contradiction

[Voice of Reason]

how can people on the right be rich corporate sucking leeches of the lower classes AND be the trailer park trash KKK members they leech off of at the same time?

make up your leftists minds when you stereotype please.

[synthesis]

The bourgeoisie whispers words of racial hatred into the ears of the white working class male while exploiting him in every sense.

These people simply don't know their real enemy.

Read.

http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/smash_racism.html

[hazard]

dyermaker may have got it in reverse. the low wage earners, racists, look up to the higher wage earners. as the higher wage earners are effected by the hordes of hood wearing nazi's, they too become racist.

mostly though dyer is right. above, high high above, either of these two categories are the bourgeoisie ghosts who found america on the basis of slavery. remember, one of the battle cries against the brits was the fact that the UK banned slavery. racist muthas.

[El Che]

Quote: from Voice of Reason on 11:35 pm on April 20, 2003
how can people on the right be rich corporate sucking leeches of the lower classes AND be the trailer park trash KKK members they leech off of at the same time?

make up your leftists minds when you stereotype please.


????

[hazard]

he may be the only person to call themself the "voice of reason" and be completely lacking in its faculty. "voice of idiot" just don't have the same ring.

[redstar2000]

<sigh> Another one! :o

The intelligent capitalists are all out making money, while sending their retarded nephews and cousins to us.

Clearly we must be cursed by the gods. :(

:cool:

[hazard]

redstar:

if they were that intelligent they wouldn't so willingly submit to forced slavery. I think docile may be a better term.

[Voice of Reason]

"remember, one of the battle cries against the brits was the fact that the UK banned slavery. "

huh? In the original draft of the declaration of independence there was a clause put in about condemning the slave trade england encouraged. it was only taken out to placate the south... which America eventually fought its bloodiest war in the process of getting rid of it. I think the northerners would object to stereotyping them all that way.

[hazard]

vice:

take a look at "common Sense". of course, there is nothing common about an elite ruling class or anything sensible about propaganda.

north uses slaves too. except they pay their slaves. ever see people wearing signs that read "will work for food"? whats the difference? I work so I can get paid money so I can buy food. introduce an unnecessary MIDDLE step and all of a sudden I'm free? don't be an idiot and stop listening to the voices. they're no good.

[Voice of Reason]

you gotta be more specific then because what you call a slave isn't what the rest of the world calls a slave... no ones going to listen to you if you use that term so loosely.

BTW did you know that most homeless people in america have serious mental illnesses? now before you call me meanspirited, ask ANY homeless advocate, this isn't exactly a groundbreaking claim

and before you then suggest they should all be put in mental homes thats bull too becasue we already did for a long time... but there were so many that eventually the government just emptied them all out into the streets because mental homes were gettign a bad rapt (think one flew over a cookoo's nest)

[hazard]

vice:

depends on what part of the world you are reffering to.

yes, thats a fascinating piece of information concerning homeless people. it has been mentioned and dealt with many times. what I want to know is why you mention it. was I talking about homeless people? if so, where?

[Voice of Reason]

im just talking about the US... not all over the world, I cant speak for that and Im sure its not true because a lot of countries are poor.

i just brought it up because of that paying your slaves bit you threw in there and it just sorta popped into my mind. when I hear a leftist talking about paying slaves im assuming they are not referring to RICH slaves... so who's the poorest of the poor, the homeless of course. they'd be the most in slavery because they can do very little to control their fate up to a point once they hit rock bottom.

[hazard]

we're all slaves BECAUSE we are paid. if we are forced to sell our labour, we are slaves because we are selling ourselves. it dont matter if you make a million a year or a hundred a year.

a slave slave worked and in turn was provided shelter, food and clothing. a modern slave works and is given money which he then uses to buy shelter, food and clothing. the only difference is the name. modern slaves are convinced they are free under the doctrine of "choice". just becuase they can choose what type of jeans to buy( levi's, clavin klein, jcpenny), what sort of food to eat( mcdonalds, burgerking, wendy's ) or what time of shelter to live in ( apartment, condo, bungalow ) doesn't mean they are any more free than the slaves of the last ten thousand years. even worse is that these "choices" reflect only their wages. in other words, someone who can't afford to buy designer jeans couldn't possibly wear them. these choices are naturally non existent. similarly, those who can afford the designer jeans wouldn't dare wear jcpenny. again, the choice is an illusion.

only in capitalism is slavery called freedom.

[Voice of Reason]

we aren't forced to sell our labor. now.. almost everyone does because thats the rational thing to do if you wanna eat, but, heck, the homeless dont sell their labor. they don't do any labor, for themselves or others.

you do have a point though...
we are slaves in the sense that we are slaves to reason which tells us to eat. and in order to eat we must sell our labor, the only thing we truly can own.

but we aren't slaves TO EACH OTHER because no other man has the right to legally kill us. we can only kill ourselves by refusing to work and thus eat.

I cant think of a way out of this vicious cycle except for everyone to grow their own crops and feed themselves. even then, if I were you, I would be saying that im a slave to the land or the weather.

communism doesnt fix it either. in communism your a slave to the state and your fellow man.

if you want to think about it that way, you can be a slave to basically anything....

[hazard]

what way am I thinking about it? I'm referring to the reason WHY I HAVE TO WORK. not for my own benefit, but for someone else's.

let me tell you

I would love to grow my own crops. but I can't. the only thing I CAN do is drag my ass to work and make some capitalist pig rich. and this makes me a slave.

[Voice of Reason]

no you're wrong. you do work for your own benifit. you work to eat, own a house, and make money so you can buy a luxury item like a car, computer. that you happen to also be benifiting someone else is coincidental. anyway in the long run that person your working for also provides you with those luxury items. this is easy to see if you say, worked for a car factory.

the only way to end the cycle is for people to stop wanting anything beyond food... which i doubt will happen anytime soon.

[hazard]

vice:

so, the old slaves were slaves for their own benefit too then. they were slaves so they could eat and wear clothes. and sometimes the master would reward his slaves witha luxury item like a wife or a wagon or a pitchfork. whatever way you look at it, we're just as much slaves as any other slave class throughout history.

[Liberty Lover]

whatever way you look at it, we're just as much slaves as any other slave class throughout history.

Slavery is the most absolute involuntary form of human servitude. The definitive characteristics of slaves are: their labor or services are obtained through force; their physical beings are regarded as the property of another person, their owner; and they are entirely subject to their owner's will.

The picture below is one of a slave.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/page12-2.jpg

There are no similarities whatsoever to slaves and today's working class. In conclusion, you are an even bigger idiot than I first suspected.

[hazard]

lover:

im an idiot? you call a cartoon a picture. nice job.

[Liberty Lover]

Hazard,
It is not a cartoon, it is a picture from the 1839 Anti-Slavery Almanac.

You attempting to establish similarities between a slave and a pesron from today's working class exemplifies your stupidity.

Below are some images of slaves in Soviet Gulags.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/whiteseacanal.jpg
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/whiteseacanal1.jpg

[hazard]

you got a slave fetish or something, lover? you seem to have a never ending supply of slave pictures and cartoons.

if I want to see slaves all I have to do is walk out my front door. all I have to do is go to work, or turn on the tv. I'm surrounded by slaves.

your pictures only speak of propaganda. my words explain to you that an intermediary process ( money ) does not change the condition of existence. I could easily find a picture of one of the millions of homeless people in the US, but why bring up disturbing images? lover, he gulags were not slave camps. they were political reeducation centres for thickheaded greed mongers like you. this people refused to work for the common good. so, they had to be taught their error. they were not slaves because they did not generate profit. in america, working at all generates profit. thus, every american wroker is a slave.

end of discussion, and please, no more pictures or cartoons.

[Liberty Lover]

Gulag workers were slaves because their labor or services were obtained through force; their physical beings were regarded as the property of another person, their owner; and they were entirely subject to their owner's will.

American workers do not fill the criteria that identifies a slave, therefore they are not slaves.

[hazard]

lover:

force need not be physical. I, and you, are forced to work. this force comes from the requirements of survival. such as obtaining clothing and food. of course, you will claim that I have the "choice" to live on the streets. but that isn't really choice, is it lover? no it isn't. there is NO CHOICE, and so I am forced to work. YOUR definition of slavery. but didn't I already fucking say this not even ten fucking posts ago? clean the shit off of your eyes.

gulags, AGAIN, are political re-education centres. sort of like american psychiary treatment institutions. except that gulags don't lie to their inmates. they are told what they are and why they are there. american prisoners force labour in the exact same way. but they are no more slaves than the "free" citizens of their respective country. they are all forced to work.

[Liberty Lover]

People in communist countries have to work also. The difference between them and us is that we get to choose what we do for work, rather than have jobs assigned to us by the state.

The gulags served a dual function: as a place to put the masses of detainees and to help curtail an immense shortage of labor that resulted from Stalin's industrialization policies.

The Gulag's role in industrializing the Soviet Union became extremly important and was responsible for much of the country's logging, and extraction of copper, gold, and coal. The Soviet economy was build on the backs of gulag slaves.

Unkown millions were sent to the Gulag camps and unkown millions died in them. The majority of people sent to the camps were so-called political prisoners-intellectuals, party and army officials who had been (usually falsely) accused of being "enemies of the people," spies, or saboteurs. The harsh and deadly conditions in the Gulag camps have been attested to by a number of survivors.

[hazard]

again, the fallacy of "choice". I choose to be the owner of a factory. I'm not though, am I? but that is what I chose, hmmmm, it seems that one's choices are limited at the outset.

then you look at school. many jobs require certain skills and aptiudes, as measure by school. I choose to be a doctor. I'm not though, am I? at this second stage, again, my choices are limited. this concept of "freely choosing" ain't what it is cracked up to be.

then you look at cost. supposing my mind is not sharp enough to be a doctor, but is sharp enough to be a criminologist. I got the grades to prove it, right? in america, nobody cares. if you want to be a criminologist, you gotta pay to learn how to be one with no guarantees to get a job. so, AGAIN, my choices are limited. I can't afford to be what my THIRD CHOICE is now, so now what? free choice MY ASS.

communism evaluates and develops people on abasis of their abilities. certainly some jobs are prohibited. such as class ownership of public property. scratch the first choice. it isn't possible. as for being a doctor, this choice is similarly restrained on a basis of ability. but the final choice is not a problem. one does not have to worry about paying for school, and is thus most able to become something they want, if they are able.

choice in a "free" country is an illusion. one is only free to choose jobs within their class, and jobs within their ability and also jobs they can afford to learn. there is nothing free about it. lies and manipulative propaganda.