap and terrible inner city poverty is suddenly all nice and dandy just because the mega rich earn so much they drag the average figure up.

Cryotank Screams

25th November 2006, 00:39

I doubt my income matters

How much is your income then?

Also, if your income doesn't matter, then why are claiming that the majority of the working class in the US are reactionaries and apart of the bourgeoisie?

What if they are working towards revolution, JUST LIKE YOU.

D_Bokk

25th November 2006, 00:48

Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)I have never had interest in that losing battle. I am not American and see no reason to try and do the hardest thing first. Nonetheless I am not s naive that I am going to think that a country beset with such a huge income gap and terrible inner city poverty is suddenly all nice and dandy just because the mega rich earn so much they drag the average figure up.[/b]
My argument also encompasses the entire West. Type in the average salary of your country to see if I'm also talking about it if you want.

Many Americans live in suburban/rural areas. Fewer live in the inner city, and those that do I consider to be part of the 10-15% I said earlier. They're the people who would benefit from communism, however they alone cannot conduct a revolution and control it afterwards... at least without mass graves.

Scarlet Hammer
How much is your income then?
I'm in college living off a loan... so on an annual basis - I owe money.

Also, if your income doesn't matter, then why are claiming that the majority of the working class in the US are reactionaries and apart of the bourgeoisie?
Well, I'm a communist... and the majority of Americans aren't. I'm more than willing to have a revolution.

What if they are working towards revolution, JUST LIKE YOU.
They aren't... what a dumbass question.

Alexander Hamilton

25th November 2006, 00:56

The Average American is in the Top 5%, of the World

God Bless America!

Thank you for this Thanksgiving weekend news.

I'm sure it is something Che, himself, would be proud of. I often wonder if he would have preferred to live on the west coast, and hang out with the San Francisco/Berkley crowd, or be on the east cost, in NYC.

If he came to St. Lou, we'd show him a great time. Take him to a Cardinal game.

Happy Thanksgiving fellow Americans!

A. Hamilton

Edit to include:

What if they are working towards revolution, JUST LIKE YOU.

There is currently no group working towards revolution.

Cryotank Screams

25th November 2006, 01:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 08:48 pm
I'm in college living off a loan... so on an annual basis - I owe money.

Sounds mighty bourgeoisie if you ask me, ;) .

D_Bokk

25th November 2006, 01:31

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Sounds mighty bourgeoisie if you ask me
It does, if only I was working for 30 cents an hour in a textile mill like you. :rolleyes:

I don't deny that I come from the bourgeois class. Would you claim that Lenin, Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Castro were "bourgeois" too and therefore their arguments are worthless? Shit, Kropotkin was a "Prince" and you apparently support him.

It doesn't matter so much as which class you hail from, but moreso which class you will support when the time comes.

25th November 2006, 01:45

A great deal of american workers are labour aristocracy which is co-opted by capital that subsidizes its standards of living with the profits of third world exploitation. This has been going on for a very long time and its why you never see successful revolutions in imperialist nations, only in their colonies. Unfortunetly many leftists including self-described marxist-leninists and trotskyists in the first world fail to recognize this fact and instead insist on an immature workerist ideology that fails to recognize the imperialist strategy of reducing class tensions at its center by reducing the degree that it exploits its domestic labour.

red team

25th November 2006, 02:09

40 percent and rapidly growing of the population in imperialist countries are 60 and over.

The "labour aristocracy" is retiring in droves.

What's going to happen to the value of their savings if there's not enough poor suckers to work in the factories and farms to back up the real value of their money?

It's a rhetorical question...

Black Dagger

25th November 2006, 02:11

Originally posted by D_Bokk+--> (D_Bokk)It doesn't matter so much as which class you hail from, but moreso which class you will support when the time comes.[/b]

So why the fuck are you whinging about working people in the 'west' being comparatively more wealthy than the rest of the world (obvious point), when the majority of these people are actually working class who will more than likely support revolution 'when the time comes'? (Unless you think members of your class, the bourgeoisie are the 'true revolutionary class' in imperialist countries)

What hypocritical non-sense, a child of the bourgeoisie complaining that the working class has it so good that they must be 'reactionary', but when your own bourgeois privilege is challenged you claim it doesnt matter what class someone is as long as they support revolution 'when the time comes'. If support 'when the time comes' over-rides class, why on earth are you labelling REAL working class people who live worse off on then you right now, as 'reactionaries'?

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)A great deal of american workers are labour aristocracy which is co-opted by capital that subsidizes its standards of living with the profits of third world exploitation. [/b]

How much is a 'great deal'? Can you give a percentage please? Is the number growing?

How do you decide which workers are part of the 'labour aristocracy' and which arent? Income levels? Role in the economy?

Do you regard the yhe section of the 'western' working class termed the 'labour aristocracy' reactionary? Counter-revolutionary?

Is there anyway to combat the effects of the 'co-option' of these workers by capital or are they 'lost' to reaction?

[email protected]

This has been going on for a very long time and its why you never see successful revolutions in imperialist nations, only in their colonies.

What does this mean for our prospects for the future? Is it possible to have a successful revolution in 'western' nations? If so, how so? How is the communist movement meant to overcome or negate this co-option of the working class by capital?

TC

and instead insist on an immature workerist ideology that fails to recognize the imperialist strategy of reducing class tensions at its center by reducing the degree that it exploits its domestic labour.

Since you obviously have a more 'mature' ideology, can you please explain how, given your ideological maturity, you act/organise differently from others in the revolutionary movement? What should people be doing differently to what they do now so that they take into 'the imperialist strategy of reducing class tensions at its center by reducing the degree that it exploits its domestic labour'?

Cryotank Screams

25th November 2006, 02:46

It does, if only I was working for 30 cents an hour in a textile mill like you. :rolleyes:

Never said I did.

Would you claim that Lenin, Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Castro were "bourgeois" too and therefore their arguments are worthless?

No.

Shit, Kropotkin was a "Prince" and you apparently support him.

I know this.

My point being is that you call 85-90% of america bourgeoisie and reactionary, and yet you are apart of that 85-90%.

D_Bokk

25th November 2006, 03:16

Originally posted by Black Dagger+--> (Black Dagger)So why the fuck are you whinging about working people in the 'west' being comparatively more wealthy than the rest of the world (obvious point), when the majority of these people are actually working class who will more than likely support revolution 'when the time comes'? (Unless you think members of your class, the bourgeoisie are the 'true revolutionary class' in imperialist countries)[/b]
Oh fucking please. You have to be a complete idiot to believe that the majority of Americans would support a communist revolution. If that were the case, you be on the White House's doorstep with an AK-47. The majority of Americans are either a) bourgeois or b) class traitors. I don't care if they “belong to the working class,” they're reactionary and do not deserve our support.

What hypocritical non-sense, a child of the bourgeoisie complaining that the working class has it so good that they must be 'reactionary', but when your own bourgeois privilege is challenged you claim it doesnt matter what class someone is as long as they support revolution 'when the time comes'. If support 'when the time comes' over-rides class, why on earth are you labelling REAL working class people who live worse off on then you right now, as 'reactionaries'?
Actually, my Dad has been working in a factory for over 30 years. However I still consider my background to be bourgeois due to the fact that the proletariat is payed very well in the West. I was born into "the real working class" as you describe it... and I see very little oppression with regards to their economic position.

I see the reality of the situation. Most people in my position would just become a law-abiding capitalists since they don't understand what Marx was getting so uppity about. However I looked outside of my little American bubble (which you have yet to do) and saw why the American working class lives so well. People like you are imagining an oppressed American people in need of a hero to save them. Get back to me when you return to reality because the "working classes" heated homes, cable television and full refrigerators isn't fooling me.

Scarlet Hammer
Never said I did.
You're sure as hell acting like you do.

No.
Hypocrite.

I know this.

My point being is that you call 85-90% of america bourgeoisie and reactionary, and yet you are apart of that 85-90%.
Incorrect. The 10-15% are the people who either are either living in poverty or are communists. Those who live in poverty and join the military, police or some other reactionary organization are not part of the 10-15% since they would be labeled traitors as well.

Cryotank Screams

25th November 2006, 03:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 11:16 pm

No.
Hypocrite.

How? I said I wouldn't claim that their arguments are worthless and such, how is that hypocritical?

Entrails Konfetti

25th November 2006, 03:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:16 am
Incorrect. The 10-15% are the people who either are either living in poverty or are communists. Those who live in poverty and join the military, police or some other reactionary organization are not part of the 10-15% since they would be labeled traitors as well.
I knew it. I knew you were going to say in order to be working-class you have to be living in poverty. Where is the basis for this conclusion?

Imperialism has it home bases in western countries, they exploit the third-world and bring the wealth homeward. They must keep the home base comfortable otherwize, simply they can't operate-- they haven't home. They do this by making conditions livable or considerably more pleasant in the first world than the third world colonies--they exploit intensely, so that no one at home is even conscious as to what the corporations are doing. The truth of the matter is there really isn't riches-- it's just that more resources are taken from elsewhere.

So if you have to live in poverty in the west to be considered working-class, what's to say that working-classes in the third-world are worse off than those living in poverty in the USA? Then the impoverished North Americans in your book aren't working-class. Everywhere in the world has different material circumstances due to it's sphere of influence.

Yes the first world workers aren't conscious as of yet, but you have to agitate for them to understand how it all works. Though, the imperialists do go off guard every now and them, so the workers might understand more during those times.

BobKKKindle$

25th November 2006, 03:55

It should be noted that although Capitalism does result in inequality in the distribution of wealth, it also allows a small group, through their control over the means of production, to govern the lives of many others and deprive them of the products of their labour. This is called Alienation, and for me represents a more pressing reason to overthrow capitalism, especially since in more developed countries the majority of the proletriat has access to a reasonable range of goods and services - not withstanding the fact that income inequality is still a major part of the Leftist Struggle. This is something you have failed to appreciate.

As someone with Strong Maoist Sympathies, I do by no means believe that Class struggle is an entirely national phenomenon and that Class Antagonisms are limited to the Capitalists and the Proletariat within one country - rather, internationally, the Developed countries play the role of the Capitalist in that, through investement (the outwards movement of Capital), they can utilise the raw materials and labour resources of other countries for their own ends, and, through investement and the domination of internal markets, can control the political affairs of these countries.

D_Bokk, what you are actually saying makes sense - The American Proletariat is able to live luxuriously partly due to the exploitation of Less Developed nations by American Corporations. A Labour Aristocracy is the term used to describe this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_aristocracy

Black Dagger

25th November 2006, 05:09

Originally posted by D-Bokk
I see very little oppression with regards to their economic position.

That workers in core countries may be, in comparison to workers in peripheral countries, in a better economic position, enjoying in most cases a higher standard of living does not negate the exploitation of ALL workers by capitalism and the wage-system.

It is foolish to divide working class people of the world against each other in the face of their common exploitation by the ruling class as workers, simply because some working class people earn better wages than others. That workers in core countries may receive higher wages does not mean that they are not significantly exploited in a capitalist system, but rather that their exploitation is surpassed by the exploitation of workers in peripheral countries because of the relationship of these countries to the world economy.

Though wage levels are on average higher in core countries, there nevertheless exists diversity in wage levels across all economies, with some workers in peripheral countries earning higher wages than workers of the core and vice versa.

Your argument homogenises the experience of working class people everywhere, divides and positions the working classes of different countries against each other, and downplays the exploitative nature that underlies all capitalist economies/systems of wage labour.

encephalon

25th November 2006, 05:36

See: Labor Aristocracy.

And don't call other westerners here traitors when you would fit into your own description thereof. I'm from the labor aristocracy and a communist, so are you. Don't put yourself outside of your own accusations. To be part of the proletariat, you must sell your labor to live; people in the west might get paid for it more than elsewhere in order to "tame" them, but the essential nature of the exploitation is the same.

..traitor :-D

OneBrickOneVoice

25th November 2006, 07:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:04 am
With the average salary being $36,764, the average American is in the top 4.11% of the world.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php
http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html

And still, people here claim that they're not traitors. The reason that Americans don't rebel isn't because they were "conditioned" not too - it's because they're protecting their own capital. Only about 10-15% of the American population actually falls under the category which we describe as the proletariat while the rest belong to the upper class.

People here constantly blame the top 10% for the problems within the world. However they, like the little nationalists they are, limit their "statistics" to countries and completely neglect the rest of the world. This is why I hate the West so much and even the bourgeois motherfuckers in it that you guys call "oppressed."

Why are you guys so supportive of the bourgeois? Do the real communists a favor and stop acting like your ideology is anywhere near the left.
labor aristocracy anyone?

Hiero

25th November 2006, 17:21

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 25, 2006 04:09 pm--> (Black Dagger @ November 25, 2006 04:09 pm)
D-Bokk
I see very little oppression with regards to their economic position.

That workers in core countries may be, in comparison to workers in peripheral countries, in a better economic position, enjoying in most cases a higher standard of living does not negate the exploitation of ALL workers by capitalism and the wage-system.

It is foolish to divide working class people of the world against each other in the face of their common exploitation by the ruling class as workers, simply because some working class people earn better wages than others. That workers in core countries may receive higher wages does not mean that they are not significantly exploited in a capitalist system, but rather that their exploitation is surpassed by the exploitation of workers in peripheral countries because of the relationship of these countries to the world economy.

Though wage levels are on average higher in core countries, there nevertheless exists diversity in wage levels across all economies, with some workers in peripheral countries earning higher wages than workers of the core and vice versa.

Your argument homogenises the experience of working class people everywhere, divides and positions the working classes of different countries against each other, and downplays the exploitative nature that underlies all capitalist economies/systems of wage labour. [/b]
You seem to not use the Marxist definition of expliotation. The proleterait are explioted not soley based on their position to the means of production. It is a combination of relationship to the means of production AND they are not paid their full labour power. In socialism they either are paid their full labour power, or have access to the benifits of society, free medicine, transport etc.

So if workers in the imperialist nations are paid a bit more, enough to cover their labour power, then they are not exploited. To make it more obvious, if a woker in Australia was paid $100 an hour to make bricks would you say they are exploited?

What we need to do is excactly what Marx, but on a world scale. We need a standard to compare wages of different countries.

D_Bokk

25th November 2006, 21:26

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+--> (Scarlet Hammer)How? I said I wouldn't claim that their arguments are worthless and such, how is that hypocritical?[/b]
Your argument throughout this thread is that I can't be right since I come from the middle class.

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)I knew it. I knew you were going to say in order to be working-class you have to be living in poverty. Where is the basis for this conclusion?[/b]
As Hiero pointed out, being part of the proletariat doesn't exactly mean you're oppressed. If you're sufficiently payed for your labor, you cease to be oppressed.

Black [email protected]
It is foolish to divide working class people of the world against each other in the face of their common exploitation by the ruling class as workers, simply because some working class people earn better wages than others. That workers in core countries may receive higher wages does not mean that they are not significantly exploited in a capitalist system, but rather that their exploitation is surpassed by the exploitation of workers in peripheral countries because of the relationship of these countries to the world economy.
I'm not dividing the working class apart - they've done it on their own. The American working class has made it clear that they want nothing to do with the third world working class. They don't want them coming to their country; they don't want them taking their jobs; they don't want them to control their own resources.

What needs uniting is the communist movement. Instead of working towards realistic goals, many of the communists in the West have their eyes on revolution in their country. While at the same time neglecting the international issues. If the communists in the West stop appealing to the masses by bourgeoisifying themselves - then maybe something could be accomplished in the Third World. Right now, the communists in the West can only be a distraction - not a solution.

encephalon
And don't call other westerners here traitors when you would fit into your own description thereof. I'm from the labor aristocracy and a communist, so are you. Don't put yourself outside of your own accusations. To be part of the proletariat, you must sell your labor to live; people in the west might get paid for it more than elsewhere in order to "tame" them, but the essential nature of the exploitation is the same.
How would I fit my own definition? The traitors I speak of support the bourgeois, which includes those who support the bourgeoisified proletariat. I support neither.

encephalon

26th November 2006, 08:50

How would I fit my own definition? The traitors I speak of support the bourgeois, which includes those who support the bourgeoisified proletariat. I support neither.

You are, I assume, part of the western labor aristocracy? This, by your own definition, is the "bourgeoisified proletariat." Every other Labor aristocrat, including those of us that are communists, you call traitors; and yet you're in the same boat. Why are you any different from your western counterparts?

If you can give us examples as to how we, as communists in the western world (and I don't mean the CPUSA), support the bourgeoisie whereas you don't at all, then by all means do so. But if you're simply going to make base accusations which would apply to you as well, don't expect us to take you seriously.

Black Dagger

26th November 2006, 09:42

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)The proleterait are explioted not soley based on their position to the means of production. It is a combination of relationship to the means of production AND they are not paid their full labour power. [/b]

Right, where have i expressed a disagreement to that point?

Besides, your clarification seems a bit redundant.

The proletariat are exploited based on their relationship to the means of production (if we must use 19th century language), i.e. they have to sell their labour power to the owners of capital, who in turn pay them a wage for their labour.

That they are not paid their 'full labour power' is stating the obvious, because of the profit-motive, no capitalist pays their workers to their 'full labour power', that's not how you make $$$.

I never expressed a misunderstanding on this point, i never mentioned it because to me it is obvious as fuck, why you chose to point it out is beyond me, but i suppose if you want to play tired political games feel free, i cant be arsed.

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)
So if workers in the imperialist nations are paid a bit more, enough to cover their labour power, then they are not exploited.[/b]

What do you mean to 'cover their labour power'? Which proletarians in imperialist nations receive full renumeration for their labour? And if such people do exist what proportion are they of the population? Significant enough to even bother mentioning them?

Also, you dont seem to appreciate that as the standard of living is higher in imperialist nations so is the cost of living, wages may be higher but so are living expenses.

[email protected]
To make it more obvious, if a woker in Australia was paid $100 an hour to make bricks would you say they are exploited?

How much is the capitalist making from their labour?

This is something you did in a previous discussion, like i said before...

You can't make points by using extremely unrealistic hypotheticals.

It's fallacious, you need to come up with something that is actually realistic if you want to make a persuasive point.

Hiero
What we need to do is excactly what Marx, but on a world scale. We need a standard to compare wages of different countries.

That is never going to happen, the massive variables involved from economy to economy make accurate results something of a dream.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

26th November 2006, 10:04

The definition of proletariat is about owning the means of production. You could have 9 billion dollars, but, if you don't control the mechanisms that gained you that wealth, you can still be proletarian. The majority of the world elite are in America. For that reason, Americans have to appeal to those most likely to revolt and cause damage - the people living near them.

Eastside Revolt

26th November 2006, 18:22

D Bokk

You fail to take note that housing is also much more expensive in the west.

But putting the statistical shyte aside.

The reason most westerners don't rebel is because they're conditioned to believe that they're protecting they're own capital.

If there are problems in my community, am I supposed to ignore them because of some satistic claiming that I'm not supposed to have problems?

No, I'm going to fight these problems anyway possible with an understanding that the ruling class in my society has a vested interest in keeping me and my peers ignorant, and stressed.

So why don't you and Bono go "save the starving childeren" and leave revolution to all those borgeois types living under bridges, and getting by on welfare, or selling crack to live comfortably.

SPK

26th November 2006, 21:00

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 25, 2006 04:26 pm--> (D_Bokk @ November 25, 2006 04:26 pm)Your argument throughout this thread is that I can't be right since I come from the middle class.[/b]

encephalon
And don't call other westerners here traitors when you would fit into your own description thereof. I'm from the labor aristocracy and a communist, so are you. Don't put yourself outside of your own accusations. To be part of the proletariat, you must sell your labor to live; people in the west might get paid for it more than elsewhere in order to "tame" them, but the essential nature of the exploitation is the same.

How would I fit my own definition? The traitors I speak of support the bourgeois, which includes those who support the bourgeoisified proletariat. I support neither.
So, DB, you are a member of the "labor aristocracy" in the west and a communist as well. But you deny the need for political struggle in the imperialist states and condemn it as a "distraction"? Well, how did you end up becoming a communist? Why are you unwilling to believe that other people in the west could have the same experience you did -- whatever that was -- and take up revolutionary ideas as well? What makes you so extra-special that only you, and apparently no one else around here, could do this? What, were you hand-picked by god or something to uniquely possess the truth?

What needs uniting is the communist movement. Instead of working towards realistic goals, many of the communists in the West have their eyes on revolution in their country. While at the same time neglecting the international issues. If the communists in the West stop appealing to the masses by bourgeoisifying themselves - then maybe something could be accomplished in the Third World. Right now, the communists in the West can only be a distraction - not a solution.
You should take your own personal, individual experience of becoming a communist, figure out how you were able to transform yourself in that way, and try to apply those lessons by struggling with other people in the west -- where you are -- around revolutionary ideas. You should be a communist in whatever imperialist state you happen to be living in. You should not be jet-setting off to the third world or developing world to "help" those good folks out in their own struggles. They are obviously doing fine without having to deal with a bunch of strangers, who know nothing about their concrete, day-to-day situations, slumming around and acting radical.

D_Bokk

26th November 2006, 22:23

Originally posted by encephalon+--> (encephalon)You are, I assume, part of the western labor aristocracy? This, by your own definition, is the "bourgeoisified proletariat." Every other Labor aristocrat, including those of us that are communists, you call traitors; and yet you're in the same boat. Why are you any different from your western counterparts?

If you can give us examples as to how we, as communists in the western world (and I don't mean the CPUSA), support the bourgeoisie whereas you don't at all, then by all means do so. But if you're simply going to make base accusations which would apply to you as well, don't expect us to take you seriously.[/b]
Mind quoting me where I claimed I was reactionary? I believe I limited it to the ones who support capitalism (which includes supporting the proletariat who support capitalism) and their government while giving a 10-15% leeway for those Americans who live under harsh conditions and/or are communists. Although I wouldn't call many of the people on this forum "communist" since they support the reactionary proletariat.

Originally posted by [email protected]

D Bokk

You fail to take note that housing is also much more expensive in the west.

But putting the statistical shyte aside.

The reason most westerners don't rebel is because they're conditioned to believe that they're protecting they're own capital.

If there are problems in my community, am I supposed to ignore them because of some satistic claiming that I'm not supposed to have problems?

No, I'm going to fight these problems anyway possible with an understanding that the ruling class in my society has a vested interest in keeping me and my peers ignorant, and stressed.

So why don't you and Bono go "save the starving childeren" and leave revolution to all those borgeois types living under bridges, and getting by on welfare, or selling crack to live comfortably.
I knew someone was going to come in here and try to make the West sound like a horrid place to live. Never fails...

1) They weren't "conditioned" because I, and many other people, grew up in the same environment as these "conditioned" folk and did not get tricked. Are you to say that we communists are "superior" to the people who are not communists?

2) What's keeping your "peers" ignorant isn't the government. It's the "peers" themselves. They have all the opportunity in the world to go to a library or use the Internet. The information available to them is unreal. The reason they don't use these resources is: they have no need too!

3) You're so valiant, fighting these problems... you sound like a Democrat.

4) Don't act like the majority of Canadians are "living under bridges." You and I know damn well that that's only a minority of the population, whom I would put into the 10-15% that everyone is completely ignoring.

Like I said before, the West has a few people living in poverty - but the vast majority are well-off bourgeoisified proletarians. Quick question: Why are there so many immigrants to the West, if it's such a bad place to live?

SPK

So, DB, you are a member of the "labor aristocracy" in the west and a communist as well. But you deny the need for political struggle in the imperialist states and condemn it as a "distraction"? Well, how did you end up becoming a communist? Why are you unwilling to believe that other people in the west could have the same experience you did -- whatever that was -- and take up revolutionary ideas as well? What makes you so extra-special that only you, and apparently no one else around here, could do this? What, were you hand-picked by god or something to uniquely possess the truth?
At best, the communists in the West can be a distraction. If they're able to cause enough trouble in the West to keep their government from interfering with third world revolutions - then they would be a success. Only a fool living in a dream world would think that the West is anywhere near a communist revolution.

You should take your own personal, individual experience of becoming a communist, figure out how you were able to transform yourself in that way, and try to apply those lessons by struggling with other people in the west -- where you are -- around revolutionary ideas. You should be a communist in whatever imperialist state you happen to be living in. You should not be jet-setting off to the third world or developing world to "help" those good folks out in their own struggles. They are obviously doing fine without having to deal with a bunch of strangers, who know nothing about their concrete, day-to-day situations, slumming around and acting radical.
I refuse to "convince" people around me that communism is better than capitalism. That's utter lunacy. No one fucking convinced me and no one should have to get into a debate about it to know that communism is much better than capitalism. It should be natural that the working class wants to take control over their factories... doesn't it strike you as odd that this isn't the case in the West?

With that said, the only hope of any communist future is with the third world's liberation from the Imperialists. The people there actually want control of their own factories.

RevolutionaryMarxist

26th November 2006, 22:31

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 25, 2006 12:56 am
There is currently no group working towards revolution.
Are you a Moron? :angry:

This is why all these factional splits over Stalinism/Trotskyism/Neo-Marxism/Anarchism/Maoism/Hoxhaism/etc-ism are pointless. We are so split that few even know we exist!

The US probally has the most communist/socialist parties of any country in the world, but none/few of them are heard of.

CombatLiberalism

26th November 2006, 23:12

It appears I have been restricted to OI for defending Marx.I am not surprised.

That they are not paid their 'full labour power' is stating the obvious, because of the profit-motive, no capitalist pays their workers to their 'full labour power', that's not how you make $$$.

Wrong. Read Capital. There are plenty of waged individuals who do not congeal their labor power into any commodities. Marx gives the example of waged individual in Merchant capital chains. There are plenty of individuals who are bound up in what Marx calls realizing capital, they are not contributing any labor power, any value, to the product according to Marx. A corporation may hire a CEO, for example, that does not mean the corporation is making profit off the CEO's "labor." The CEO may be necessary, under the capitalist mode of production, to the realizing of surplus value, yet, this does not mean he is exploited.

In any case, non-productive laborers may still be considered exploited if they earn less than the equivalent of the value of productive labor for the hours worked. This still doesn't mean that first worlders are, on average, exploited. In order to establish that first worlders are exploited, you have to set a bar for the full value of labor and demonstrate that they make less than that bar. And, simply saying that "profit is made, so they must be exploited" doesn't prove a damn thing because that profit can be coming from further down the chain. The profit pocketed by a Supermarket in the first world does not originate from exploiting cashiers, just like bank profit does not come from exploiting tellers. The surplus value is coming from somewhere else, down the chain.

Amerikans have more access to capital than many, if not most, Third World bourgeoisie. It is utter stupidity to say they are a proletariat in any meaningful sense.

Eastside Revolt

26th November 2006, 23:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 10:23 pm
I knew someone was going to come in here and try to make the West sound like a horrid place to live. Never fails...

1) They weren't "conditioned" because I, and many other people, grew up in the same environment as these "conditioned" folk and did not get tricked. Are you to say that we communists are "superior" to the people who are not communists?

2) What's keeping your "peers" ignorant isn't the government. It's the "peers" themselves. They have all the opportunity in the world to go to a library or use the Internet. The information available to them is unreal. The reason they don't use these resources is: they have no need too!

3) You're so valiant, fighting these problems... you sound like a Democrat.

4) Don't act like the majority of Canadians are "living under bridges." You and I know damn well that that's only a minority of the population, whom I would put into the 10-15% that everyone is completely ignoring.

Like I said before, the West has a few people living in poverty - but the vast majority are well-off bourgeoisified proletarians. Quick question: Why are there so many immigrants to the West, if it's such a bad place to live?
1) Everyone's got some brainwashing to fight. Whether you're white and from some predominantly racist town in North America. Or Native American and are surrounded by religious ignorance and have leaders that are mostly self-serving. Or some middle class white kid that is constantly told in school, aswell as on television that they will be prosperous in any career they choose......

2) Firstly you don't have any reason to believe that crack dealers abolutely don't read. Secondly when you're fighting for food, and shelter the first thing on you're mind usually isn't brushing up on your marxism.

Also, you mean to tell me that some african man who lives in a mostly agricultural area has a material need for going to the library, to check out the communist manifesto?

3) Yeah you sound to me like a tyical Canadian liberal. I'll bet you stand firm by the Kyoto accord. Who've you got the money on in the leadership race? :lol:

4) I never acted like "the majority of canadians are living under bridges". The majority of Canadians aren't any specific thing. Besides you're saying people that on the verge of being out on the street, or can hardly afford food as well as shelter, or clothing as well as food because of the rise in inflation, whilst wages are either stagnant or dropping are borgeois?

In 2001 1.5 million Canadians were living in poverty.

"Why are there so many immigrants to the West, if it's such a bad place to live?"

Depends on which country they are from, but often they are misled into beliving western life is like they show it on the movies, or any popular culture for that matter.

CombatLiberalism

26th November 2006, 23:52

You fail to take note that housing is also much more expensive in the west.

But putting the statistical shyte aside.

This is not true. Often it is more expensive to have a western lifestyle in the Third World. For example, Shanghai and Beijing are both more expensive to live in than LA. Hanoi is more expensive than SF according to CNN.

This doesn't matter because the numbers are adjusted to account for this in the beginning of the thread.

Eastside Revolt

27th November 2006, 00:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 11:52 pm

You fail to take note that housing is also much more expensive in the west.

But putting the statistical shyte aside.

This is not true. Often it is more expensive to have a western lifestyle in the Third World. For example, Shanghai and Beijing are both more expensive to live in than LA. Hanoi is more expensive than SF according to CNN.

This doesn't matter because the numbers are adjusted to account for this in the beginning of the thread.
Shanghai and Beijing are hardly what I'd call third world.

CombatLiberalism

27th November 2006, 00:04

How about DF, Mexico? It is the largest city in the world according to some statistics and it is surrounded by shanty towns and it is more expensive than Seattle. What is your point? Do you not think I can find plenty of similar examples?

Lagos Nigeria is more expensive than Detroit according to CNN, for example.

Guatamala city is more expensive than Cleveland, also.

D_Bokk

27th November 2006, 01:07

Originally posted by redcanada
1) Everyone's got some brainwashing to fight. Whether you're white and from some predominantly racist town in North America. Or Native American and are surrounded by religious ignorance and have leaders that are mostly self-serving. Or some middle class white kid that is constantly told in school, aswell as on television that they will be prosperous in any career they choose......
Still doesn't explain why anyone here didn't become brainwashed.

2) Firstly you don't have any reason to believe that crack dealers abolutely don't read. Secondly when you're fighting for food, and shelter the first thing on you're mind usually isn't brushing up on your marxism.

Also, you mean to tell me that some african man who lives in a mostly agricultural area has a material need for going to the library, to check out the communist manifesto?
I don't expect those in poverty to pick up the communist manifesto. They shouldn't even need to read it to know what they want. However the middle class treacherous proletariat can read this documents and choose not too. They ignore the world's problems and go about their lives.

This whole thread is about the wealthy "proletarians," not Africans.

4) I never acted like "the majority of canadians are living under bridges". The majority of Canadians aren't any specific thing. Besides you're saying people that on the verge of being out on the street, or can hardly afford food as well as shelter, or clothing as well as food because of the rise in inflation, whilst wages are either stagnant or dropping are borgeois?
Oh really? And your constant whining about how the Western "proletariat" has it rough is all for show? I'm saying the middle class is bourgeois. You keep trying to group the middle class and people in poverty (we're still talking about the West only - incase you forgot) together to further your "argument."

They're two completely different groups - one is revolutionary and the other is reactionary. Take your pick. I'll give you a hint, the largest group is reactionary.

In 2001 1.5 million Canadians were living in poverty.
And how many aren't?

Depends on which country they are from, but often they are misled into beliving western life is like they show it on the movies, or any popular culture for that matter.
And how does this explain why Mexicans don't want to be deported?

CombatLiberalism

27th November 2006, 01:44

There is no significant first world proletariat, they are a reactionary labor aristocracy.

4) Don't act like the majority of Canadians are "living under bridges." You and I know damn well that that's only a minority of the population, whom I would put into the 10-15% that everyone is completely ignoring.

You are being way too generous, assuming homelessness patterns in Kanada are anything like the u$. 1.5 million under bridges, Kanada must have alot of bridges!

1.5 Million living in poverty? By what standards are they measuring this "poverty?" This reminds me of these amerikans who quote u$ government numbers that millions of amerikans go hungry -- with a little digging, it was discovered they were defining "hunger" by "feeling hungry twice a week."

"Let's quote some facts about U.$. conditions and those in official poverty: "For example, the average persyn in 1970 had 478 square feet of house space. In the mid-1990s the figure was 814. Color TV went from 34% ownership to 97.9% ownership.(p. 7) Going to college went from 25.4% of high school graduates in 1970 to 60% in 1996.(p. 56)

"In 1971, 31.8% of all households had air- conditioners. In 1994, 49.6% of households below the poverty-line had air-conditioners.(pp. 14-5) The poor also do better than 1971 U.S. households in clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, microwaves, VCRs and Personal Computers. That is not comparing the poor of now with the poor of the past. We are comparing the poor of now with all households of 1971 and the poor of now are better off."

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/books/ capital/cox.html "

For those of you who are numerically challenged, this basically says the so-called "poor" now are richer than the middle class of a few decades ago. I don't have information about Kanada on hand, but it would be surprising if it weren't the same.

Eastside Revolt

27th November 2006, 02:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 01:07 am
And how many aren't?

And how does this explain why Mexicans don't want to be deported?
In 2001 it would have been about 28 million not living in abject poverty.

Nobody is denying that most people in second and third world countries have it bad off. But most western countries went through these problems at one point in history.

The truth is though that middle class people are not bregeois, they do not own the means to production. Just beacause I can afford to put shoes on my feet does not mean that my life wouldn't be better under a different system. Aswell I would have a choice in how my country treats third world nations, unlike my current situation.

In my current situation I can do absolutely nothing for the masses affected by aids. I can however reject the system that creates these problems as well as the system that makes life harder than it has to be for me, my family, and freinds.

CombatLiberalism

27th November 2006, 02:02

The majority of humynity lives on less than 3$/day according to globalrichlist. What percentage of Kanadians live on less than 3$/day?

Attatching the adjective "abject" does nothing to define poverty. Please show us how your source is measuring this.

And, even if 1.5 million are truly destitute, that says little about the overwhelming majority of Kanadians who are not.

There is only so much wealth to go around. If you think that average Kanadians and Amerikans are not getting enough, you need to show where the hell you intend to get the wealth to make them richer. Do you really think you could even out the worldwide distribution of wealth and not make first worlders poorer? Are you that blind?!

colonelguppy

27th November 2006, 02:40

so in other words yes industrialized countries will not promote a revolution, thus making marx's goals completely unreachable.

Eastside Revolt

27th November 2006, 03:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 02:02 am
1)The majority of humynity lives on less than 3$/day according to globalrichlist. What percentage of Kanadians live on less than 3$/day?

2)Attatching the adjective "abject" does nothing to define poverty. Please show us how your source is measuring this.

3)And, even if 1.5 million are truly destitute, that says little about the overwhelming majority of Kanadians who are not.

There is only so much wealth to go around. If you think that average Kanadians and Amerikans are not getting enough, you need to show where the hell you intend to get the wealth to make them richer. Do you really think you could even out the worldwide distribution of wealth and not make first worlders poorer? Are you that blind?!
1)Nobody lives on less than 3 bucks a day in Canada, as far as I know. That does not change the fact that the western middle classes are not borgeois.

2)From the source that says 1.5 million lived in poverty it's pretty self evident that the rest of the population would not be living in poverty.

3)I never said that it did, I was merely trying to illustrate that there are real problems in the west.

My issue is not that people are not getting enough. It is that their lives could be improved in a different society. Once again, being able to afford the basics is not enough when the majority of wealth is absorbed by the capitalist class.

Like Dead Prez said:

" I don't wanna be no movie star
I don't wanna drive no fancy car
I just wanna be free to live my life"

And also to answer your question: Yes, I am that blind. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly live in some fairy tail where going to the third world and handing out money is going to change the fact that these places are not industrialised? That was the point I was trying to get to when mentioning that much of Europe had very similar problems prior to industrialisation, as well as building up to our modern consumer societies. It is the western ruling class that has contributed to these problems you find in the third world. If a revolution were to occur in the west, they would be shut down.

CombatLiberalism

27th November 2006, 05:32

What are you babbling about now? The majority of amerikans are not employed in industrial production, this may be true of kkkanada as well. Imperialism exports capital, read Lenin. The Third World is sometimes more industrialized than the parts of the first world. Maldevelopment and industrialization are not incompatible.

You are a social fascist, "socialism in words, fascism in deeds." You agitate to make the top 15-10% of humynity richer at the expense of the vast majority who live on only a few dollars a day. You want more shit for rich people at the expense of the poor -- that is your politics.

Prove that the majority of wealth is absorbed by the capitalists in the first world and not the labor aristocracy. You done any study of this? Or are you just spewing white myths?

The Third World National bourgeoisie is a better ally of the proletariat than the labor aristocracy in the first world. The labor aristocracy has more access to capital than many third World bourgeoisie.

I notice how you avoided responding to my point about establishing a bar for exploitation or proving that first worlders are exploited in any significant way. It is really pointless to have a discussion with you. At bottom, you have a religious type commitment to making rich first worlders richer. And, you really haven't studied Marxist science at all. I don't have time to argue with religious beliefs.

RNK

27th November 2006, 05:36

CombatLiberalism

27th November 2006, 06:16

Remember, people, that poverty is not some arbitrary line drawn in the sand that applies universally to all humanity. Poverty is conditional and relative to the overall conditions of society. Obviously the lowest strata of American working poor are far better off than their counterparts in Africa but it doesn't make their suffering any less important.

Poverty is not scientific, which is my point. So, can anyone show that first worlders are, on average, exploited? No, because they are not.

Suffering is not scientific either, it is undefined. But, even at the level of ordinary language, we can say suffering in Africa is obviously much greater than that in the u$ -- if you want to talk details, we can look at things like infant mortality rates, malnutrition, bone growth, live expectancy, and so on. So, if you want to end suffering, then you should probably worry about those who are hurting the most and not those who generally benefit from it. Maybe you agree with Hegel that slave master is enslaved by slavery too in some sense, does that mean we should focus on liberating the slave master over the slave? Not a materialist approach.

You claim poverty is relative. So, kings eat cake and the poor eat grule. Not a very revolutionary approach you have there.

Okay, maybe it does, a bit. But it doesn't make their emancipation from bourgeois rule any less important.

What are you talking about? They benefit from imperialism to such a degree that they have no interest in overthrowing it. You are pushing the same kind of social fascism as the other poster, but you don't even realize it.

At the same time, billions of dollars are coming OUT of the country in the form of resources such as diamonds and oil. Industrialization has little to do with it. It is a matter of who owns the capital circulating through those countries, and at this point, it is the western bourgeoisie.

Imperialism benefits amerikans as a whole, to such an extent that there is no significant exploitation of amerikans going on. It is idiotic to think that a first world household making about 50k is going to align with the vast majority in the third world making a few dollars a day. Also, increasingly, the first world labor aristocracy is invested in the market in all kinds of ways.

This is my last post on this topic, I recommend people look up some of the things I have been talking about. Also, please, read Capital!

Raisa

27th November 2006, 08:25

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 25, 2006 12:27 am--> (D_Bokk @ November 25, 2006 12:27 am)
Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon) Are we supposed to spout out some bullshit hatred of ordinary Americans just because there is so much wealth in America, even the less well off do well compared to most other countries?[/b]
No, you're suppose to stop feeling sorry for people who obviously have a decent standard of living. Maybe focus on more urgent issues like the third world and stop with your feeble attempts to "convince" Americans that communism is going to do wonders for them.

Scarlet [email protected]
I doubt you fall into this catagory, and I doubt your argument.
I doubt my income matters because many of the communist revolutions were lead by former members of the bourgeois.

My argument is flawless in the sense that the majority of Americans are reactionary.

violencia.Proletariat
Your statistics don't specify if thats the average for an individual or individuals and families. I'm betting it includes families. $36,000 for a familie of 4 isn't as much as for one person.
Come again?
http://www.bls.gov/cew/state2002.txt

This is what I'm talking about. You guys are so blinded that you'll try your hardest to find excuses that make Americans seem oppressed. [/b]
You quoted a ".gov" website....like their going to tell you the truth.
They keep the poverty line low so they dont have to give you food stamps.
What proves to me your bourgeois is the fact that you think so many people here have it good or that it is so easy to live here as if there is no reason to complain.
Get out of my face with that bullshit.....

America has a ghetto for each city.
There are many people inside, and then other poor people with slightly better living conditions in the surrounding areas.
Then there are apartments people share that are relatively decent.
Either way we own nothing but our labor, and that is what makes us the proliteriat.

Instead of american poor picking the rescources and fruit in colonized countries.....like third world people....

WE ARE FUCKING FRUIT.
We are created to get diseases
Consume medicine
Have babies we cant afford to fuck up or join the military
We are created to become imprisoned
Use drugs......

Our shortcomings fuel industries.

Where the fuck is your brain at? In the mall looking at the shoppers......not on the real shit.

Tungsten

27th November 2006, 14:51

Ernest

Remember, people, that poverty is not some arbitrary line drawn in the sand that applies universally to all humanity. Poverty is conditional and relative to the overall conditions of society.
Ergo, poverty can never be "solved" as it would require everyone in society to have exactly the same money, property, intelligence and labour capacity.

Anyway, looking at the example of African countries is a good way to recognize the social relations of capital in those countries. Millions of dollars a year are poured into these places in the form of aid, food, etc. At the same time, billions of dollars are coming OUT of the country in the form of resources such as diamonds and oil. Industrialization has little to do with it.
What's coming out of the country only amounts to billions of dollars because of the demand for it. They've got lots of resources like oil, but most of these resources are pretty much usless to a non-industrial society.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 14:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 12:27 am
I doubt my income matters because many of the communist revolutions were lead by former members of the bourgeois.

Actually it does.

I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is, live up to your principles and move to Burkina Faso or Mayanmar and work on your revolution where you feel it's obviously more needed.

Perhaps you'd do more good for the proles of the third world by leaving the comforts of your den to go build clean water wells in an impoverished nation?

Go for it, ace. (http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.howvol)

Just like the uber-capitalists who found all sorts of reasons not to move to the libertarian paradise that is Somalia, I can't wait to see why you can't do it.

D_Bokk

27th November 2006, 16:04

Originally posted by redcanada+--> (redcanada)In 2001 it would have been about 28 million not living in abject poverty.

Nobody is denying that most people in second and third world countries have it bad off. But most western countries went through these problems at one point in history.

The truth is though that middle class people are not bregeois, they do not own the means to production. Just beacause I can afford to put shoes on my feet does not mean that my life wouldn't be better under a different system. Aswell I would have a choice in how my country treats third world nations, unlike my current situation.

In my current situation I can do absolutely nothing for the masses affected by aids. I can however reject the system that creates these problems as well as the system that makes life harder than it has to be for me, my family, and freinds.[/b]
28 million, you don't say. Doesn't it strike you that poverty is so scarce in the West? The lower class is the minority while the upper classes are the majority. Talk about being backward. I always thought the wealthy were largely outnumbered. Apparently this isn't the case.

Originally posted by [email protected]
You quoted a ".gov" website....like their going to tell you the truth.
They keep the poverty line low so they dont have to give you food stamps.
What proves to me your bourgeois is the fact that you think so many people here have it good or that it is so easy to live here as if there is no reason to complain.
Get out of my face with that bullshit.....
Enough of your conspiracy theories. If my average salary is wrong -- then what's the real average salary in the US?

America has a ghetto for each city.
There are many people inside, and then other poor people with slightly better living conditions in the surrounding areas.
Then there are apartments people share that are relatively decent.
Either way we own nothing but our labor, and that is what makes us the proliteriat.
Quote me where I claim that poverty in America is good livin'.

Instead of american poor picking the rescources and fruit in colonized countries.....like third world people....

WE ARE FUCKING FRUIT.
We are created to get diseases
Consume medicine
Have babies we cant afford to fuck up or join the military
We are created to become imprisoned
Use drugs......
That’s an interesting way of putting it. I'm not saying the West is perfected and doesn't need communism - I'm saying their people don't want communism. They're reactionary and class traitors. I'm tired of "communists" who support reactionary entities.

Where the fuck is your brain at? In the mall looking at the shoppers......not on the real shit.
I try to avoid shopping centers at all costs. Its depressing to see people care so much about material objects.

patton
More of your i hate all Americans nonsense.
Tell me about it.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 16:44

When you joining the peace core or moving to Mali, Bokk?

Eastside Revolt

27th November 2006, 19:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 04:04 pm
28 million, you don't say. Doesn't it strike you that poverty is so scarce in the West? The lower class is the minority while the upper classes are the majority. Talk about being backward. I always thought the wealthy were largely outnumbered. Apparently this isn't the case.
So I'm the one that's grouping people together eh?

Being able to afford some garbage from wal-mart does not make you wealthy. The wealthy are very outnumbered.

If you are gonna be so thick-headed as to say that all people who are not impoverished are sraight up wealthy, there is no point in us arguing.

Eastside Revolt

27th November 2006, 19:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:32 am
What are you babbling about now? The majority of amerikans are not employed in industrial production, this may be true of kkkanada as well. Imperialism exports capital, read Lenin. The Third World is sometimes more industrialized than the parts of the first world. Maldevelopment and industrialization are not incompatible.

You are a social fascist, "socialism in words, fascism in deeds." You agitate to make the top 15-10% of humynity richer at the expense of the vast majority who live on only a few dollars a day. You want more shit for rich people at the expense of the poor -- that is your politics.

Prove that the majority of wealth is absorbed by the capitalists in the first world and not the labor aristocracy. You done any study of this? Or are you just spewing white myths?

The Third World National bourgeoisie is a better ally of the proletariat than the labor aristocracy in the first world. The labor aristocracy has more access to capital than many third World bourgeoisie.

I notice how you avoided responding to my point about establishing a bar for exploitation or proving that first worlders are exploited in any significant way. It is really pointless to have a discussion with you. At bottom, you have a religious type commitment to making rich first worlders richer. And, you really haven't studied Marxist science at all. I don't have time to argue with religious beliefs.
What am I babbling about?

So you are denying the concept of profit?

I figured it was well known that poorer countries are hyper-industrialised, and left to rot when the profit is no longer there. This does not make for advanced industrialised societies.

Whatever man just go calculate some shit in a dark room. And just don't go to the wrong part of town spewing that bullshit. <_<

D_Bokk

27th November 2006, 20:26

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan) When you joining the peace core or moving to Mali, Bokk?[/b]
And help the capitalists? Never. Peace Corp only prolongs people's exploitation - it wont be until people are pushed beyond their threshold before a revolution will make things better.

redcanada
So I'm the one that's grouping people together eh?

Being able to afford some garbage from wal-mart does not make you wealthy. The wealthy are very outnumbered.

If you are gonna be so thick-headed as to say that all people who are not impoverished are sraight up wealthy, there is no point in us arguing.
You're right, the wealthy are outnumbered... on a worldwide scale. This is a matter of haves and have-nots. Those who have outnumber those who have-not in America.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by D_Bokk+November 27, 2006 08:26 pm--> (D_Bokk @ November 27, 2006 08:26 pm)
t_wolves_fan
When you joining the peace core or moving to Mali, Bokk?
And help the capitalists? Never. Peace Corp only prolongs people's exploitation - it wont be until people are pushed beyond their threshold before a revolution will make things better.
[/b]
:D

So that's your excuse for not joining the peace corps (completely absurd as it is).

But really, what is your excuse for not moving to Botswana to begin spreading the word right now?

D_Bokk

27th November 2006, 20:58

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
So that's your excuse for not joining the peace corps (completely absurd as it is).
Why would I clean up the mess capitalism left without removing the cause: capitalism. Joining the peace corp only helps capitalism.

But really, what is your excuse for not moving to Botswana to begin spreading the word right now?
Because I don't believe in "spreading the word." People need to want it, not be told to want it.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:58 pm
Because I don't believe in "spreading the word." People need to want it, not be told to want it.
How can they want it if they don't know it exists?

Certainly a poor person in Mayanmar isn't perusing RevLeft or checking Marx out at the local library, they need your brilliant guidance and inspiration to make change happen, do they not?

Aren't you basically suggesting that pretty much all you do is ***** about the state of the world without actually doing much to change it?

ZX3

27th November 2006, 22:14

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 26, 2006 10:04 am
The definition of proletariat is about owning the means of production. You could have 9 billion dollars, but, if you don't control the mechanisms that gained you that wealth, you can still be proletarian. The majority of the world elite are in America. For that reason, Americans have to appeal to those most likely to revolt and cause damage - the people living near them.

The capitalists do not control that mechanism either.

The consumer is king. Any rational economy has to be geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumer. Why else produce anything?

The claim of the socialists that the capitalists control the means of production is false. The consumer controls what the capitalist produces. The socialist proposes that the worker, not the consumer, should decide what is produced, which never makes any sense

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 22:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 10:14 pm
The claim of the socialists that the capitalists control the means of production is false. The consumer controls what the capitalist produces. The socialist proposes that the worker, not the consumer, should decide what is produced, which never makes any sense
Bingo.

D_Bokk

27th November 2006, 22:30

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
How can they want it if they don't know it exists?

Certainly a poor person in Mayanmar isn't perusing RevLeft or checking Marx out at the local library, they need your brilliant guidance and inspiration to make change happen, do they not?
Marx merely put the progression of history into words, he did not invent communism - he just used science to prove it. He predicted that eventually all of the wealth will concentrate into the hands of a few leading to a desperate proletariat and an inevitable revolution.

Find me one poor person in Mayanmar who opposes the idea of having all of their material needs met. You don't need to know who Marx is to want what he describes.

Aren't you basically suggesting that pretty much all you do is ***** about the state of the world without actually doing much to change it?
More or less, at this point in time. I'm accomplishing as much as the rest of the people on RevLeft.

Why haven't you gone to Cuba to fight against the communists there?

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 20:32

Marx merely put the progression of history into words, he did not invent communism - he just used science to prove it.

You can't prove political economic theory.

I know in your head your opinion is proof and that we should just accept that, but I'm afraid it does not work that way.

He predicted that eventually all of the wealth will concentrate into the hands of a few leading to a desperate proletariat and an inevitable revolution.

Tick tock tick tock.

Find me one poor person in Mayanmar who opposes the idea of having all of their material needs met. You don't need to know who Marx is to want what he describes.

I don't need to do that, hell I want all my needs met.

But I seriously doubt what you are preaching can do it.

Aren't you basically suggesting that pretty much all you do is ***** about the state of the world without actually doing much to change it?
More or less, at this point in time. I'm accomplishing as much as the rest of the people on RevLeft.

Why haven't you gone to Cuba to fight against the communists there?

Well I'm glad you admit you are useless.

As for me and Cuba, I don't care enough to go fight communists in Cuba; nor am I arrogant enough to assume I know better than Cubans do what political system they want. If they're happy with it, so be it.

D_Bokk

28th November 2006, 21:30

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
You can't prove political economic theory.

I know in your head your opinion is proof and that we should just accept that, but I'm afraid it does not work that way.
He proved capitalism's eventual failure, which is entirely possible.

I don't need to do that, hell I want all my needs met.

But I seriously doubt what you are preaching can do it.
Do what?

Well I'm glad you admit you are useless.

As for me and Cuba, I don't care enough to go fight communists in Cuba; nor am I arrogant enough to assume I know better than Cubans do what political system they want. If they're happy with it, so be it.
I'm not going to make myself sound important; I have no "e-rep" that I need to protect like a bunch of the posers on this forum.

You, too, are useless. What have you done to further capitalism along? You, I'm sure, have a vision of how the world can be better. Why haven't you done anything? Because you can't. So don't come here preaching to me when you can't even live up to your own standards.

What the fuck, you aren't "arrogant enough"? Honestly, you're telling me to go to Mayanmar and be "arrogant enough" to tell them how to run their country. You can't use that excuse unless you're a hypocrite.

Marx Lenin Stalin

29th November 2006, 18:00

THIS is the Marxist Leninist position comrade Hiero

Hiero

30th November 2006, 10:41

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 26, 2006 08:42 pm
Besides, your clarification seems a bit redundant.

The proletariat are exploited based on their relationship to the means of production (if we must use 19th century language), i.e. they have to sell their labour power to the owners of capital, who in turn pay them a wage for their labour.

That they are not paid their 'full labour power' is stating the obvious, because of the profit-motive, no capitalist pays their workers to their 'full labour power', that's not how you make $$$.

I never expressed a misunderstanding on this point, i never mentioned it because to me it is obvious as fuck, why you chose to point it out is beyond me, but i suppose if you want to play tired political games feel free, i cant be arsed.

I wanted to make it clear how expliotation works. Alot of people think if you work for a wage, regardless how much you are paid, you are expliotated. Marx in "Wage Labour and Capital" makes it clear that being paid under your labour value is expliotation.

What do you mean to 'cover their labour power'? Which proletarians in imperialist nations receive full renumeration for their labour? And if such people do exist what proportion are they of the population? Significant enough to even bother mentioning them?

I am not a economist. But Lenin to Kwame Nkrumah have noted that imperialism tries to subdue class conflict in the imperialist nations, by expliotating more broadly and less at home.

Also, you dont seem to appreciate that as the standard of living is higher in imperialist nations so is the cost of living, wages may be higher but so are living expenses.

What does this really mean? It was brought up in another thread, that basically, all workers can afford food, so we are all equal in expliotation.

This is something you did in a previous discussion, like i said before...

You can't make points by using extremely unrealistic hypotheticals.

It's fallacious, you need to come up with something that is actually realistic if you want to make a persuasive point.

Well I was just asking a basic question. Is someone exploited regardless of how much they receive as a wage. There is nothing wrong with that. If people agree then we can move from there to find who is paid a explioted wage and who is paid a labour aristocracy wage.

That is never going to happen, the massive variables involved from economy to economy make accurate results something of a dream.

It is impossible for someone educated in economics. You just need to compare economies, purchase power etc. It is hard work, but the reason it has not happen is bourgeois economist are more interested in showing the minimal improvements in 3rd worlds nations and acadamic "Marxists" do not subscribe to the idea that labour aristocracy is something more then a small segment of workers. There is no real incentive for someone in a capitalist economy to do this work.