Teaching Poor People Middle Class Values

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Sounds like a good idea to me.


The Class-Consciousness Raiser

By PAUL TOUGH
Published: June 10, 2007

By the time Ruby Payne sat down for lunch, she had been at it for three hours straight, standing alone behind a lectern on a wide stage in a cavernous convention hall, parked between two American flags, instructing an audience of 1,400 Georgians in the hidden rules of class. No notes, no warm-up act, just Ruby, with her Midwestern-by-way-of-East-Texas drawl and her crisp white shirt, her pinstriped business suit and bright red lipstick and blow-dried blond hair, a wireless microphone hooked around her right ear. She had already explained why rich people don’t eat casseroles, why poor people hang their pictures high up on the wall, why middle-class people pretend to like people they can’t stand. She had gone through the difference between generational poverty and situational poverty and the difference between new money and old money, and she had done a riff on how middle-class people are so self-satisfied that they think everyone wants to be middle class.

It may be that the only people with abiding faith in the power of class divisions in America are the country’s few remaining Marxists and Ruby Payne. And while Payne may not believe in class struggle, per se, she does believe that there is widespread misunderstanding among the classes — and more than ever, she says, the class that bears the cost of that misunderstanding is the poor. In schools, particularly, where poor students often find themselves assigned to middle-class teachers, class cluelessness is rampant.

Your class, Payne says, determines everything: your eating habits, your speech patterns, your family relations. It is possible to move out of the class you were born into, either up or down, she says, but the transition almost always means a great disruption to your sense of self. And you can ascend the class ladder only if you are willing to sacrifice many of your relationships and most of your values — and only if you first devote yourself to careful study of the hidden rules of the class you hope to enter.

Payne’s critics say she is oversimplifying the complexities of poverty in the United States, perpetuating offensive stereotypes of irresponsible, disorganized poor people who play the TV too loud and like to solve disputes with their fists. Payne is quick to caution that her portrait is a general one. She would be “heartsick,” she said on stage, “if anyone used this information to stereotype.” But she also says that if teachers and other professionals don’t look below the surface of class — if they don’t make an effort to understand the habits and styles and traditions that persist in many poor families — they will never be able to recognize the deep obstacles that poor people, and especially poor children, often face.

Payne’s journey into class consciousness began more than 30 years ago, when she met Frank, the man who would become her husband. Ruby was raised in a middle-class Mennonite family in Ohio, while Frank grew up in extreme poverty in Goshen, Ind. As Ruby began to spend time in Frank’s impoverished neighborhood, she realized that she didn’t understand the first thing about the lives of the people who lived there — and they didn’t get her, either. Frank’s friends were appalled that Ruby didn’t know how to defend herself in a fight; Ruby was stunned that her neighbors would regularly get paid on Friday and, after a weekend of carousing, be broke by Monday.

Of course, the leftist academic establishment, who are one of the many classes of people that are as far away from the working-poor as one can get, hates her.


Payne’s work in the schools has attracted a growing chorus of criticism, mostly from academia. Although Payne says that her only goal is to help poor students, her critics claim that her work is in fact an assault on those students. By teaching them middle-class practices, critics say, she is engaging in “classism” and racism. Her work is “riddled with factual inaccuracies and harmful stereotypes,” charges Anita Bohn, an assistant professor at Illinois State University, in a paper on Payne’s work. Paul Gorski, an assistant professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, writes that Payne’s central text “consists, at the crudest level, of a stream of stereotypes and a suggestion that we address poverty and education by ‘fixing’ poor people instead of reforming classist policies and practices.” (“LeftyHenry,” a recent poster on a political blog, was less subtle in his criticism; he called Payne “the Hitler of American academics.”

Link to NY Times Artice (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10payne-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

I support this.

Poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children but poor parents don't.

How is that a bad thing?

[RedAnarchist]

(“LeftyHenry,” a recent poster on a political blog, was less subtle in his criticism; he called Payne “the Hitler of American academics.”

Is that our LeftyHenry?


What makes those "middle class" values? How do you know that working-class parents don't teach their children those values?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

that is just bullshit-- completely stereotypical.

actually as I have noticed-- bourgeois children have worse "values" than proletarian children.

children from bourgeois families have extremely bad attitudes toward children from working class backgrounds (which I noticed much when growing up-- actually bourgeois families forbid their children from going to "poor" neighborhoods because they had a phobia of it since they believe poor people are "bad" and force themselves into poverty.

and (look below)

children from working-class backgrounds usually have a different conception regarding to the value of money-- bourgeois children develop arrogance and many times their relationships with their parents are not more than a "money relation". I grew up with children from bourgeois families who enjoyed their birthday simply because their relatives would send them money in the mail. so not only was it their parents who were only regarded that way but it was their entire family.

secondly, the whole statement she is making is that they can change it-- and they can't, at least not under the bourgeois state. that is evident- people like her are just ignoring the issue at hand- and denying the need for the elimination of the bourgeois state.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

actually as I have noticed-- bourgeois children have worse "values" than proletarian children.

We're not talking about prole children but about poor children.

The kinds that live in trailer parks, housing projects and neighborhoods like Southeast DC and south Detroit.

Middle class people would be flocking to live in neighborhoods like SE DC, close to work in downtown DC and with much lower rent, if it were not for the fact that they'd have to live next to truly vile neighbors. And even worse, their children would have to get beaten up by their children in the local public schools.

In fact, the typical poor person is not someone whose company that you or anybody else would enjoy. This usually doesn't apply to poor immigrants because they weren't part of the underclass in the country they came from and therefore don't have underclass values.


bourgeois children develop arrogance and many times their relationships with their parents are not more than a "money relation".

I won't disagree with you there and I'm sure that value crosses class boundaries.

It is a money relation, but so what?


(which I noticed much when growing up-- actually bourgeois families forbid their children from going to "poor" neighborhoods because they had a phobia of it since they believe poor people are "bad" and force themselves into poverty.

Of course.

Would you send your kids to DC public schools?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 11:14 pm
We're not talking about prole children but about poor children.
Aren't the vast majority of poor children proletarian children, i.e., have working-class parents?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Aren't the vast majority of poor children proletarian children

The prole class is consisted of aviation mechanics, plumbers, truck drivers and construction workers.

The poor class is consisted of Wal-Mart greeters, drug dealers, welfare moms, or low skilled office temps.

[Jazzratt]

The prole class is consisted of aviation mechanics, plumbers, truck drivers and construction workers.

The poor class is consisted of Wal-Mart greeters, drug dealers, welfare moms, or low skilled office temps.

Trust you to use some stupid liberal class analysis. Much like the fuckwit who's talking about teaching poor people "middle class values" (complacency, submission and apathy among them I am sure).

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 05:14 pm
I won't disagree with you there and I'm sure that value crosses class boundaries.



Some prole children may be arrogant, but all the kids who have capitalist parents I have met are for the most part snobby assholes.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Middle class people would be flocking to live in neighborhoods like SE DC, close to work in downtown DC and with much lower rent, if it were not for the fact that they'd have to live next to truly vile neighbors. And even worse, their children would have to get beaten up by their children in the local public schools.


Never thought I'd agree with this guy, but some poor people do have counterproductive habits that mainly stem from (in my opinion) the sense of individuality in America.

These habits exist in all classes, but they are prevalent in poor neighborhoods. Ones that I've observed that come to mind: Littering
Trash-talking random people/starting trouble
Theft
Bigotry
Willful ignorance

I think that self respect and class consciousness will solve most of these problems.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

(complacency, submission and apathy among them I am sure).

At poor people jobs, it's routine to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.

Talk about complacency, submission and apathy.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 01, 2007 11:56 pm
Never thought I'd agree with this guy, but some poor people do have counterproductive habits that mainly stem from (in my opinion) the sense of individuality in America.


I specifically remember working at low-paying warehouse positions and office jobs during my summers while away from school and overhearing a lot of my co-workers talking about spending all of their money over the weekend.

For the guys it was on new clothes, new speakers for their car and booze.

And for the women, all of the sudden would have different hairstyles every other Monday.

They would manage to blow $300 in a single weekend.

It was pathetic.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 11:56 pm

(complacency, submission and apathy among them I am sure).

At poor people jobs, it's routine to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.

Talk about complacency, submission and apathy.

And please, no more anecdoes...just stick to the article and my comments.
Fucking hell, "poor people jobs", your self-important arrogance disgusts me.



Your class, Payne says, determines everything: your eating habits, your speech patterns, your family relations. It is possible to move out of the class you were born into, either up or down, she says, but the transition almost always means a great disruption to your sense of self. And you can ascend the class ladder only if you are willing to sacrifice many of your relationships and most of your values — and only if you first devote yourself to careful study of the hidden rules of the class you hope to enter.

Payne is incorrect there. What class determines is whether you are exploited or an exploiter. Obviously some things are determined by class - people with less money can't afford certain hobbies and so on but for the most part there are other material conditions to take into account. My speech patterns, for example, are influenced mainly by the fact I moved around a lot and by the kind of people I've heard talking (socialised with, seen on TV ect..) than by my class.

Class is important, but not for any of the reasons Payne seems to believe it is.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+November 01, 2007 07:04 pm--> (Capitalist Lawyer @ November 01, 2007 07:04 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 01, 2007 11:56 pm
Never thought I'd agree with this guy, but some poor people do have counterproductive habits that mainly stem from (in my opinion) the sense of individuality in America.


I specifically remember working at low-paying warehouse positions and office jobs during my summers while away from school and overhearing a lot of my co-workers talking about spending all of their money over the weekend.

For the guys it was on new clothes, new speakers for their car and booze.

And for the women, all of the sudden would have different hairstyles every other Monday.

They would manage to blow $300 in a single weekend.

It was pathetic. [/b]
Same thing with me at Wal-Mart.

However, you do have to admit that they are merely living the American capitalist culture of excess and living beyond one's means.

I forgot the exact figure, but close to half of this country is in credit card debt.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Fucking hell, "poor people jobs", your self-important arrogance disgusts me.

How was I being arrogant? Seriously, what do you call fast food laborer's job?

It sure isn't proletarian.


What class determines is whether you are exploited or an exploiter.

Again, you won't be hearing any disagreements from me about that definition. That's probably the starting point of what determines class.

Hopefully, we can agree that class is more than just about money and relations to the means of production.


However, you do have to admit that they are merely living the American capitalist culture of excess and living beyond one's means.

Exactly. And I think television deserves the blame here.

Television is sort of a mixed blessing for poor people, because along with its cheap entertainment comes advertisements for things you can't afford to buy, thus constantly reminding you of your place at the bottom of society.

Payne's contention, and I agree, is just the OPPOSITE. Poor people spent all their money as soon as they get it. The middle class values are in saving the money for a rainy day. (Future time orientation is what they call it.)

Poor people can't even save enough money to have a bank account, and because of this they get ripped off by paycheck cashing places.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 02, 2007 01:19 am

Fucking hell, "poor people jobs", your self-important arrogance disgusts me.

How was I being arrogant? Seriously, what do you call fast food laborer's job?

It sure isn't proletarian.

What the fuck? Yes it is. Proletarian jobs are any jobs that involve selling ones labour power to the employer. This is remedial stuff and you've been here long enough for me not to need to hold your hand through it.



Hopefully, we can agree that class is more than just about money and relations to the means of production.

Class is only relationship to the MoP. Everything else is a consequence of that.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What the fuck? Yes it is. Proletarian jobs are any jobs that involve selling ones labour power to the employer. This is remedial stuff and you've been here long enough for me not to need to hold your hand through it.

Maybe.

When I think of "proletarian" or "working-class" I think of skilled trades and people who can earn a decent living.

I just think it's strange to lump a 6-figure making investment banker employed by Merrill Lynch into a separate category from that of an owner of a Dollar Store in rural Kentucky.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Your comments prove your ignorance to this subject.

The amount of $$ earned is not what determines class, it is the modes of production which determine it. I think this is quite evident. Also, the whole "decent living; decent pay" bullshit has nothing to do with it-- but the modes of production (productive forces and means of the such production-- and the relations of this production) determine that-- (ex. the bourgeois state, its ruling class, its control of industry, etc.)-- the such factors determine class.

This had nothing to do with the type of job-- it has to do with the modes of production, and also nothing to do with your classification of "poor jobs".

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 11:14 pm


The kinds that live in trailer parks, housing projects and neighborhoods like Southeast DC and south Detroit.

Middle class people would be flocking to live in neighborhoods like SE DC, close to work in downtown DC and with much lower rent, if it were not for the fact that they'd have to live next to truly vile neighbors. And even worse, their children would have to get beaten up by their children in the local public schools.

In fact, the typical poor person is not someone whose company that you or anybody else would enjoy. This usually doesn't apply to poor immigrants because they weren't part of the underclass in the country they came from and therefore don't have underclass values.


I don't think I'd like be in your company either, you're a bloody moron. That is the only reponse worthy of your drivel. No wonder poor people beat you up.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 pm

Poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children but poor parents don't.

How is that a bad thing?
The vast majority of the petit beourgiouse americans support imperial intervention into other countries. (esp. Iraq and Afghanistan). That is hardly negotiation without violence.
Also, you're forgetting that social attitudes (negative or otherwise) are largely installed by the church, which is a non class entity. I like your insinuation that they are no 'academic working class marxists'. Way to generalise.

Pompous prick. <_<

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 02, 2007 01:32 am

What the fuck? Yes it is. Proletarian jobs are any jobs that involve selling ones labour power to the employer. This is remedial stuff and you&#39;ve been here long enough for me not to need to hold your hand through it.

Maybe.

When I think of "proletarian" or "working-class" I think of skilled trades and people who can earn a decent living.
Your bizarre class analysis is not internally consistent. I take it that you view "working class" as being above "poor"? But there are many unskilled jobs that can earn more than skilled, depending on where you live (where I am, for example I can earn more as a spot-welder [requires about a week of training] than I can as a lumberjack [a year or two&#39;s training].


I just think it&#39;s strange to lump a 6-figure making investment banker employed by Merrill Lynch into a separate category from that of an owner of a Dollar Store in rural Kentucky.

Investment bankers do not really sell labour as I understand it, don&#39;t they rather make their money through commission on investments. I would either put them as lumpenproletariat or petit-bourgeois (same as your "Dollar store" [is that anything like a Pound Shop?] owner) .

[JazzRemington]

THis isn&#39;t anything knew. Historically, people have always tried to force middle-class values onto the poor. In the mid-to-late 1800s, settlement houses were popular and the people who worked in them were mostly middle-class women (side note: the reform movements, at least in the US, were mainly driven by middle-class individuals, many times middle-class women). These women took it upon themselves to teach incoming immigrants (read: incoming poor immigrants) the standard middle-class values of hard work, thrift, and respect for authority. It was well meaning, mind you, but still elitist. Though I suspect this Payne person is just being elitist.

The problem with all of this is that it is highly elitist and paternalistic, and borders on offensive. How can people be thrifty and sacrifice if they have nothing to be thrifty with? Hell, how can someone be expected to sacrifice if they literally can&#39;t afford to? It would be akin to saying that someone who is anorexic just needs to eat more.

[Whitten]

Why is the NY times quoting random blog comments?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Your bizarre class analysis is not internally consistent. I take it that you view "working class" as being above "poor"?

Of course.

Here&#39;s a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.


Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33%: School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70062&hl=class


The amount of &#036;&#036; earned is not what determines class, it is the modes of production which determine it.

I never claimed that it did.

I&#39;m just saying that there&#39;s more to class society than just "exploiter & exploitee".


The problem with all of this is that it is highly elitist and paternalistic, and borders on offensive.

This is the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist, because of their denial of the basic differences between the middle class and the poor, and their insistence that all of the poor&#39;s problems are caused by racist and classist government policies and the failure to spend enough taxpayer money on anti-poverty programs.

The poor will never become like the rich because most (not all) of the poor are born with genetic deficiency in IQ compared to the higher classes.

Higher classes being: the working classes, the middle, upper-middle, and wealthy.

Low IQ is a much stronger predictor of being poor than high IQ is of being rich. So being smart won&#39;t make you rich.


Your bizarre class analysis is not internally consistent. I take it that you view "working class" as being above "poor"?

See above.


These women took it upon themselves to teach incoming immigrants (read: incoming poor immigrants) the standard middle-class values of hard work, thrift, and respect for authority. It was well meaning, mind you, but still elitist.

It will make living in the ghetto more tolerable. The main reason it sucks to live in the ghetto or any other poor neighborhood is that you are surrounded by rude, hostile and crime-prone people. If these "life lessons" even make a small improvement in the behavior of the lower classes, then they are worth teaching in school.

And I don&#39;t understand how teaching someone birth control and saving money is elitist.

Well, hey? Maybe it is. Somehow, the left has made the word "elite" a dirty word; akin to how conservatives made "liberal" a dirty word.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+November 03, 2007 09:59 am--> (Capitalist Lawyer &#064; November 03, 2007 09:59 am)Here&#39;s a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.

Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33%: School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict [/b]
It seems you are ignorant to what defines class in the first place.

Read my post which I posted earlier in regards to this--&#62; (see below-- as I see the need to repost my response)


Comrade Nadezhda
Your comments prove your ignorance to this subject.

The amount of &#036;&#036; earned is not what determines class, it is the modes of production which determine it. I think this is quite evident. Also, the whole "decent living; decent pay" bullshit has nothing to do with it-- but the modes of production (productive forces and means of the such production-- and the relations of this production) determine that-- (ex. the bourgeois state, its ruling class, its control of industry, etc.)-- the such factors determine class.

This had nothing to do with the type of job-- it has to do with the modes of production, and also nothing to do with your classification of "poor jobs".

Class is not defined by the type of job but the modes of production.

Ex. there is no middle class. It doesn&#39;t exist because class is not defines by the type of job but by relation to the modes of production.

Read up on this--&#62; it would do you some good to base your argument on something else instead of bourgeois arguments of "class".

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:59 pm


It will make living in the ghetto more tolerable. The main reason it sucks to live in the ghetto or any other poor neighborhood is that you are surrounded by rude, hostile and crime-prone people.
...and why do you think they are rude and hostile?

Jees, you cant see the woods for the trees, can you? <_<

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 03, 2007 03:26 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 03, 2007 03:26 pm)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 09:59 am
Here&#39;s a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.

Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33%: School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict
It seems you are ignorant to what defines class in the first place.

Read my post which I posted earlier in regards to this--&#62; (see below-- as I see the need to repost my response)


Comrade Nadezhda
Your comments prove your ignorance to this subject.

The amount of &#036;&#036; earned is not what determines class, it is the modes of production which determine it. I think this is quite evident. Also, the whole "decent living; decent pay" bullshit has nothing to do with it-- but the modes of production (productive forces and means of the such production-- and the relations of this production) determine that-- (ex. the bourgeois state, its ruling class, its control of industry, etc.)-- the such factors determine class.

This had nothing to do with the type of job-- it has to do with the modes of production, and also nothing to do with your classification of "poor jobs".

Class is not defined by the type of job but the modes of production.

Ex. there is no middle class. It doesn&#39;t exist because class is not defines by the type of job but by relation to the modes of production.

Read up on this--&#62; it would do you some good to base your argument on something else instead of bourgeois arguments of "class". [/b]
I&#39;m surprised your upper middle class is so large. I thought the population would be concentrated round the &#39;truck driver&#39; and &#39;walmart&#39; employee category.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 11:05 am
I&#39;m surprised your upper middle class is so large. I thought the population would be concentrated round the &#39;truck driver&#39; and &#39;walmart&#39; employee category.
Capitalist Lawyer seems to misunderstand what determines class, otherwise wouldn&#39;t have posted that in the first place.

If class relations were properly understood, Capitalist Lawyer would realize that class isn&#39;t determined by wages or &#036;&#036;&#036; but by the modes of production-- therefore there is not a "middle class" or "upper middle class" these are not separate classes to be considered a "different category" since the modes of production are what determine class, not wages, &#036;&#036;&#036; made, etc.-- it is simply the relation to the modes of production.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:59 pm

Your bizarre class analysis is not internally consistent. I take it that you view "working class" as being above "poor"?

Of course.

Here&#39;s a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.


Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33%: School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict
There is no rhyme or reason to that particular chart - especially as it puts teachers, of all people, in the middle class.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 03, 2007 01:47 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; November 03, 2007 01:47 pm)
Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:59 pm

Your bizarre class analysis is not internally consistent. I take it that you view "working class" as being above "poor"?

Of course.

Here&#39;s a good synthesis from the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, by Paul Fussell.


Top

Out-of-sight 0.5%: Philanthropist, Billionaire CEO

Upper middle 7.5%: BIGLAW Lawyer

Middle

Middle: 33%: School teacher, Accountant

Working Class

High-Prole 30%: Aviation mechanic

Mid-prole 15%: Truck driver

Low-prole 5%: Walmart

Destitute Underclass

Low 8%: Welfare Receipient, minimum wage worker

Bottom

Out-of-sight 1%: Convict
There is no rhyme or reason to that particular chart - especially as it puts teachers, of all people, in the middle class. [/b]
it shows Capitalist Lawyer doesn&#39;t have an understanding for what determines class in the first place-- the representation of "classes" in the chart is idiotic. the way Capitalist Lawyer defines "poor" , "working class" , "middle class" and "upper middle" shows his lack of understanding for class relations.

it is not determined by wages and &#036;&#036;&#036; but the relation to the modes of production.

therefore--

there are no such thing as "poor jobs" or "middle class jobs" by any means-- such an argument is simply idiotic

also-- how can it be said there is a class of "convicts" ?? :blink: convicts aren&#39;t part of a separate class.

and wtf is with Capitalist Lawyer&#39;s definition of "underclass"?? :wacko: that is just fucked up-- minimum wage workers are proletarian :blink: and the whole sub-class thing is fucked up too-- wtf is the difference-- low prole - mid prole - high prole?? wtf- they are all part of the same class with their relation to the modes of production :blink: and the whole middle class thing proves Capitalist Lawyer&#39;s ignorance toward class relations in the first place <_<

[Dr Mindbender]

hmmm. If only posting stupid bullshit was a bannable offence.

[JazzRemington]

This is the reason why I&#39;m not a leftist, because of their denial of the basic differences between the middle class and the poor, and their insistence that all of the poor&#39;s problems are caused by racist and classist government policies and the failure to spend enough taxpayer money on anti-poverty programs.

Who said there weren&#39;t differences between middle and poor classes? I&#39;m a fucking sociologist and I&#39;ve written papers on the goddamn subject.

But yes, minorities aren&#39;t being discriminated against. Several decades of sociological research says otherwise.


The poor will never become like the rich because most (not all) of the poor are born with genetic deficiency in IQ compared to the higher classes.

IQ is not determined by biology. While the size of the brain stem correlates with IQ levels, there is no clear cause and effect relationship.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:32 pm

The poor will never become like the rich because most (not all) of the poor are born with genetic deficiency in IQ compared to the higher classes.
IQ is not determined by biology. While the size of the brain stem correlates with IQ levels, there is no clear cause and effect relationship.
Yes, and it doesn&#39;t determine class either-- and whether or not someone is "poor" doesn&#39;t necessarily have a relation to their IQ.

"Poor" isn&#39;t even a distinct class; class relations and classes themselves are not determined by wages, type of job, etc it is determined by the relation to the modes of production. Therefore, someone&#39;s IQ doesn&#39;t determine their class, the modes of production do, as there is no separate distinction of "poor people" from that of the working class. Also, education doesn&#39;t determine someone&#39;s IQ (i.e. intelligence is not determined by the amount of knowledge someone has as a result of education but their capacity for knowledge.) Ex. someone&#39;s IQ isn&#39;t raised through being educated, therefore education and IQ don&#39;t have a general correlation.

A statement that claims "most "poor" people have low IQs" is incorrect as class is not even determined by a certain type of work in regards to a job but it is determined by the relation to the modes of production. making such a statement of generalization is simply being ignorant to the fact that the conditions causing the existence of classes in the first place. the modes of production have nothing to do with IQ- this is a relation which exists in capitalist society and under the bourgeois state.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

it is not determined by wages and &#036;&#036;&#036; but the relation to the modes of production.

I never claimed otherwise, but it&#39;s obvious to most people that if a college professor and a UPS truck driver earn the same salary (and there are many college professors who earn less than the unionized UPS drivers), the college professor still has more class.

Jobs in engineering and computer programming are lower class white collar jobs compared to journalism or museum curating, even though the former jobs pay better. It&#39;s easier to earn a six figure salary as a computer programmer than it is as a lawyer, but the lawyer has a higher class job.

If a construction worker with a police record and has "fathered" three kids with three different women wins the lottery, or if a lawyer making 6 figures and also shares the same characteristics I listed above, they still have no class.


Therefore, someone&#39;s IQ doesn&#39;t determine their class

I’ve never stated anywhere that 100% of class differences are the result of genes or IQ. Just the opposite, I’ve said extensively about class and the benefits of being born to a higher social class. I also hold the belief about the winner-takes-all economy which causes some lucky people to become fabulously wealthy even though they don’t contribute any more to the economy than their less wealthy peers.

If you meant to say that genes are the "deciding factor" when it comes to how one scores on the SAT, then I’d agree wholeheartedly. The SAT is primarily a test of intelligence, and according to the research, intelligence is approximately 70% to 80% genetic. (I also suspect that most of the other 20% to 30% is related to random development of the brain and not to any identifiable macro-environmental factors.)

IQ is primarily genetic.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
IQ is primarily genetic.

No it is not. Since you refuse to understand the complexity of human beings (either through willful intent or refusal to understand the objective facts), here are a few passages from an abstract from a recently released study about a newly discovered gene found only in breast milk that has a positive effect on IQ:


"Our findings support the idea that the nutritional content of breast milk accounts for the differences seen in human IQ," said Terrie Moffitt, a professor of psychological and brain sciences in Duke University&#39;s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, in a release. "But it&#39;s not a simple all-or-none connection: it depends to some extent on the genetic makeup of each infant."

The report finds that the difference in the children&#39;s ability to metabolize fatty acids, which is genetically determined, decides how breastfeeding will affect them from a cognitive perspective.

Basically, it is the genes of the baby (which are more or less determined randomly from what is given by the parents) that determine how this particular gene will affect the baby&#39;s IQ. But, as we shall see:


“The argument about intelligence has been about nature versus nurture for at least a century. We’re finding that nature and nurture work together.”

Thus, if it isn&#39;t for the environment, this gene cannot be exploited. Nature provides the "broad stroke" and nurture provides the "fine details," for lack of a better analogy.


About 90 per cent of the population have the “C” version of the FADS2 gene, so most babies could potentially benefit from breastfeeding in terms of a raised IQ.

Seems that the majority of babies have this gene. I wonder, then, could keep this population from exploiting this gene?

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3132481.ece

(note: a few hours earlier, when teh info was first released, I was able to find the abstract of the study easily. Since then, I cannot find the abstract. But the quoted text taken from the above article is from the abstract itself.)

Basically: you are wrong.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 03, 2007 11:00 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 03, 2007 11:00 am)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 02:59 pm


It will make living in the ghetto more tolerable. The main reason it sucks to live in the ghetto or any other poor neighborhood is that you are surrounded by rude, hostile and crime-prone people.
...and why do you think they are rude and hostile?

Jees, you cant see the woods for the trees, can you? <_< [/b]
I live in the ghetto, and some of my neighbors can be rude and hostile.


CL
IQ is primarily genetic.
UMMmmm... source?

[RGacky3]

Saying "So and So has class", is completely different than Class in the Marxist or Socialist sense. Saying "so and so has class" is just a way of saying someone acts a certain way that some people consider favorable, I think its complete bull.

Many people will look at a working class man getting drunk in a bar and say "that guy has no class," but will probably not say the same thing about a rich married busienss with children man snorting lines of cocaine and banging hookers on a business trip.

Back to the topic, trying to mix the social behavioral notion of class, i.e. the popular saying of so and so has class with the social-economic notion of class is rediculous.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Many people will look at a working class man getting drunk in a bar and say "that guy has no class," but will probably not say the same thing about a rich married busienss with children man snorting lines of cocaine and banging hookers on a business trip.

Successful salesmen have money, but they don’t have class. The salesman’s lack of class should be evident from the fact that parents send their children off to college so they can become doctors, lawyers, business executives, maybe even scientists, but you never hear of someone going off to college to become a salesman. This is despite the fact that a significant percentage of people in the top 10% of incomes are indeed salesmen.

(Another reason why you won&#39;t hear me defending or giving a crap about the upper 10%. I am a middle-class reactionary, as you would call it.)

And I think you&#39;re concluding that being "higher class" automatically equates to being a "good person".


I live in the ghetto, and some of my neighbors can be rude and hostile.

That can occur in any neighborhood but at least in a middle class neighborhood, you won&#39;t ever have to worry about them breaking down your door or tagging your house with graffiti.

In upper class neighborhoods, you don&#39;t even talk to your neighbors.


Saying "So and So has class", is completely different than Class in the Marxist or Socialist sense.

Yeah, I know...but there are other ways to think about the world besides through the lenses of a Marxist.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+November 06, 2007 06:51 pm--> (JazzRemington @ November 06, 2007 06:51 pm)
Capitalist Lawyer
IQ is primarily genetic.

No it is not. Since you refuse to understand the complexity of human beings (either through willful intent or refusal to understand the objective facts), here are a few passages from an abstract from a recently released study about a newly discovered gene found only in breast milk that has a positive effect on IQ:
[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Tra..._Adoption_Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/4978/223

Discovery of actual genes associated with intelligence (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7D71439F936A35752C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=al)

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+November 06, 2007 07:16 pm--> (Capitalist Lawyer &#064; November 06, 2007 07:16 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:51 pm

Capitalist Lawyer
IQ is primarily genetic.

No it is not. Since you refuse to understand the complexity of human beings (either through willful intent or refusal to understand the objective facts), here are a few passages from an abstract from a recently released study about a newly discovered gene found only in breast milk that has a positive effect on IQ:

(links posted)[/b]
Of course, it&#39;s easy to ignore the rest of the post, seeing as it pretty much invalidates the entire research you&#39;ve presented (which is close to 30 years old). And you apparently cannot read (either that or you are so lost in your worthless, wrong, and outdated ideology that you cannot understand the concept that you are wrong). So, I&#39;m going to put in BOLD the parts that you seemed to miss.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7D71439F936A35752C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=al
"The finding is true only on average and cannot be used to assess an individual&#39;s intelligence, said Dr. Paul M. Thompson, the leader of the research team and a pioneer in mapping the structure of the brain. [...] Dr. Plomin, who wrote a commentary on the study in the journal, said the larger volume of gray matter could be the cause of higher intelligence, or it could be the other way around -- people with a stronger motivation, say, might exercise their brains harder and develop a higher density of neurons. [...]The size of gray matter in the frontal lobes cannot be used to measure an individual&#39;s intelligence, he said. Some potential uses, such as scanning to compare the intelligence of different groups, would be unethical, he added. &#39;&#39;It would be remiss to use technology developed for disease for those types of goals,&#39;&#39; he said."


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/4978/223
Even though the study was published in 1970s, and that the information I provided in my previous post proves much of it wrong, there is this little tidbit: "This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
OK, but there are a few problems:

"As Scarr & Weinberg (1976) note, transracial adoption studies only control for family environment, not social environment. For example, children who are socially identified as Black may still be subject to racial discrimination despite being raised by White parents. Yet, it was previously known that adoption into upper-middle class White families has a positive influence on the IQ and school performance of White children."

Basically, if a person identifies himself as a different race, he or she would possibly face discrimination and also suffer similarly on tests. Also: what about the economic standing of the family? If they are poor, they probably don&#39;t have the resources to help their child develop.

You are still wrong.

My only regret is that I didn&#39;t keep a psychology text book so I can further prove you wrong.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, I know...but there are other ways to think about the world besides through the lenses of a Marxist.

Yeah but the way your talking about it, is really irrelivent to this website, its like discusing the rock and roll look and dress style on a music production and theory forum.

[Dean]

Are we really going to be this permissive of racism? It&#39;s not like this is some kind of humble inquiry - Captialist Lawyer is pretty much directly saying that black people are prone to violence and idiocy - a disgusting, inexcusable argument.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:48 pm
Are we really going to be this permissive of racism? It&#39;s not like this is some kind of humble inquiry - Captialist Lawyer is pretty much directly saying that black people are prone to violence and idiocy - a disgusting, inexcusable argument.
I&#39;m not usually a defender of CL, but where did he mention black people? From all of his posts he&#39;s talking about low-income people who live in the inner-city.

Not all blacks are poor and live in the ghetto.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 pm


I support this.

Poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can&#39;t afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children but poor parents don&#39;t.

How is that a bad thing?
Its not a bad thing to teach people how to carry theirsevlves in a dignified matter.

But youre a fucking asshole because poor people DO teach their children those values, and if their minorities their even told to not draw themself attention in the store or stand to close in line.

Middle class people....especially white ones ...their kids act like little fucking savages in restaurants and stores ALOT.
And I am not saying it because its an attack on middle class white people, its sociology. And I worked in the service industry in one of the tourist capitals of the world alot of my life so I seen millions of different people.
Little middle class white kids from all over the world ( England Brazil Mexico France) and yes there are colored and whites all over the world and the class disctinction is ALWAYS the same...you got brown mexicans in real life exploited in agriculture and only white mexicans on Univision)) anyway middle class white kids the world over throw a fit in the store and do you know what their self absored asshole parents do?

NOTHING. They ignore it. Like "fuck you, what do you want me to do about it Im just his uh....mom" when you give her a look. They ignore it, why?&#33; Because their kids will scuceed reguardless of character unless his little ass gets on meth.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 02, 2007 01:32 am

What the fuck? Yes it is. Proletarian jobs are any jobs that involve selling ones labour power to the employer. This is remedial stuff and you&#39;ve been here long enough for me not to need to hold your hand through it.

Maybe.

When I think of "proletarian" or "working-class" I think of skilled trades and people who can earn a decent living.

I just think it&#39;s strange to lump a 6-figure making investment banker employed by Merrill Lynch into a separate category from that of an owner of a Dollar Store in rural Kentucky.
You can invent whatever system of deciding class you want. But under the Marxist definition, fast food workers, labourers and so on are proletarians (unskilled workers who have nothing but their own labour to sell). Mechanics and other skilled workers are not proletarians, but skilled workers, and in some countries, in some periods, would be labelled a labour aristocracy.

What you call the underclass we would call lumpenproletariat. This would be criminals and parasitic wasters, but not for example a homemaker on social assistance - for raising children is surely productive work.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You are still wrong.

Nobody here would disagree with the ScienceMag quote. Thanks for the strawman: the point is that (in case you&#39;re too stupid to notice) smart people are often hardworking also. "Forrest Gump," with his IQ of 70, can study 18 hours a day and will still not get into Yale, because there are hundreds of guys like Stone Phillips (Yale graduate, probably IQ 120 at the very least) who will kick his butt.

And as to discrimination and stereotype threat, the burden is on YOU to prove that they "invalidate" dozens of IQ measurements taken around the world over many decades, and that "stereotype threat" is more significant than a 15 point IQ difference.

As a counterexample of stereotype threat, the NBA is about 80% black, but that doesn&#39;t seem to bother Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. I don&#39;t play in the NBA, but that&#39;s because I&#39;m weak, slow, and uncoordinated, not because I&#39;m afraid to be a "minority" or face "stereotype threat."

I feel cheapened ever replying to your drivel.


You can invent whatever system of deciding class you want. But under the Marxist definition, fast food workers, labourers and so on are proletarians (unskilled workers who have nothing but their own labour to sell). Mechanics and other skilled workers are not proletarians, but skilled workers, and in some countries, in some periods, would be labelled a labour aristocracy.

Ok fine, let&#39;s continue talking more about social class and less on economic class.


What you call the underclass we would call lumpenproletariat. This would be criminals and parasitic wasters, but not for example a homemaker on social assistance - for raising children is surely productive work.

So is administering birth control.


Middle class people....especially white ones ...their kids act like little fucking savages in restaurants and stores ALOT.

How do you know that they were middle-class and not prole families?

Did their badges identify them as "middle-class"?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11, 2007 01:54 pm


How do you know that they were middle-class and not prole families?

Did their badges identify them as "middle-class"?
Their designer labels and expensive attire is often a giveaway. <_<

also, middle class kids are more enclined through habit to throw &#39;&#39;I want&#33; I want&#33;&#39;&#39; tantrums whenever their parents drag them past expensive toys in the shops. Prole kids are not used to such extravagancies therefore know not to expect.

[JazzRemington]

Nobody here would disagree with the ScienceMag quote. Thanks for the strawman: the point is that (in case you&#39;re too stupid to notice) smart people are often hardworking also. "Forrest Gump," with his IQ of 70, can study 18 hours a day and will still not get into Yale, because there are hundreds of guys like Stone Phillips (Yale graduate, probably IQ 120 at the very least) who will kick his butt.

OK, and how did this Stone Phillips get so intelligent? Studying will generally lead to higher IQ (in the vague definition of the term), so if "Gump" actually studied odds are he could probably be as intelligent as Phillips. Research done by cognitive psychologists in learning seems to support it. But remember: even Gump went to college, then the military, then he ran a successful shrimping company, and even met several presidents. Oh the draw backs of a low IQ :rolleyes:


And as to discrimination and stereotype threat, the burden is on YOU to prove that they "invalidate" dozens of IQ measurements taken around the world over many decades, and that "stereotype threat" is more significant than a 15 point IQ difference.

Talk to Scarr & Weinberg. All they said that the data could be interpreted to mean also that people who identify themselves as black would have similar scores as those blacks measured in teh study.


As a counterexample of stereotype threat, the NBA is about 80% black, but that doesn&#39;t seem to bother Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. I don&#39;t play in the NBA, but that&#39;s because I&#39;m weak, slow, and uncoordinated, not because I&#39;m afraid to be a "minority" or face "stereotype threat."

That&#39;s because 1) we aren&#39;t talking about you and 2) we aren&#39;t talking about the NBA, where players constantly get specialized and very well research training and constant encouragement. Being positively encouraged (and not being negatively encouraged, such as being discriminated against) always leads to greater results. It&#39;s the foundation of pretty much any sports training program, as well as any learning programing in general.

[Red Terror Doctor]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 10:36 pm
Sounds like a good idea to me.


The Class-Consciousness Raiser

By PAUL TOUGH
Published: June 10, 2007

By the time Ruby Payne sat down for lunch, she had been at it for three hours straight, standing alone behind a lectern on a wide stage in a cavernous convention hall, parked between two American flags, instructing an audience of 1,400 Georgians in the hidden rules of class. No notes, no warm-up act, just Ruby, with her Midwestern-by-way-of-East-Texas drawl and her crisp white shirt, her pinstriped business suit and bright red lipstick and blow-dried blond hair, a wireless microphone hooked around her right ear. She had already explained why rich people don’t eat casseroles, why poor people hang their pictures high up on the wall, why middle-class people pretend to like people they can’t stand. She had gone through the difference between generational poverty and situational poverty and the difference between new money and old money, and she had done a riff on how middle-class people are so self-satisfied that they think everyone wants to be middle class.

It may be that the only people with abiding faith in the power of class divisions in America are the country’s few remaining Marxists and Ruby Payne. And while Payne may not believe in class struggle, per se, she does believe that there is widespread misunderstanding among the classes — and more than ever, she says, the class that bears the cost of that misunderstanding is the poor. In schools, particularly, where poor students often find themselves assigned to middle-class teachers, class cluelessness is rampant.

Your class, Payne says, determines everything: your eating habits, your speech patterns, your family relations. It is possible to move out of the class you were born into, either up or down, she says, but the transition almost always means a great disruption to your sense of self. And you can ascend the class ladder only if you are willing to sacrifice many of your relationships and most of your values — and only if you first devote yourself to careful study of the hidden rules of the class you hope to enter.

Payne’s critics say she is oversimplifying the complexities of poverty in the United States, perpetuating offensive stereotypes of irresponsible, disorganized poor people who play the TV too loud and like to solve disputes with their fists. Payne is quick to caution that her portrait is a general one. She would be “heartsick,” she said on stage, “if anyone used this information to stereotype.” But she also says that if teachers and other professionals don’t look below the surface of class — if they don’t make an effort to understand the habits and styles and traditions that persist in many poor families — they will never be able to recognize the deep obstacles that poor people, and especially poor children, often face.

Payne’s journey into class consciousness began more than 30 years ago, when she met Frank, the man who would become her husband. Ruby was raised in a middle-class Mennonite family in Ohio, while Frank grew up in extreme poverty in Goshen, Ind. As Ruby began to spend time in Frank’s impoverished neighborhood, she realized that she didn’t understand the first thing about the lives of the people who lived there — and they didn’t get her, either. Frank’s friends were appalled that Ruby didn’t know how to defend herself in a fight; Ruby was stunned that her neighbors would regularly get paid on Friday and, after a weekend of carousing, be broke by Monday.

Of course, the leftist academic establishment, who are one of the many classes of people that are as far away from the working-poor as one can get, hates her.


Payne’s work in the schools has attracted a growing chorus of criticism, mostly from academia. Although Payne says that her only goal is to help poor students, her critics claim that her work is in fact an assault on those students. By teaching them middle-class practices, critics say, she is engaging in “classism” and racism. Her work is “riddled with factual inaccuracies and harmful stereotypes,” charges Anita Bohn, an assistant professor at Illinois State University, in a paper on Payne’s work. Paul Gorski, an assistant professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, writes that Payne’s central text “consists, at the crudest level, of a stream of stereotypes and a suggestion that we address poverty and education by ‘fixing’ poor people instead of reforming classist policies and practices.” (“LeftyHenry,” a recent poster on a political blog, was less subtle in his criticism; he called Payne “the Hitler of American academics.”

Link to NY Times Artice (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10payne-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

I support this.

Poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can&#39;t afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children but poor parents don&#39;t.

How is that a bad thing?
This only teaching kids all kinds of passivity and absurdity. Obey the law, you say?

Whose law??? Bourgeois law??? Give me a break&#33;&#33;

[Comrade Nadezhda]

This only teaching kids all kinds of passivity and absurdity. Obey the law, you say?

Whose law??? Bourgeois law??? Give me a break&#33;&#33;
exactly, to accept repression by the bourgeois state&#39;s sickening police force :blink:

anyone who argues that obviously doesn&#39;t understand the absurdity of such a suggestion in the first place :ph34r:

Capitalist Lawyer-
if what you suggest is for proletarians to continue living under the conditions existent and "obey the law" of the bourgeois state -which ultimately implies that they shouldn&#39;t form resistance against it or make attempts towards society without exploitation of their own class that is simply absurd, it is a bourgeois democracy for fuck sake- so it is "ok" for the bourgeois ruling class to use coercive force against proletarians but it&#39;s not okay for the proletariat to form movement against it? :huh: so proletarians should be excluded from democracy? because that is ultimately what you are suggesting with such a statement :ph34r:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

if what you suggest is for proletarians to continue living under the conditions existent and "obey the law" of the bourgeois state

The law is meant to protect the rights of individuals.

Are laws against murder or theft oppressive? You don&#39;t want a state that protects everybody&#39;s rights?


for the bourgeois ruling class to use coercive force against proletarians but it&#39;s not okay for the proletariat to form movement against it?

Why would they want to? They seem to benefit from the status quo, even moreso than the bourgeois.

Or are you only talking about the "lowest of the low"? Yeah, well...some people just don&#39;t have the talent nor are they genetically endowed, and it&#39;s unfortunate.


This only teaching kids all kinds of passivity and absurdity. Obey the law, you say?

Don&#39;t be so cynical.

We&#39;re talking about not beating people up or shooting at them. Not acting like a complete dumbass in school. Breaking into your neighbors&#39; homes and stealing from them. Talking like a friggin low life, etc...

Good grief&#33;

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)
The law is meant to protect the rights of individuals.

Are laws against murder or theft oppressive? You don&#39;t want a state that protects everybody&#39;s rights? [/b]
Explain why the police respond to communist or anti-fascist demonstrations with such gusto (approximately 2 minutes flat) yet when my friend got beat up it took them approximately 2 hours to respond? It clearly shows that the onus is on protecting the interests of business over the interests of individuals.
Also every anti-fa march Ive been on, the police have been walking side by side with the fascists against us.
No no, we&#39;ve no illusions round here whose side they are on.


Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected]


Why would they want to? They seem to benefit from the status quo, even moreso than the bourgeois.
Whisky tango foxtrot over? :blink:

Yep, try saying that to old trampy as he swigs from his bottle of spirits on the park bench.

Capitalist Lawyer

Or are you only talking about the "lowest of the low"? Yeah, well...some people just don&#39;t have the talent nor are they genetically endowed, and it&#39;s unfortunate.

You almost had us convinced that success in capitalism was down to nothing else than you know, &#39;hard work&#39; and a &#39;little can-do attitude&#33;&#39;
&#39;Genetics&#39; shouldnt even enter into it if thats your argument. <_< :P

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Explain why the police respond to communist or anti-fascist demonstrations with such gusto (approximately 2 minutes flat) yet when my friend got beat up it took them approximately 2 hours to respond? It clearly shows that the onus is on protecting the interests of business over the interests of individuals.
Also every anti-fa march Ive been on, the police have been walking side by side with the fascists against us.
No no, we&#39;ve no illusions round here whose side they are on.

Then call your local ACLU chapter and they&#39;ll represent if you if you decide to take suit against those that violated your rights to peacefully assemble.


Yep, try saying that to old trampy as he swigs from his bottle of spirits on the park bench.

Since there aren&#39;t many vast revolts occuring, I&#39;d say the status quo (or the enforcement of bourgeois law) is working well for the majority of people.

Or are they just brainwashed automatons and you&#39;re just so damn smart?


You almost had us convinced that success in capitalism was down to nothing else than you know, &#39;hard work&#39; and a &#39;little can-do attitude&#33;&#39;

Well, you ain&#39;t gonna get anywhere by doing the opposite. Unless of course, you were born into wealth or were just incredibly lucky (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/technology/12google.html).

I respect people who opt out of the rat race and havent&#39; been brainwashed by "conventional wisdom" that everybody has to have a great paying career, a wife, or a family (maybe a dog) otherwise they&#39;re a loser.

Even if you want a "simple nest egg", you do have to work for it. Maybe not so hard, but work none the less.


&#39;Genetics&#39; shouldnt even enter into it if thats your argument.

Gene Affecting Intelligence (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blog s)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

[Dros]

The typical poor person is not someone whose company that you or anybody else would enjoy.

Go fuck yourself. You are a classist asshole that doesn&#39;t understand the notion of class, or much else. On top of that your a classist bigot.

Maybe Stalin&#39;s killings had a point after all...

[JazzRemington]

Gene Affecting Intelligence (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blog s)


For instance, researchers have found that most Europeans have a genetic variant that lets them fully digest milk as adults. The variant is much less common in Africa and Asia, where lactose intolerance is widespread. Scientists theorize that it spread quickly among Europeans because drinking milk from domesticated dairy animals conferred a nutritional advantage. Similar evolutionary reasoning may explain why many people in malaria-prone parts of Africa carry gene variants linked to malaria resistance."

Changes in environment causes changes in one&#39;s genes. For example, teh harsher the environment the taller the people. This is why Africans are so tall compared to the rest of the world and why Asians as short. No one is disputing that genes affect one&#39;s physical characteristics but the environment is what changes the genes. If you move Africans to Asia, and have them live there for hundreds of thousands of years, the odds are that they will become shorter over time because the environment doesn&#39;t demand them to be tall.

You seem to be throwing a shit fit over the 1% difference...despite the fact that humans are more or less 99% genetically similar, as admitted in the below article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.

Hmmm, I wonder what they mean by long-discredited racial prejudices.


No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors.

I think you may have missed this. You know, the part about Africans possibly being more intelligent than other races. But I wonder what your friends who studied the intelligence differences between blacks and other groups would say about such a thing&#33;


Dr. Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he said he wanted to create “ready response teams” of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective.

I think you missed this too. There may be a link between genes and behavior and they&#39;re might not be. There is no enough evidence to make such a claim. Period.


“I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”

I think you missed this also.

It seems that you&#39;re just googling and posting whatever link comes up without reading it. You do know how to read, don&#39;t you? But what about the study published about a week ago that said that most babies are born with a particular gene that is linked to high IQ? If most people have this gene, and only a minority are considered geniuses, then what could be the cause of such high IQs?

Oh, and by the way, research in expertise seems to suggest that there is no such thing as natural talent. A cognitive psychologist named B.S. Bloom, in 1985, studied how athletes practiced their particular sports and found that the ones that were considered to be highly skilled and talented merely practiced more often and in certain, efficient ways. Thus it is not that these people were naturally talented in, say, basketball. It is more like they practiced certain ways.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13, 2007 01:16 am

if what you suggest is for proletarians to continue living under the conditions existent and "obey the law" of the bourgeois state

The law is meant to protect the rights of individuals.
What if an individual wants to light up a joint, the law is encroaching on that individuals rights.


Are laws against murder or theft oppressive? You don&#39;t want a state that protects everybody&#39;s rights?

It does not follow that because some laws protect rights (laws against murder, rape, theft, arson and so on) that all laws do.


Why would they want to? They seem to benefit from the status quo, even moreso than the bourgeois.

Have you ever visited the planet earth before?


Or are you only talking about the "lowest of the low"? Yeah, well...some people just don&#39;t have the talent nor are they genetically endowed, and it&#39;s unfortunate.

It&#39;s not just the lowest of the low and people lacking in talent or genetic endowment that are being screwed over you pompous fuckwit.

[pusher robot]

It does not follow that because some laws protect rights (laws against murder, rape, theft, arson and so on) that all laws do.

You are correct, of course, but I think his point was rather that simply because some laws are contrary to the actual interests of the general public, doesn&#39;t mean that ALL of them are, or indeed, that the most important ones are.

Is dissatisfaction with drug regulation sufficient reason to reject the application of murder laws? I wouldn&#39;t think so.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by capitalist lawyer+--> (capitalist lawyer)Then call your local ACLU chapter and they&#39;ll represent if you if you decide to take suit against those that violated your rights to peacefully assemble.[/b]
This WAS&#39;NT an isolated occasion, everytime a left wing group assemble, the police are their to quash it, whenever the fash assemble 2 or 3 of them might stand by the sidelines with their arms crossed and do fuck all.
My point was, that for a long, long, long, long time a precendence has been established that the role of the police is to protect business, and to a lesser extent the ability of fascists to assemble without meeting hostile interference. This goes way back to 1920&#39;s Germany when Hitler got a slap on the wrist for instigating the bloodbath that was the Munich Putsch.

As for the ACLU I&#39;ve never heard of them. I&#39;m guessing they&#39;re a US institution and I dont live within the US jurisdiction. The world is bigger than America, you know.

Originally posted by capitalist [email protected]

Since there aren&#39;t many vast revolts occuring, I&#39;d say the status quo (or the enforcement of bourgeois law) is working well for the majority of people.

Or are they just brainwashed automatons and you&#39;re just so damn smart?
Or maybe it just shows that the establishment have been effective at preserving the material and social conditioning which stop mass revolts from happening?

Especially in the US where people are indoctrinated from the cradle about the &#39;evils of communism&#39;.

Capitalist lawyer

I respect people who opt out of the rat race and havent&#39; been brainwashed by "conventional wisdom" that everybody has to have a great paying career, a wife, or a family (maybe a dog) otherwise they&#39;re a loser.

Even if you want a "simple nest egg", you do have to work for it. Maybe not so hard, but work none the less.


&#39;Genetics&#39; shouldnt even enter into it if thats your argument.

Gene Affecting Intelligence (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blog s)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

So you now judge success by intelligence rather than wealth accumulated? What sort of Capitalist are you?

Also, intelligence does not guarantee entrance to the upper enchelons of society and social power. Plenty of people who are possibly more intelligent as the donald trumps and bill gates have nowhere near as much influence.

I give you Exhibit A.
http://www.jx3.net/jstone/judi/dubya%20with%20fingers%20on%20side%20of%20head.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 05:29 pm


Is dissatisfaction with drug regulation sufficient reason to reject the application of murder laws? I wouldn&#39;t think so.
no, but it&#39;s an interesting precedence.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11, 2007 01:54 pm

You are still wrong.

Nobody here would disagree with the ScienceMag quote. Thanks for the strawman: the point is that (in case you&#39;re too stupid to notice) smart people are often hardworking also. "Forrest Gump," with his IQ of 70, can study 18 hours a day and will still not get into Yale, because there are hundreds of guys like Stone Phillips (Yale graduate, probably IQ 120 at the very least) who will kick his butt.

And as to discrimination and stereotype threat, the burden is on YOU to prove that they "invalidate" dozens of IQ measurements taken around the world over many decades, and that "stereotype threat" is more significant than a 15 point IQ difference.

As a counterexample of stereotype threat, the NBA is about 80% black, but that doesn&#39;t seem to bother Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. I don&#39;t play in the NBA, but that&#39;s because I&#39;m weak, slow, and uncoordinated, not because I&#39;m afraid to be a "minority" or face "stereotype threat."

I feel cheapened ever replying to your drivel.


You can invent whatever system of deciding class you want. But under the Marxist definition, fast food workers, labourers and so on are proletarians (unskilled workers who have nothing but their own labour to sell). Mechanics and other skilled workers are not proletarians, but skilled workers, and in some countries, in some periods, would be labelled a labour aristocracy.

Ok fine, let&#39;s continue talking more about social class and less on economic class.


What you call the underclass we would call lumpenproletariat. This would be criminals and parasitic wasters, but not for example a homemaker on social assistance - for raising children is surely productive work.

So is administering birth control.


Middle class people....especially white ones ...their kids act like little fucking savages in restaurants and stores ALOT.

How do you know that they were middle-class and not prole families?

Did their badges identify them as "middle-class"?
no, but their wasteful spending bland clothes and absent minded "come rob us cause we left our common sense at home" attitudes sure did, when they were on vacation.... and then in some of my other jobs i know what class they were cause it was a store in THEIR neighborhood.

And most of all, proliterian people generally will not allow their kids to act the fool in hte store while they buy unecessary shit that is cheaper someplace else.
All my pops had to do was give you a look, and you knew that you better straighten your little ass out or the power was coming to you.

Middle class parents from all over the world dont give a shit generally if their kids throw a fit, their too sophisticated to whip his ass.
The proliteriat has no time for wild monkey ass babies generally.
Touching shit, breaking shit, fucking with other little kids, getting in peoples buisnes. We just dont have the time for that shit. We got a headache. And worst of all what if you dont punish the kid and he does it when youre not around?
Or what if he gets you in trouble acting stupid and breaks some shit you cant buy?
Middle class parents are usually on some bullshit, they read parenting books...


Its called home training.
Middle class parents not only arent home alot of the time, but ontop of that they can give their kids shit to make up for it and they are alot of them spoiled little devils in the store throwing all kinda fits and getting loud.
Proliterian parents arent home alot either nowadays, and they make up for it generally by giving you an asswhipping if youre bad. FOr hard working parents thereis nothing worse then a kid folowing you around asking for shit in the store.
When we were growing up you didnt ask for NOTHING in the store unless it was understood that we were going to the store to buy things for you. It was very a very disrespectful thing to do.
Cause you were very aware when your parents came home that they just busted their asses at work.
So my pops said when he got mad after saying all kinda crazy shit and telling like 5 "when i was in the projects stories" ...."well girls, when I have it I have it and we spend it all over but when I dont I dont, so dont ask&#33;"

Middle class kids just hear some shit like " the kids in china arent bad in the store, their starving, be thankful."

[Robert]

"Explain why the police respond to communist or anti-fascist demonstrations with such gusto (approximately 2 minutes flat) yet when my friend got beat up it took them approximately 2 hours to respond? It clearly shows that the onus is on protecting the interests of business over the interests of individuals."

Lots of interesting stuff in there -- I don&#39;t say good or bad. Sorry I don&#39;t know how to use the quote function as I&#39;m a newbie here.

The only communist demonstrations I ever witnessed first hand were in France. Sometimes the police arrived with truncheons, sometimes not. I didn&#39;t detect much "gusto," except when they cracked me one for taking photos, but maybe that&#39;s not representative. Anyway, I mingled with the crowd and many were bored juveniles with ill-formed ideologies who enjoyed throwing rocks at "the pigs" just to see who had the best aim.

It might help explain who your friend is, who beat him up, and why the police responded at all, and how they responded. It&#39;s also helpful to know how representative the case is.

Anyway, my guess is that many police know that anti-fascists see them as pigs (this, I guess, even when they are called on to save a communist demonstrator from violence. "Hey, pig, get over here and help me&#33; Hurry, you pig&#33;").

Your point that they are inclined to protect business is conceded. Letting communists lie bleeding unattended in the streets, however, is not good for business. I hope the pigs know this.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Robert the Great+November 14, 2007 07:18 pm--> (Robert the Great &#064; November 14, 2007 07:18 pm) Anyway, my guess is that many police know that anti-fascists see them as pigs (this, I guess, even when they are called on to save a communist demonstrator from violence. "Hey, pig, get over here and help me&#33; Hurry, you pig&#33;"). [/b]
In the jobs I&#39;ve worked I&#39;m supposed to bear the brunt of any insults thrown my way. I have before and will again. I&#39;m not supposed to even look at someone angrily when they&#39;ve cursed me out etc.

Compare this patience with that of the pigs, who&#39;ll beat someone for what they think the person is thinking&#33;&#33;

Unbe-freaking-lievable&#33;


Robert the Great
Your point that they are inclined to protect business is conceded. Letting communists lie bleeding unattended in the streets, however, is not good for business. I hope the pigs know this.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 12:18 am

"Explain why the police respond to communist or anti-fascist demonstrations with such gusto (approximately 2 minutes flat) yet when my friend got beat up it took them approximately 2 hours to respond? It clearly shows that the onus is on protecting the interests of business over the interests of individuals."

Lots of interesting stuff in there -- I don&#39;t say good or bad. Sorry I don&#39;t know how to use the quote function as I&#39;m a newbie here.

The only communist demonstrations I ever witnessed first hand were in France. Sometimes the police arrived with truncheons, sometimes not. I didn&#39;t detect much "gusto," except when they cracked me one for taking photos, but maybe that&#39;s not representative. Anyway, I mingled with the crowd and many were bored juveniles with ill-formed ideologies who enjoyed throwing rocks at "the pigs" just to see who had the best aim.

It might help explain who your friend is, who beat him up, and why the police responded at all, and how they responded. It&#39;s also helpful to know how representative the case is.

Anyway, my guess is that many police know that anti-fascists see them as pigs (this, I guess, even when they are called on to save a communist demonstrator from violence. "Hey, pig, get over here and help me&#33; Hurry, you pig&#33;").

Your point that they are inclined to protect business is conceded. Letting communists lie bleeding unattended in the streets, however, is not good for business. I hope the pigs know this.
when i say gusto, im not talking about 10 or 20 cops here, I&#39;m talking about 100&#39;s. Whenever communists rally against business, they get there quickly, and they get in their numbers, forming a human chain and shit and you&#39;d better believe they do not want anyone getting through. Oh and as for violence, it doesnt take much provocation for them to get out their sticks and cuffs. I invite you to go to Faslane in Scotland on the annual demo and you&#39;ll see just what i mean. You will witness peaceful comrades arrested in their 100&#39;s for any bullshit excuse. I&#39;ve witnessed this and more first hand on the dozens of demonstrations that ive been on.

Compare this with the fascist rallies however, the police literally do nothing. Not only that they march with them in the same direction.

[Robert]

I don&#39;t doubt any of that, and wasn&#39;t mocking your use of "gusto." I find Europeans on both sides way more high-spirited than Americans, politically speaking.

But I am unsure what a fascist rally in Scotland is or looks like. Are these neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or what? For what or against what are they rallying? Deportation of arabs? Of Muslims? Elimination of minimum wage laws? Invasion of Iran? I&#39;ll look for images of same on the web.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:37 am



But I am unsure what a fascist rally in Scotland is or looks like. Are these neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or what? For what or against what are they rallying? Deportation of arabs? Of Muslims? Elimination of minimum wage laws? Invasion of Iran? I&#39;ll look for images of same on the web.
er sorry to confuse you, the demos by the nazis and the one in scotland were 2 seperate things. I&#39;ll explain every year in faslane they have a demo against the naval nuclear base, a large part of the contingency is made up by the CND or as they&#39;re also known the campaign for nuclear disarmament. A mainstay of the protest is to sit in the road in order to block the route to military vehicles attempting to enter the base. The police use this as an excuse to arrest people en masse via the &#39;&#39; breach of the peace&#39;&#39; law which is pretty ironic considering they&#39;re about 1000 feet away from enough nuclear weapons to take out a country-
pictures-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1860000/images/_1860445_faslanedemotwopa300.jpg
http://northeast.scottishgreens.org.uk/images/fas1.jpg
http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/media/gfx/news/faslane-una-green.jpg
PS I have been to this before so i&#39;ve witnessed it first hand.

For your benefit, this is what a fascist march in the UK looks like-
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/storage/bnp%20demonstration.jpg
http://uk.altermedia.info/images/leeds1stday2.jpg

The NF (national front)marching in 1986. Note the police marching with them rather than stopping them.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/features/century/images/1980-1989_1.JPG

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 01:53 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 01:53 am)
Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:37 am



But I am unsure what a fascist rally in Scotland is or looks like. Are these neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or what? For what or against what are they rallying? Deportation of arabs? Of Muslims? Elimination of minimum wage laws? Invasion of Iran? I&#39;ll look for images of same on the web.
er sorry to confuse you, the demos by the nazis and the one in scotland were 2 seperate things. I&#39;ll explain every year in faslane they have a demo against the naval nuclear base, a large part of the contingency is made up by the CND or as they&#39;re also known the campaign against nuclear disarmament. A mainstay of the protest is to sit in the road in order to block the route to military vehicles attempting to enter the base. The police use this as an excuse to arrest people en masse via the &#39;&#39; breach of the peace&#39;&#39; law which is pretty ironic considering they&#39;re about 1000 feet away from enough nuclear weapons to take out a country-
pictures-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1860000/images/_1860445_faslanedemotwopa300.jpg
http://northeast.scottishgreens.org.uk/images/fas1.jpg
http://www.hud.ac.uk/mh/media/gfx/news/faslane-una-green.jpg
PS I have been to this before so i&#39;ve witnessed it first hand.

For your benefit, this is what a fascist march in the UK looks like-
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/storage/bnp%20demonstration.jpg
http://uk.altermedia.info/images/leeds1stday2.jpg

The NF (national front)marching in 1986. Note the police marching with them rather than stopping them.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/features/century/images/1980-1989_1.JPG [/b]
Well, blocking traffic is against the law. I am not sure why one would suppose it would be legal in a socialist community. I would think that it would LESS tolerated, since such protesters would reside in a"democratic" community, and, by definition their protest would mark themselves as a minority. Blocking traffic in such a circumstance is "undemocratic" since it seeks to use force to thwart the will of the majority. Go run for council, would be the rejoinder and refrain.

And I see the fascists as being corralled on the sidewalk and being blocked from doing anything. The reds are taking action, of a sort...

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
Well, blocking traffic is against the law. I am not sure why one would suppose it would be legal in a socialist community. [/b]
Again, the point goes completely over your head. <_< Swoooosh&#33; ¬////

No-one is suggesting it would be legal per se under socialism but under this occasion, in the political context at least the ends justify the means. Particularly since this is the only way of airing effective democratic opposition.

Originally posted by Green [email protected]

I would think that it would LESS tolerated, since such protesters would reside in a"democratic" community, and, by definition their protest would mark themselves as a minority. Blocking traffic in such a circumstance is "undemocratic" since it seeks to use force to thwart the will of the majority. Go run for council, would be the rejoinder and refrain.
Silence does not constitute an opinion. Just because the majority of people arent there doesnt mean they lean one way or the other.

I invite you to go to the next faslane demo and do a head count for the numbers doing a counter demonstration. Once you&#39;ve done that, come back to me about &#39;democracy&#39;.

Green Dragon


And I see the fascists as being corralled on the sidewalk and being blocked from doing anything. The reds are taking action, of a sort...
If they were any sort of impartial police they would be corralling them from the front as well and beating down on them with truncheons and riot shields like they do on us reds. <_<

In fact if you look closely at that picture one of the pigs are actually within the demo itself as though he&#39;s walking in unison.

[Robert]

That is a fascinating b&w picture of the NF march, and yes, the police officers certainly appear to be in solidarity with the marchers&#33; I confess I&#39;m flabbergasted by that picture. Your NF appears to have much in common with the American KKK and French Le Pen&#39;s Front National.

I&#39;ll tell you sincerely that there is zero chance -- zero -- that police officers in Dallas Texas would be caught dead marching in uniform alongside the KKK in 2007. The police force is far too integrated, and they&#39;d be summarily fired. Not to say they&#39;re too noble or anything, but usually they&#39;re smart enough not to get photographed in the process.

Thanks. Very enlightening.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 02:12 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 02:12 am)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
Well, blocking traffic is against the law. I am not sure why one would suppose it would be legal in a socialist community. [/b]
Again, the point goes completely over your head. <_< Swoooosh&#33; ¬////

No-one is suggesting it would be legal per se under socialism but under this occasion, in the political context at least the ends justify the means. Particularly since this is the only way of airing effective democratic opposition.

Green [email protected]

I would think that it would LESS tolerated, since such protesters would reside in a"democratic" community, and, by definition their protest would mark themselves as a minority. Blocking traffic in such a circumstance is "undemocratic" since it seeks to use force to thwart the will of the majority. Go run for council, would be the rejoinder and refrain.
Silence does not constitute an opinion. Just because the majority of people arent there doesnt mean they lean one way or the other.

I invite you to go to the next faslane demo and do a head count for the numbers doing a counter demonstration. Once you&#39;ve done that, come back to me about &#39;democracy&#39;.

Green Dragon


And I see the fascists as being corralled on the sidewalk and being blocked from doing anything. The reds are taking action, of a sort...
If they were any sort of impartial police they would be corralling them from the front as well and beating down on them with truncheons and riot shields like they do on us reds. <_<

In fact if you look closely at that picture one of the pigs are actually within the demo itself as though he&#39;s walking in unison. [/b]
1. I see. In other words, because the political point made is something you agree with, then the means of the protest are okay. But if you don&#39;t agree with the objectives of the protest, then the means are...what? Debateable?

2. I was simply observing that, in a socialist community, such a protest as blocking traffic would be LESS tolerated, since presumably it is a more democratic community and the protesters have peaceful and non-disruptive options.

3. The reds are the ones blocking traffic... I am sure the folks at the fascist sites will produce similiar whinings of their treatment "by the man."

4. The cops are walking along side the protesters so as to keep the peace. Its how they did things back then. Now protesters ae corralled into pens.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 14, 2007 10:16 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 14, 2007 10:16 pm) 1. I see. In other words, because the political point made is something you agree with, then the means of the protest are okay. But if you don&#39;t agree with the objectives of the protest, then the means are...what? Debateable? [/b]
Yes as a matter of fact, I believe that entirely.


Originally posted by [email protected]

3. The reds are the ones blocking traffic... I am sure the folks at the fascist sites will produce similiar whinings of their treatment "by the man."
Forgive us for wanting to voice our opinion when there&#39;s no law against that activity.


GD

4. The cops are walking along side the protesters so as to keep the peace. Its how they did things back then. Now protesters ae corralled into pens.
WTF are you nattering about? There are plenty of leftist demonstrators who were beaten and corralled back then&#33;&#33;

I also notice how you didn&#39;t seem too disturbed about Fascist infiltration and sympathies in the police force. <_<

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)1. I see. In other words, because the political point made is something you agree with, then the means of the protest are okay. But if you don&#39;t agree with the objectives of the protest, then the means are...what? Debateable?[/b]
Absolutely not, Im not a hypocrite. If someone i disagree with wants to engage in the same means then I say good luck to them. In fact, I&#39;d encourage them to since it&#39;s what promotes a healthy democracy. The only line i would draw would be when it comes to hatemongers spreading race hate like the combat clad boneheads depicted above. If those cops were doing their job they&#39;d be beating down on these bigots like theyre so fond of doing to us.

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
2. I was simply observing that, in a socialist community, such a protest as blocking traffic would be LESS tolerated, since presumably it is a more democratic community and the protesters have peaceful and non-disruptive options.[/b]
well, it really depends whose shoes you are in. The establishment causes disruption to our lives all the time, from the exploititive boss who expects us to do overtime to the inefficient medical systems that make us wait months for those life saving operations or expect us to pay extortionate amounts of money for the privelege. Yet we&#39;re expected not to complain. Anyway I digress, the point is they are quick enough to moan when we return the favour and if standing by the sidelines waving a placard acheives nothing what else can we do? Sometimes the only language these people understand is direct action.

Green [email protected]

3. The reds are the ones blocking traffic... I am sure the folks at the fascist sites will produce similiar whinings of their treatment "by the man."
1- The fascists dont need to block traffic since they have common interests with the establishment and the status quo in general.

2- I have no doubt that off picture in that image there was an ANL counter-demo being corralled back in much the same way that the police should have been doing with those boneheads. I will try to find more pictorial evidence.

Green Dragon

4. The cops are walking along side the protesters so as to keep the peace. Its how they did things back then. Now protesters ae corralled into pens.
They still walk alongside them while they corrall back the anti-fa. I invite you to go to any BNP flashpoint in northern england during a demonstration and you&#39;ll see what i mean.

[Enragé]

Err, what Payne says actually is correct. Class defines culture (in general), thus habits etc. It&#39;s not negative, nor positive, its fact. Read Bourdieu people.