Debate over the CJB, labor aristocracy,etc.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 03:49 pm
I'm just wondering, does the FPM, CL or WFPM have any members outside america that doesnt extend to only one person, a internet connection and alot of free time? because that is certainly the CLérs here in the Netherlands...
I'm just wondering, does the CJB do anything besides whining about other parties (especially the IS) to make up for their pathetic political record of activity?

Please don't talk about things you know nothing of. I personally have spread around 50 copies of our Dutch paper, and have worked extensively with the SP's election campaign.

Yeah, that might not seem much compared to the "mass revolutionary vanguard party" that you have, but for one person that's a shitload more activity then some of your members do in a years time.

And another thing, tell your leaders to stop sending me your paper. I keep getting it while I haven't paid for it in like a year. I know you get a lot printed for free by your "greater revolutionary vanguard party of Belgium" ally, but that doesn't mean that all the people you have the addresses of want em, ok?

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Shapur+December 05, 2006 04:25 pm--> (Shapur @ December 05, 2006 04:25 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 03:49 pm
I'm just wondering, does the FPM, CL or WFPM have any members outside america that doesnt extend to only one person, a internet connection and alot of free time? because that is certainly the CLérs here in the Netherlands...
I'm just wondering, does the CJB do anything besides whining about other parties (especially the IS) to make up for their pathetic political record of activity?

Please don't talk about things you know nothing of. I personally have spread around 50 copies of our Dutch paper, and have worked extensively with the SP's election campaign.

Yeah, that might not seem much compared to the "mass revolutionary vanguard party" that you have, but for one person that's a shitload more activity then some of your members do in a years time.

And another thing, tell your leaders to stop sending me your paper. I keep getting it while I haven't paid for it in like a year. I know you get a lot printed for free by your "greater revolutionary vanguard party of Belgium" ally, but that doesn't mean that all the people you have the addresses of want em, ok? [/b]
entrism in a social democratic reformist party? i thought you accused us of being revisionist krusthevist catroites?

And manifest isnt financed by the PvdA in belgium at all, and financed out of our own pockets. i dont know where you got that idea...

And what the hell do you know about our activity? Alot of our members have worked in the alternative elections capaign aswell as supporting the SP campaign as the best alternative in this elections. Activity doenst mean jack shit if you don't really have a goal and still in search of the utopian working people's movement. And looking at your post count, your activity, as much of the organisations discussed in this topic, consist of whining away on RevLeft and other forums. If you accuse me of whining, take a close look in the mirror..

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:33 pm
entrism in the biggest reformist party? i thought you accused us of being revisionist krusthevist catroites?
There must have been some miscommunication in your party's hierarchy of leadership.

I never accused you of being anything. I just said you liked Castro too much. I still feel the same about the CJB, NCPN, and the FPM as well.

And there was no case of entryism, I don't work with the SP anymore, it was only for the elections. Sorry, I don't hold the point of view of the IS.


Activity doenst mean jack shit if you don't really have a goal and still in search of the utopian working people's movement.

Which is exactly what the CJB and NCPN believe.

[Honggweilo]

There must have been some miscommunication in your party's hierarchy of leadership.


these we're your own words comrade



Which is exactly what the CJB and NCPN believe.

Marxism-Leninism, but you could have guessed that. And your views on the how MLíst we are differce from our point of view, aswell as the accomplishments by it.

The pot accuses the kettle again.. well your task is to prove the dutch working class that you are the future and we are the sectarian dogmatic leninists, good luck!

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:25 pm
I'm just wondering, does the CJB do anything besides whining about other parties (especially the IS) to make up for their pathetic political record of activity?

Please don't talk about things you know nothing of. I personally have spread around 50 copies of our Dutch paper, and have worked extensively with the SP's election campaign.
Congratulations:

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/imag...Yourewinner.jpg (http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b5/Yourewinner.jpg)

For all your sarcasm about "mass revolutionary vanguard parties", your own "street creds" don't seem to be worth much, either. For all our lack of size and influence, we(as well as the trotskyite parties) have certainly done a lot more than a single person representing an American "Back to Marxism" sect, and campaigning for a reformist party. I'm also curious about any documents from the CJB(hell, you can search the NCPN too, for all I care) where the IS is criticised. Well, you might find one if you consider my rants on this forum an official document, LMFAO! :lol:


and have worked extensively with the SP's election campaign.
Because they're definitely less revisionist communists than us. ;) Oh, wait, they aren't communists, lol. Nevermind those pesky "fact" things.


Yeah, that might not seem much compared to the "mass revolutionary vanguard party" that you have, but for one person that's a shitload more activity then some of your members do in a years time.
Wow, congratulations, a dedicated soon-to-be "professional revolutionary"(are you still planning that?) has more time on his hands to do political work than an average proletarian who happens to be part of a real organisation. I'm totally surprised. :rolleyes:


I know you get a lot printed for free by your "greater revolutionary vanguard party of Belgium" ally
Yes, because cooperation among allied parties to give each other a little shoulder push is BAD, mmkay? :rolleyes: Gee, next thing you know those silly marxists might think even more, and come up with a thing called "proletarian internationalism". Oh lawd, anything but that! But yeah, I bet that concept must seem alien to you, considering that the only international relationship you have with the mighty CL is you making Dutch translations of their articles for the website and your "paper".

Anyway, if that's how you're going to play it, then I'm interested to know where you would get the funds to print a paper all by yourself. I suppose "professional revolutionaries" have a lot of money to spare. ;) Or maybe your "paper" is really a few pages from your computer's printer paperclipped together? :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:42 pm

There must have been some miscommunication in your party's hierarchy of leadership.


these where your own words comrade
I seriously have never referred to the CJB or NCPN as Kruschevite or Castroist...


The pot accuses the kettle again.. well your task is to prove the dutch working class that you are the future and we are the sectarian dogmatic leninists, good luck!

Actually no, you got me all wrong. First of all I'm a Leninist, but let's not forget that Lenin called himself a Marxist at all times, ok? So just because I call myself a Marxist, and leave out the "Leninist", doesn't mean I'm not a "Leninist" in theory and practice.

And no, I'm not a Trot either.

Anyway, it's not "my task to prove to the Dutch working class that we are the future", that's their own task. What is the CL? It's working class people organizing themselves to overthrow capitalism. It's not some foreign entity, it's an organization for working people by working people.

Just because I disagree with the CJB and NCPN on some theoretical issues, doesn't mean I won't work with you to overthrow capitalism. The same goes for every other communist party in this country.

There's actually only one thing that makes the CL different from your party, and that is the fact that you allow members of other classes to join and take positions of leadership in a party that is meant to organize the proletariat.

Why won't you change that rule? Why won't you only allow working class people to hold positions of leadership in your parties? Are you so afraid of them?

If you change that rule I'll join your party, regardless of the fact that most of your members like Castro too much, or that most of your members support Stalin, I couldn't care less about silly shit like that. It's the principle that matters, and that principle is that the liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

EDIT: Matthijs must be one of those petty-bourgeois members you have. :(

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:56 pm
EDIT: Matthijs must be one of those petty-bourgeois members you have. :(
So you are unable to back up the silly accusations in your earlier post, thereby firmly establishing that they form a steaming pile of bullshit? Anyway, working class members are not prohibited from leadership functions. Where the hell did you get that idea?

[Honggweilo]

my father is a mechanic and former miner, my mother a catering worker and now labour incapable through medical problems... That pretty well classifies me as an student with a proletarian background :)

And you Matthijs? how do you score on the "how proletarian are you?" chart" :lol: ?

I have suspisions of him being too bourgeois for communism, should i propose to expel him :rolleyes: ?

EDIT : im in the national direction of the CJB and i definitly dont have a petty-bourgeois background. Most of our leadership are or have proletarian backgrounds

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 05:03 pm
EDIT : im in the national direction of the CJB and i definitly dont have a petty-bourgeois background. Most of our leadership are or have proletarian backgrounds
The key word in there being "most".

And I never said working class people are prohibited from leadership functions, I said petty-bourgeois people aren't...

Also Matthijs, I didn't read your post because the image made the lay-out mixed up, could you please remove the image? If you don't remove it I'll have to ask a Mod because that's obviously spam.

EDIT: also, please lay off the insults, you're not my boss and I'm not your servant. Have some respect for working class communists. Although, if you are of a petty-bourgeois background, which you didn't answer, I guess that's going to be tough one.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Shapur+December 05, 2006 05:54 pm--> (Shapur @ December 05, 2006 05:54 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 05:03 pm
EDIT : im in the national direction of the CJB and i definitly dont have a petty-bourgeois background. Most of our leadership are or have proletarian backgrounds
The key word in there being "most".

And I never said working class people are prohibited from leadership functions, I said petty-bourgeois people aren't...

Also Matthijs, I didn't read your post because the image made the lay-out mixed up, could you please remove the image? If you don't remove it I'll have to ask a Mod because that's obviously spam.

EDIT: also, please lay off the insults, you're not my boss and I'm not your servant. Have some respect for working class communists. Although, if you are of a petty-bourgeois background, which you didn't answer, I guess that's going to be tough one. [/b]
face it that here in the netherlands, most of the workingclass are still a part of the labour aristocracy. It's undeniable that the whole working class are filled with petty-bourgeois morale and ethics, sometimes even more than the petty-bourgeois itself, out of own expirences.

Anyway, Matthijs isn't petty-bourgeois at all, i was just being sarcastic. First of all he comes from the most economically deprived area in the Netherlands, East-Groningen. Although he resides in a somewhat more prosperous settlement their, doenst make him petty-bourgeois. But still if he was, wasnt lenin an aristocrat himself? And i dont see the imposibility of petty-bourgeois to break with their class and side with the proletariat, and hence desolve in it. Some students from a workingclass background often become petty-bourgeois themselfes, its the system that creates them. So are you saying the next generation of those petty-bourgeois students brought forth cant join sides with the workingclass?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:41 pm
face it that here in the netherlands, most of the workingclass are still a part of the labour aristocracy. It's undeniable that the whole working class are filled with petty-bourgeois morale and ethics, sometimes even more than the petty-bourgeois itself, out of own expirences.
Most of the working class in Holland are part of the labor aristocracy? Are you kidding me?

Just because the workers aren't class-conscious doesn't mean that they're part of the labor aristocracy. Why do you even exist as a party? You're saying that the majority of workers are labor aristocrats, so what is the point of a communist party in Holland? Are you waiting for the 3rd world to rise up first?

As for Matthijs being petty-bourgeois, I don't really give a shit if he is or isn't, what is clear is that he takes the side of the petty-bourgeois. He's ridiculing a proletarian for setting up a paper and spreading it around to his fellow proletarians, how more petty-bourgeois can you get!

And yes, of course petty-bourgeois individuals can break from their class relations, as Lenin did, as well as Marx and Engels. The point is that individuals who are still petty-bourgeois have no place in the leadership of a proletarian organization.

Why is it so difficult for those people in your party that are petty-bourgeois to break from their class relations? Do they dislike living like the working class so much? I'm guessing they do, and that's why they don't deserve a position of leadership.

[Zeruzo]

2 pages isn't a paper, but a pamphlet...
Matthijs is not being petit-bourgeouisie, but you are petit bourgeouisie by assuming the CC is de facto proletarian beceause a newspaper is spread by members of the proletariat!

And someone is a member of the labor aristocracy when he is so stuffed in by the bourgeouisie that he accepts the fact he is oppresed. Which is the vast majority of the Dutch proletariat, isn't it?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:48 pm
but you are petit bourgeouisie by assuming the CC is de facto proletarian beceause a newspaper is spread by members of the proletariat!
That's doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.


And someone is a member of the labor aristocracy when he is so stuffed in by the bourgeouisie that he accepts the fact he is oppresed. Which is the vast majority of the Dutch proletariat, isn't it?

Accepts the fact that he is oppressed? What are you even talking about? The majority of workers don't even know they are oppressed.

[Honggweilo]

you know the expression "wie zwijgt stemt toe" right?

[Zeruzo]

That's doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

It didn't, did it?
So, now you know how i feel!
A lot of proletarians voted for 'Wilders'. Thats the semi-point i was trying to make.



Accepts the fact that he is oppressed? What are you even talking about? The majority of workers don't even know they are oppressed.

My point exactly!

[KC]

So basically what you're saying is that if proletarians aren't class conscious then they're part of the labour aristocracy...

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 05, 2006 08:37 pm
So basically what you're saying is that if proletarians aren't class conscious then they're part of the labour aristocracy...
No, i'm saying that they are proletarians cuddled to death!

[Leo]

2 pages isn't a paper, but a pamphlet...

2 pages is a bulletin if it's regularly published. A pamphlet is usually around 24 or 32 pages in a5 size paper, about a specific topic containing several articles and it is not published regularly unless a series about something (for example the revolutionary wave after WWI) is going to be published, and even then, it finishes when it finishes. I think what you were trying to say was leaflet, which is usually just a page of a4 paper, and is written about the specific demonstration, it is naturally irregularly published because it solely depends on the demonstration; the demonstration is the only place it is distributed at.

Anyway, I think workers bulletins; regularly published bulletins about recent workers strikes and the living conditions of the working class, perhaps with a small editorial section, is the way to go in the future.


And someone is a member of the labor aristocracy when he is so stuffed in by the bourgeouisie that he accepts the fact he is oppresed.

Then the greater majority of the third world proletariat, as well as the first world proletariat, are labor aristocrats as well cause not more (or less) proletarians around here reject being exploited.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ddxt301+--> (ddxt301)face it that here in the netherlands, most of the workingclass are still a part of the labour aristocracy. It's undeniable that the whole working class are filled with petty-bourgeois morale and ethics, sometimes even more than the petty-bourgeois itself, out of own expirences.[/b]

You know, you're really making "Shapur's" (Marxism-Leninism?) point for him. The point regarding the, well, dubious class orientation of the Party you represent ... the "New Communist Party" (NCPN).

And the way in which you are making his point for him, is in the duplicitous way you present the ideological cover for your Parties stance on the class question ... particularly with regards the issue of the class background of your Parties leadership.

Essentially, you try to cover up your own inadequacies by blurring the issue at hand.

You do this by first proclaiming that "most of the workingclass are still a part of the labour aristocracy [and, therefore] that the whole working class are filled with petty-bourgeois morale and ethics". That claim lays the foundations for what follows.

And what follows is an invitation to the petty-bourgeois to dominate the working class movement -- "sometimes even more than the petty-bourgeois itself, out of own expirences."

Basically, you justify the dominance of the petty-bourgeois in your own Party by blurring the class line, dismissing the revolutionary potential of the working class and exaggerating the revolutionary role of the petty-bourgeois. And you don't even do that in a particularly adept manner!

No, you just brazenly dismiss the revolutionary potential of the working class whilst emphasising the importance of the petty-bourgeois ... in a manner that obstructs the fundamental dynamics of class struggle and, therefore, excuses the domination of petty-bourgeois elements within your own Party.

Which, therefore, makes "Shapur's" basic point for him...


Zeruzo
No, i'm saying that they are proletarians cuddled to death!

And the above, folks, is an example of what happens when the petty-bourgeois are allowed to infiltrate a political movement and dominate its theoretical line. Their class prejudice and privilege oozes out of every theoretical pore ... and the life experiences of your typical Professional, are substituted for the daily struggle of your average worker.

Zeruzo and his friends may well be "cuddled to death"; but the people who have to sell their labour to survive ... aren't.
_ _ _ _ _

On the issue at hand -- "the split" -- it's interesting that the issue of Cuba was brought up as one of the political differences that have played a role. And it's interesting not with regards this split, but with regards the internal political life of the Communist League.

That is, if it was able to play a prominent role in a divide between two separate organisations, what will happen when it becomes an issue inside the Communist League?

The League itself, of course, has no formal position on this issue ... or many other historical issues. Which means that League members can (and do?) hold all kinds of different views on the subject. Miles and, it seems, other leading members of the League, however, hold a variation of the left-communist view on the subject.

So, as the League develops and presents more and more of its formal positions on certain subjects to us; how will it cope with the glaring contradictions between the views of leading members and others on said subjects?

Only time, I suppose, will tell ... but, based on these events, I think it could well be a very divisive process.

[Zeruzo]

Wow, you're really good at analyzing the Dutch material reality and placing it in the correct context!
And you're very good at defining my class! Wow, truly brilliant! That was truly amasing, now if you excuse me i'm going to reply to a more serious person:



Then the greater majority of the third world proletariat, as well as the first world proletariat, are labor aristocrats as well cause not more (or less) proletarians around here reject being exploited.

(i hope you dont mind me ignoring you're 'bulletin' story)
Well, not the greater majority, but there are parts of the thirth world proletariat that are labor aristocrats. But it has nothing to do with class-consiousness, since everybody owns it to a certain extend. It is the extend to which this class-consciousness is able to develop beceause of the material conditions and labour benefits. The Labor Aristocracy also lives off of the wages of the thirth world a lot, and some of them even get payed the full amount of they're labour.

Too much weed in the head to make a coherent sentence...

[Honggweilo]

You do this by first proclaiming that "most of the workingclass are still a part of the labour aristocracy [and, therefore] that the whole working class are filled with petty-bourgeois morale and ethics". That claim lays the foundations for what follows.

And what follows is an invitation to the petty-bourgeois to dominate the working class movement -- "sometimes even more than the petty-bourgeois itself, out of own expirences."

Thx for the warning m8, but you didn't here me say the petit-bourgeois was the salvation of the proletariat so lets have an open door policy. My point was that most 1st world countries there's an thin line between workingclass and petit bourgeois mentality compared to 3rd world countries. Ow and i represent its youth movement, not the party, just for the record. Petty-bourgeois who break with their own class and take a class stance with the proletariat are not to be refused membership, but this doesnt mean that we have lack of trust in the revolutionary power of the working class.


Basically, you justify the dominance of the petty-bourgeois in your own Party by blurring the class line, dismissing the revolutionary potential of the working class and exaggerating the revolutionary role of the petty-bourgeois. And you don't even do that in a particularly adept manner!

Before drawing conclusions about our partyline which you base on prejudice, i already said that we're not dominated by "petty-bourgeois". If you're opinion is that former petty-bourgeois elements are the root of the degredation of class struggle, you can ban, lets say... 60% of revleft members? :rolleyes:

[Leo]

(i hope you dont mind me ignoring you're 'bulletin' story)

I couldn't care less to be honest.


Well, not the greater majority, but there are parts of the thirth world proletariat that are labor aristocrats.

According to your definition, most of the workers in the third world are in fact more labor aristocratic than the westerners because they've been oppressed and exploited so much that they think this kind of living is their "fate".


It is the extend to which this class-consciousness is able to develop beceause of the material conditions and labour benefits.

Hmm, interesting... Perhaps you&#39;ve never heard of events like the General Strike in May 68 France, Hot Autumn in Italy in 69, strikes by Miners, Postman and Nurses in England in the eighties, Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 and New York City MTA strike in 2005, 2006 Toronto Transit Commission wildcat strike in Canada, South Korean railroad strike of 2006, 2006 labour protests in France etc. etc. Oh, right, they were just greedy labor aristocrats who are unable to develop class consciousness <_<

[Zeruzo]

According to your definition, most of the workers in the third world are in fact more labor aristocratic than the westerners because they&#39;ve been oppressed and exploited so much that they think this kind of living is their "fate".


Uhm, huh?
No, you didn&#39;t get my point at all...
I&#39;m talking about workers that are payed more then usual and get all sorts of benefits to shut them up...



Hmm, interesting... Perhaps you&#39;ve never heard of events like the General Strike in May 68 France, Hot Autumn in Italy in 69, strikes by Miners, Postman and Nurses in England in the eighties, Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 and New York City MTA strike in 2005, 2006 Toronto Transit Commission wildcat strike in Canada, South Korean railroad strike of 2006, 2006 labour protests in France etc. etc. Oh, right, they were just greedy labor aristocrats who are unable to develop class consciousness dry.gif

&#39;68 were student-protests... but whatever...
I&#39;m not saying they lack class-consciousness as a whole, i&#39;m saying chances are far and far smaller they develop a revolutionary consciousness. I also never said labor aristocrats were greedy, now did i?

Edit: lets formulate this differently. See, the workers in for example the Netherlands have had struggled for years for a good minimum-wage etc... So the workers in these countries still receive the benefits, since the bourgeouisie was forced into the position of upkeeping these benefits&#33;
But the thirth world which are ex-colony&#39;s are now used by these governments to get cheap labor and to pay for the high cost of social democracy in the first world. Therefore chances that a revolution will occur in the near future in a first world country is far smaller then that of a revolution in the 3rd world.

[Leo]

&#39;68 were student-protests... but whatever...

Well, that&#39;s what Raoul Vaneigem thought of it when it first started, and he went to Southern France on holiday. You know what happened? He missed the whole gig in Paris because all the transit workers in the country were in strike.


I&#39;m talking about workers that are payed more then usual and get all sorts of benefits to shut them up...

I understand what you were trying to say but I was more focusing on what you said instead of the meaning behind it; anyway the thing is; it balances out. Workers that are payed more usually also have to pay more to eat, for rent, heating, electricity, telephone, cigarettes etc. For example best cigarettes cost about 1,25 dollars here (and Turkey is expansive compared to other countries like itself), worst cigarettes cost 3 dollars in the US. It&#39;s the same for food, rents etc.


I&#39;m not saying they lack class-consciousness as a whole, i&#39;m saying chances are far and far smaller they develop a revolutionary consciousness.

But they are not, if anything the chances are higher, but it&#39;s probably leveled. There are so many workers struggles that happen every month in every country that you&#39;d be surprised.


I also never said labor aristocrats were greedy, now did i?

You implied it when you were "talking about workers that are payed more then usual and get all sorts of benefits to shut them up" ;)

[Leo]

lets formulate this differently. See, the workers in for example the Netherlands have had struggled for years for a good minimum-wage etc... So the workers in these countries still receive the benefits, since the bourgeouisie was forced into the position of upkeeping these benefits&#33;
But the thirth world which are ex-colony&#39;s are now used by these governments to get cheap labor and to pay for the high cost of social democracy in the first world. Therefore chances that a revolution will occur in the near future in a first world country is far smaller then that of a revolution in the 3rd world.

It is not the governments but the firms which use the cheap labor and the gains of the capitalist firms never go to their own state to help them pay for the social democracy, it goes to themselves and it is their own profit. If really necessary, they give it to the state of the local country. Capital is objectively completely global.

[Zeruzo]

I understand what you were trying to say but I was more focusing on what you said instead of the meaning behind it; anyway the thing is; it balances out. Workers that are payed more usually also have to pay more to eat, for rent, heating, electricity, telephone, cigarettes etc. For example best cigarettes cost about 1,25 dollars here (and Turkey is expansive compared to other countries like itself), worst cigarettes cost 3 dollars in the US. It&#39;s the same for food, rents etc.

This would be true if there was just as good healthcare, housing etc... in Turkey, which is definetly not the case...



But they are not, if anything the chances are higher, but it&#39;s probably leveled. There are so many workers struggles that happen every month in every country that you&#39;d be surprised.

You&#39;re just stating that &#39;it is&#39;, not why &#39;it is&#39;...



You implied it when you were "talking about workers that are payed more then usual and get all sorts of benefits to shut them up" wink.gif

That says someone is content with the situation, not greedy.



It is not the governments but the firms which use the cheap labor and the gains of the capitalist firms never go to their own state to help them pay for the social democracy, it goes to themselves and it is their own profit. If really necessary, they give it to the state of the local country. Capital is objectively completely global.

But where do they sell they&#39;re products?
Right... so, they pay import and export-taxes... Most of these corporate owners also live in the first world. They evade tax a lot, but contribute partially to social democracy. And of course the labour of the thirth world laborer which gaurantees that the first world laborer has a higher wage (in combination with other benefits).

[Leo]

This would be true if there was just as good healthcare, housing etc... in Turkey, which is definetly not the case...

Have you ever even been to one of those state hospitals in Europe? In most countries, health care is somehow cowered.


You&#39;re just stating that &#39;it is&#39;, not why &#39;it is&#39;...

I am saying that there are so many workers struggles that happen every month in every country that you&#39;d be surprised and you are asking why? Ask them why they are struggling against capital&#33;


That says someone is content with the situation, not greedy.

Ah, don&#39;t play this game of semantics with me please.


But where do they sell they&#39;re products?

Everywhere.


They evade tax a lot

Emphasis added.

[Zeruzo]

Have you ever even been to one of those state hospitals in Europe? In most countries, health care is somehow cowered.

We dont have state hospitals in the Netherlands.



I am saying that there are so many workers struggles that happen every month in every country that you&#39;d be surprised and you are asking why? Ask them why they are struggling about capital&#33;

They are not consciously fighting &#39;the capital&#39; but fighting for beter working-standards, or against a law that would not be beneficial to them&#33;



Ah, don&#39;t play this game of semantics with me please.

Starting a game yourself and then complain someone else is joining in&#33;



Everywhere.

<_< MOST of they&#39;re products then...



Emphasis added.

Denying the first world proletariat is in the same condition as the thirth world proletariat is completely loose from the material reality&#33; *sigh*
This will just be a big &#39;yes it is&#39; &#39;no it isn&#39;t&#39; debate...

[Leo]

We dont have state hospitals in the Netherlands.

So no free health care then?


They are not consciously fighting &#39;the capital&#39; but fighting for beter working-standards, or against a law that would not be beneficial to them&#33;

Of course&#33; This is where communist consciousness flowers from&#33; What, did you expect them to fight capital out of their moral beliefs?


MOST of they&#39;re products then...

No seriously, everywhere. A firm that is not multi-national in its distribution can&#39;t have factories in other countries.


Denying the first world proletariat is in the same condition as the thirth world proletariat is completely loose from the material reality&#33; *sigh*
This will just be a big &#39;yes it is&#39; &#39;no it isn&#39;t&#39; debate...

The funny thing is; you&#39;re from the first world and I am from the third world. I think you&#39;ve been caught up by that whole "won&#39;t someone please think of the third world" mercy campaign. The working class is the working class everywhere, we&#39;re all wage slaves.

[Zeruzo]

So no free health care then?


Well, nobody will be denied in case of emergency&#39;s. And everybody has an insurance (except for homeless people), i myself have a so-called &#39;basic-insurence&#39; meaning that all basic things are payed for by my insurance (which costs a hell of a lot of money a month...). And all the rest will have to be payed for by you. Which is a big problem since my mother costs a lot lately beceause of her desease, and she cant work, which she used to do to get some additional income...
So, the system sucks... I agree, but people dont notice just as fast that they are exploited. I noticed really good that the U.S. (which is far poorer then the Netherlands) has far more revolutionary potential, and people realize far faster that they are exploited (except for religious nuts, which they have a lot of), why? Beceause of the material conditions...



Of course&#33; This is where communist consciousness flowers from&#33; What, did you expect them to fight capital out of their moral beliefs?

No, that is trade-union consciousness. Believing everything can be solved within a &#39;corrected&#39; capitalist state. Issue-fighting, not revolutionary fighting. A vangaurd is needed to do ideological education amongst these people and introduce them to Marx, etc... without a revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement.
Workers that strike wont just say: hey dude, i have this great idea&#33; Since we&#39;re all protesting and shit, and i figured we are all exploited and stuff, we should just kill the bourgeouisie (a un-used term in our language, except amongst communists) and make our own workers-state&#33;



No seriously, everywhere. A firm that is not multi-national in its distribution can&#39;t have factories in other countries.


Multi-national just means multiple nations. A company that works in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxemburg is thus multinational. You&#39;re not making a point here. Company&#39;s that do develop products in the 3rd world sell most of they&#39;re cheap products to people that can afford them (the first world).



The funny thing is; you&#39;re from the first world and I am from the third world. I think you&#39;ve been caught up by that whole "won&#39;t someone please think of the third world" mercy campaign. The working class is the working class everywhere, we&#39;re all wage slaves.
Agreed, we are all wage-slaves.
Disagreed that beceause you are from the thirth world you know more about it, since i&#39;ve spoken to people from the Thirth world (and from Kurdistan) and most of them agree with this Marxist-Leninist perception of the labor-aristocracy. The workers in the thirth world dont have the same rights as first world workers, to start with, they have lower wages and less benefits. Now tell me, who&#39;se more likely to rebel?

[KC]

What, did you expect them to fight capital out of their moral beliefs?

What&#39;s interesting is that this is very commonly a petty-bourgeois belief.



No, that is trade-union consciousness. Believing everything can be solved within a &#39;corrected&#39; capitalist state. Issue-fighting, not revolutionary fighting. A vangaurd is needed to do ideological education amongst these people and introduce them to Marx, etc... without a revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement.
Workers that strike wont just say: hey dude, i have this great idea&#33; Since we&#39;re all protesting and shit, and i figured we are all exploited and stuff, we should just kill the bourgeouisie (a un-used term in our language, except amongst communists) and make our own workers-state&#33;

What he was saying is that class consciousness comes from trade unionist consciousness, which is completely true and what you just described here.

[Leo]

What&#39;s interesting is that this is very commonly a petty-bourgeois belief.

Yes, sounds convenient.


What he was saying is that class consciousness comes from trade unionist consciousness, which is completely true and what you just described here.

The "procedure" that was followed in the October Revolution can be formulated like this:

Strikes => Mass Assemblies => Strike Committees => Workers Councils => Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Initially, the "specter of communism" is there every time workers struggle.

Trade unions are an undeniable part of the capitalist system, and their nature will always be serving the bourgeoisie and trying to make workers believe that everything can be solved within a &#39;corrected&#39; capitalist state. At one point, the union always sells out; this is experience gained by the working class through struggle, and communist consciousness, the independent unity and political challenge of the proletariat to the rule of the bourgeoisie replaces and ultimately destroys the trade unionist consciousness. However for individual proletarians living under a capitalist society, a union is a useful thing to join. After all, supermarkets are also capitalist institutions, but we but our food from there.

[Zeruzo]

Only the October-revolution had a vangaurd party. Thus there was no &#39;spontaneous action&#39;.

Nice article just for you: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292222788 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59728&st=0&#entry1292222788)

[Leo]

Only the October-revolution had a vangaurd party. Thus there was no &#39;spontaneous action&#39;.

It is, of course, undeniable that the Bolsheviks played a key role, but first of all, they were neither the only party nor the strongest party during the revolution. Secondly, October Revolution was the final step of a revolutionary process, which had started with the Mass Strike in 1905 and the formation of Workers Councils (Soviets). The October Revolution itself was also a taking of power organized by Workers Councils instead of the Bolshevik party.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:51 pm

Only the October-revolution had a vangaurd party. Thus there was no &#39;spontaneous action&#39;.

It is, of course, undeniable that the Bolsheviks played a key role, but first of all, they were neither the only party nor the strongest party during the revolution. Secondly, October Revolution was the final step of a revolutionary process, which had started with the Mass Strike in 1905 and the formation of Workers Councils (Soviets). The October Revolution itself was also a taking of power organized by Workers Councils instead of the Bolshevik party.
Of course there was a revolutionary process, and of course there were more party&#39;s then the bolsheviks (even though the october-revolution was mostly carried out by the bolsheviks). They might not have been the strongest (which was the socialist revolutionary party) but they were the most influential and best organized, which is why they won...

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:56 pm
I seriously have never referred to the CJB or NCPN as Kruschevite or Castroist...
Please, don't try my memory. I certainly did not forget that time when I was just new here, and entered Live Chat introducing myself as a CJB member, and you denounced us for being too "Castroite". I have no idea where the Kruschevite came from, but it's guilty on at least one count. :)


And I never said working class people are prohibited from leadership functions, I said petty-bourgeois people aren't...
No, but you stated that we are somehow "afraid" of proletarians by not putting certain restrictions on who gets to be leadership. This implies that proletarians have no power in the NCPN or CJB, which is bullshit. Looking at the CJB, I can say with 100% security that proletarians make up the majority of its leadership, as well as its general membership, and are in control of proceedings, positions, and practice. CL dogma must have convinced you that we've been hijacked by petty-bourgeois "communists", but this is not the case.


Also Matthijs, I didn't read your post because the image made the lay-out mixed up, could you please remove the image? If you don't remove it I'll have to ask a Mod because that's obviously spam.
What, are you on a resolution of 640x480 or something? My post was still readable to me. Nevertheless, I have fixed it.


EDIT: also, please lay off the insults, you're not my boss and I'm not your servant. Have some respect for working class communists.
When you stop your ridiculous slanders of our organisations. Anyway, I'm not the only one who "hasn't answered"(I'll get to that in a sec... I can't spend all my time on my computer, you know!) something: you should still inform me how it is possible for you to strive to be a "professional revolutionary" and print the Dutch CL paper, and at the same time claim to be a working class communist.

Now, if you say this, and swear that this is the truth, I have no problem with it, and I certainly do believe that we can work together with whatever Dutch section the CL founds, but if that's the case, you should stop talking shit about our organisations. It's really poor form to act like a total asshole, and then act indignified when we react(all on a forum, mind you! There are no official NCPN statements to be found in this thread!).


Anyway, Matthijs isn't petty-bourgeois at all, i was just being sarcastic. First of all he comes from the most economically deprived area in the Netherlands, East-Groningen. Although he resides in a somewhat more prosperous settlement their, doenst make him petty-bourgeois.
For the record, Haren is known as a posh and petty-bourgeois village, because of the presence of its large "villa borough", containing lots of large houses. I, however, do not live in one of them. My father is an archivist, and my mother works part-time at a school for disabled children so we can make ends meet, and even afford a bit of extra luxury like a decent computer, car, and the occasional vacation. We live in a normal, modest house, and can afford going on vacation by car every summer, rather than by plane 2 times a year, like most petty-bourgeois in the Netherlands. I am currently 17 years old, just finished school, living at home, looking for a job. I hope this establishes my class background to the point that pointless slanders about me being "petty-bourgeois" can end.


As for Matthijs being petty-bourgeois, I don't really give a shit if he is or isn't, what is clear is that he takes the side of the petty-bourgeois. He's ridiculing a proletarian for setting up a paper and spreading it around to his fellow proletarians, how more petty-bourgeois can you get!
Oh, please, you've got to be shitting me. You were the one who initiated this childish argument by smearing shit all over the NCPN and CJB. Don't whine about your proletarian self being repressed by my "petty-bourgeois"(lie) self in reaction. I only give as good as I get when it comes to these silly arguments, and class background has nothing to do with it. If anything, you are projecting your own background, and it doesn't look very good.


You know, you're really making "Shapur's" (Marxism-Leninism?) point for him. The point regarding the, well, dubious class orientation of the Party you represent ... the "New Communist Party" (NCPN).
Yes, because one guy arguing so-and-so really represents the party. :rolleyes: The rest of your post makes no sense, AS. You're taking Zeruzo's post as "evidence" that the party is PB-dominated(which it isn't), and that is therefore correct in his judgements. This could not be further from the truth. Maybe next time, you should not use statements on an internet forum by a tiny fraction of our organisation as evidence supporting claims.

You see, in our adherence to democratic centralism, we certainly do not prohibit individual members from arguing on this forum, including the usually Maoist concept of a "labour aristocracy" as opposed to an actually exploited and militant working class. So Zeruzo can argue this point all he likes, it does not represent us, or even reflect on us, because he, just like me, is in the end just another guy posting on this message board.

Maybe you'll have room to complain once the NCPN and CJB start making official statements, doused in dogmatic Maoism, denouncing the vile "labour aristocracy" in the "first world". Given the most certainly proletarian ideology of our organisations, I do not see this happening in the near future. Until this does somehow miraculously happen, your argument about the "dubious class orientation" of the NCPN isn't worth much.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:50 am
Please, don&#39;t try my memory. I certainly did not forget that time when I was just new here, and entered Live Chat introducing myself as a CJB member, and you denounced us for being too "Castroite". I have no idea where the Kruschevite came from, but it&#39;s guilty on at least one count. :)
Sorry, I don&#39;t remember that.


No, but you stated that we are somehow "afraid" of proletarians by not putting certain restrictions on who gets to be leadership. This implies that proletarians have no power in the NCPN or CJB

No it doesn&#39;t, it implies that proletarians aren&#39;t the only class allowed to hold positions of power in the party.

Look, I can&#39;t control your form of logic, that&#39;s your problem, not mine. So if it leads you down a path of conclusions that was not what was originally implied by me, that&#39;s your problem, not mine.

Now again, why aren&#39;t the proletarians the only class allowed to hold positions of power in a party who&#39;s aim it is to organize the proletariat to overthrow capitalism?


Looking at the CJB, I can say with 100% security that proletarians make up the majority of its leadership, as well as its general membership, and are in control of proceedings, positions, and practice.

Yeah, ok, first of all by Zeruzo&#39;s standards that&#39;s not true (or "bullshit" as you like to call it). Because according to him the vast majority of workers in Holland are part of the labor aristocracy.

I don&#39;t know if he&#39;s a member of the CJB or not, but I just thought I&#39;d point out a contradiction amongst your theoretical supporters.

The key word in that quote is, of course, "majority". May I ask what the class background of your secretary-general, or chairman, or whatever you call him/her is?


When you stop your ridiculous slanders of our organisations.

Are you kidding me? Either you&#39;re really easily provoked or you just get off on acting tough on the internet. I personally think it&#39;s the latter.

I really doubt you&#39;d insult me if I had said those things to you in real life, which I might do in the near future, so I suggest you stop verbally treating me like your servant and instead as a comrade, because that&#39;s how I&#39;ve been treating you and other CJB and NCPN members all along.

And if you didn&#39;t know, it was you and Roberto who "ridiculously slandered my organization" first. Yet I did not see the need to ridicule your party, or Roberto, or even you.

So once again, cut the crap, I&#39;m not your slave, you&#39;re not my superior, we&#39;re comrades, start acting like it&#33;


you should still inform me how it is possible for you to strive to be a "professional revolutionary" and print the Dutch CL paper, and at the same time claim to be a working class communist.


Eh, I don&#39;t really "strive to be a professional revolutionary", I think that&#39;s actually pretty much impossible today, unless there&#39;s a mass party you&#39;re the "leader" of.

If you&#39;d like to know what I want to do as a profession, I&#39;d like to be a novelist. Writers can be, and usually are, working class.

As for the printing, dude, I don&#39;t own a printing press, I used the printer at my local library.


Now, if you say this, and swear that this is the truth, I have no problem with it, and I certainly do believe that we can work together with whatever Dutch section the CL founds, but if that&#39;s the case, you should stop talking shit about our organisations. It&#39;s really poor form to act like a total asshole, and then act indignified when we react

Yeah, you should really cool down and light up a joint or something.

I didn&#39;t "act like a total asshole", YOU DID. As for the "slandering", well, Roberto started with that with his post to which I responded in a likewise manner. If you don&#39;t like the tone of the debate look at the person who set it, not me.


I only give as good as I get when it comes to these silly arguments, and class background has nothing to do with it.

You weren&#39;t even quoted, stop "bullshitting".


If anything, you are projecting your own background, and it doesn&#39;t look very good.


You can ask your buddies what my class background is, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll tell you I&#39;m definitely not a millionaire.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 01:28 am
Sorry, I don&#39;t remember that.
Not my problem. I do.


No it doesn&#39;t, it implies that proletarians aren&#39;t the only class allowed to hold positions of power in the party.

Look, I can&#39;t control your form of logic, that&#39;s your problem, not mine. So if it leads you down a path of conclusions that was not what was originally implied by me, that&#39;s your problem, not mine.

Now again, why aren&#39;t the proletarians the only class allowed to hold positions of power in a party who&#39;s aim it is to organize the proletariat to overthrow capitalism?

I don&#39;t see the problem. Both leadership and general membership are majority proletarian. Of all the CJB members that I know, leaders or otherwise, all of them are either confirmed proletarians, or people whom I&#39;ve never bothered to ask what they do for a living. As for the NCPN, it&#39;s more difficult, because I&#39;m not an NCPN member, but at least here in Groningen, all the NCPN comrades that I&#39;ve encountered are proletarian.


Yeah, ok, first of all by Zeruzo&#39;s standards that&#39;s not true (or "bullshit" as you like to call it). Because according to him the vast majority of workers in Holland are part of the labor aristocracy.

I don&#39;t know if he&#39;s a member of the CJB or not, but I just thought I&#39;d point out a contradiction amongst your theoretical supporters.
No matter how hard it is for you to accept this: Zeruzo is a single CJB member, who happens to argue a certain position on this message board, just like me. You happen to disagree with it. Nevertheless, this doesn&#39;t change the fact that neither of us hold positions. Neither of us have made official statements, nor are we capable of doing so. Neither of us are representative.


The key word in that quote is, of course, "majority". May I ask what the class background of your secretary-general, or chairman, or whatever you call him/her is?
I have no idea about the NCPN(to be honest, I don&#39;t even know who its chair is&#33;), but the chair of the CJB is most definitely proletarian. He lives in the city near me, and I&#39;m familiar with him on both a political and a personal level. I can assure you this, again, with 100% certainty.


Are you kidding me? Either you&#39;re really easily provoked or you just get off on acting tough on the internet. I personally think it&#39;s the latter.
Pot, kettle, black. See below.


I really doubt you&#39;d insult me if I had said those things to you in real life, which I might do in the near future
Indeed, I do not primarily rely on personal insults. I would nevertheless be happy to debate you on a comradely and equal level. However, do not pretend that you are innocent when you responded to ddxt301&#39;s claim(which was true, unless the "Communistische Bond" has gained a second member recently...) with statements like about how we supposedly only "whine about other parties", and general sarcasm about the "mass revolutionary vanguard party", which we&#39;ve never even claimed to be&#33; Looking at page 4 of this thread again, any reasonably-minded individual will have no problem at all to see that the person who provoked sectarian mud-slinging was most certainly you.

I, however, seeing myself as a reasonable person, will not constantly hold it against you, and I&#39;m perfectly willing to engage with you in a serious discussion when you cut the crap about us "whining about other parties" and the "mass revolutionary vanguard" nonsense. Until then, stop acting as if I&#39;m oppressing you or something.


so I suggest you stop verbally treating me like your servant and instead as a comrade, because that&#39;s how I&#39;ve been treating you and other CJB and NCPN members all along.
See above. I&#39;m quite willing to do so, if you are as well. I certainly do not consider you my "servant", and I&#39;m not particularly interested in your servitude, either, as I already have to deal with my own attempts to establish my servitude of a capitalist at whatever store wishes to employ me, so I can get a steady income.


And if you didn&#39;t know, it was you and Roberto who "ridiculously slandered my organization" first. Yet I did not see the need to ridicule your party, or Roberto, or even you.

So once again, cut the crap, I&#39;m not your slave, you&#39;re not my superior, we&#39;re comrades, start acting like it&#33;
Addressed above, comrade. I say this last word without any sarcasm, and I do indeed have no problem engaging you as such, and speaking in positive terms for the future of this discussion from here on in.


Eh, I don&#39;t really "strive to be a professional revolutionary", I think that&#39;s actually pretty much impossible today, unless there&#39;s a mass party you&#39;re the "leader" of.
Fair enough, you talked about wanting to be a "professional revolutionary" in an earlier thread, but since this has been many months ago, I guess you&#39;re no longer interested in this, which is quite acceptable. In all honesty, I wish my earlier posts on this board could just disappear, as I&#39;ve defended utterly bullshit positions in the past. Even very recently, there are still many things that I would change about my politics, if I could. However, I can&#39;t, so my only option is to keep trying for the future.


If you&#39;d like to know what I want to do as a profession, I&#39;d like to be a novelist. Writers can be, and usually are, working class.
Fair enough. It&#39;s certainly something that appeals to me, and something that I would like to spend time and effort on when I have some available.


As for the printing, dude, I don&#39;t own a printing press, I used the printer at my local library.
Again, fair enough, I&#39;m quite willing to take this at face value. In exchange, I would appreciate you did not incorrectly mock me as "one of the petty bourgeois members of the CJB".


Yeah, you should really cool down and light up a joint or something.
Instead of smoke, I prefer alcohol.


I didn&#39;t "act like a total asshole", YOU DID. As for the "slandering", well, Roberto started with that with his post to which I responded in a likewise manner. If you don&#39;t like the tone of the debate look at the person who set it, not me.
Opinions on this differ, see above. Nevertheless, arguing about "who started" is irrelevant at this point. Again, I&#39;m also quite willing to engage you as a comrade.


You can ask your buddies what my class background is, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll tell you I&#39;m definitely not a millionaire.
You&#39;re more accessible at this point, and I&#39;d rather talk to you, than to someone else talking about you. So I think I&#39;ll stick with that. Anyway, good for you. Neither am I. Now let&#39;s put the silly start that this discussion got off with behind us, and get serious. A mod can split this thread if he wants to, so others can continue to discuss the IWPA rift.