the bourgeois bogeyman [Archive]

RGacky3

28th November 2008, 20:16

one major concern i have with communism is the bourgeois boggeyman that tend to show up everytime in a discussion.

The bourgeois boggyman, is not a boogyman, just look at economic statistics, yup, about 5% have 90% of the wealth, thats not a boogyman, thats real, the CEOs of major multinational corporations that have both indirect and direct control over most of the worlds resources, yup they are real, and their control is real.

-can i be a nationalist? no beccause the idea of state is a invention of bourgeois!!!!

You can be nationalist if you want, it does'nt amtter who invented the state, its not a valid institution, also nationalism is an irrational, and dangerous idea. But you can be whatever you want, you can be racist too if you want to.

-can i support the bureaucracy? no beccause its will create a bourgeois class!

Well it does, and history has shown that over and over again.

-can i advocate interventionism? no beccause it would mean imperialism by the bourgeois!!!

Well historically thats always been the case, because interventionism generally is by a Capitalist state that has to worry about the interest of the bourgeois, if the power structure was different, i.e. the people had the power and there was no class system, interventionism would pobably be for different reasons.

can i love the bbc? no beccause its a new channel made by the bourgeois!!

You can watch whatever channel you want, I don't know why you would love a news media :P, but I watch many news channels, the trick is to have a healthy dose of skeptisism and make sure you have different sources and keep everything in context, that is if you care about being informed.

All that being said, I do agree, that some Leftists have turned the Bourgeois into some evil boogyman, meaning they have an irrational hatred of Capitalists as people, which is as dangerous as any other irrational hatred.

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 20:31

The bourgeois boggyman, is not a boogyman, just look at economic statistics, yup, about 5% have 90% of the wealth, thats not a boogyman, thats real, the CEOs of major multinational corporations that have both indirect and direct control over most of the worlds resources, yup they are real, and their control is real.

That's not a bogeyman--that's just envy. Who cares what who has? It's not a zero sum game. You can work a little more and get a little more--it doesn't mean that what you get has to take away from someone else.

You can be nationalist if you want, it does'nt matter who invented the state, its not a valid institution,It's totally valid--does the state exist? Than it's valid.

also nationalism is an irrational, and dangerous idea. Your opinion. I might somewhat agree.

But you can be whatever you want, you can be racist too if you want to.That is true.

Well historically thats always been the case, because interventionism generally is by a Capitalist state that has to worry about the interest of the bourgeois, if the power structure was different, i.e. the people had the power and there was no class system, interventionism would pobably be for different reasons. Yes. Interventionism would exist--for different reasons. The SU and the USA both invaded Afganistan. The first time for the "people's revolution" the second time for the borgeoise. But in the end Afganistan got invaded two times.

You can watch whatever channel you want, I don't know why you would love a news media :P, but I watch many news channels, the trick is to have a healthy dose of skeptisism and make sure you have different sources and keep everything in context, that is if you care about being informed. Much the same as reading RevLeft--a healthy dose of skepticism doesn't hurt. :lol:

All that being said, I do agree, that some Leftists have turned the Bourgeois into some evil boogyman, meaning they have an irrational hatred of Capitalists as people, which is as dangerous as any other irrational hatred. I think when people have chatted with members of the Bourgeois here on the internet (and even in RevLeft!) they have found them to be utterly charming and lovely people.;)

danyboy27

28th November 2008, 20:37

i dont deny those facts wacky, but i prefers to cultivate the idea that numericly speaking, we are advantaged.

they may posses most of the money on earth, they are only 5%.

since we have a decisive numerical advantage, if we havnt been able to change the things so far, its our fault, mainly.

we can blame them day and night for all the shit that is falling over the world day after day, if we dont do nothing to change stuff, it will continue.

we should focus on that rather than playing the vice and vertues police about stuff the bourgeois done and that we should do all the opposite of them.

just on the geneticaly modified tread, i got 1 person saying genetical modifications are another tool of the bourgeois.

one of these day some guy will come up with the idea of banning the phone beccause its a bourgeois who invented it.

RGacky3

28th November 2008, 20:42

It's totally valid--does the state exist? Than it's valid.

Then I guess Slavery was valid, all Monarchies was and are valid, and Stalins Gulags were valid.

That's not a bogeyman--that's just envy. Who cares what who has? It's not a zero sum game. You can work a little more and get a little more--it doesn't mean that what you get has to take away from someone else.

Who cares who has what? Well, the people who have nothing do. Generally it does mean that what you get has to take away from someone else, thats the nature of Capitalism, wage slavery, if it did'nt take away form someone else there would'nt be a profit. Work a little more and get a little more, is not the way Capitalism works, you know that and I know that, if it did mean that, well then the Illigal immigrant working 10 to 12 hour days 7 days a week in the fields in the sun would be rich as hell.

Your opinion. I might somewhat agree.

Your right it is my opinion, although I do have history on my side, but its still just my opinion.

I think when people have chatted with members of the Bourgeois here on the internet (and even in RevLeft!) they have found them to be utterly charming and lovely people.http://www.revleft.com/vb/bourgeois-bogeyman-t95614/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

Yeah me too, I know a couple big shot money makers, and some of them are really nice guys, I also know poor working class douche bags. But Social ideologies and power structures have nothing to do with who is a nice guy or not.

Yes. Interventionism would exist--for different reasons. The SU and the USA both invaded Afganistan. The first time for the "people's revolution" the second time for the borgeoise. But in the end Afganistan got invaded two times.

The SU and the USA were both, class societies, with imperialistic motives. The "peoples revolutoin" reason for invading is as BS as the "spread democracy" reason, they were both (ultimately, looking at the big picture) for the ruling class interest of those 2 nations.

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 20:45

i dont deny those facts wacky, but i prefers to cultivate the idea that numericly speaking, we are advantaged.

they may posses most of the money on earth, they are only 5%.

since we have a decisive numerical advantage, if we havnt been able to change the things so far, its our fault, mainly.

I think you have to take that in two pieces. If you are born in some third rate third world country where there is only death an oppression--it's hard to blame you for not being asuccess.

But as a First World American, Canadian or for the most part European--it's hard to blame society of anyone else for one's failure.

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 21:01

Then I guess Slavery was valid, all Monarchies was and are valid, and Stalins Gulags were valid. They were valid institutions--it doesn't mean they were "good" institutions. Now as to the meaning of "good" that changes over time--doens't it?

Who cares who has what? Well, the people who have nothing do. Generally it does mean that what you get has to take away from someone else, thats the nature of Capitalism, wage slavery, if it did'nt take away form someone else there would'nt be a profit. Backword. We don't take away from one another--we ADD to one another to make a product that can bring us all a profit. I supply the factory, Bill supplys the labor to make the product, Fred sells, Shela does customer suervice. We all make a couple of bucks. (Now I as the factory owner do the distribution of the profit--so granted I might be at an advantage.) You do see why we are at loggerheads.

Work a little more and get a little more, is not the way Capitalism works, you know that and I know that, if it did mean that, well then the Illigal immigrant working 10 to 12 hour days 7 days a week in the fields in the sun would be rich as hell. Well, we can all go to the bottom of the illegal scale--but for those of us that ARE NOT illegal--you earn $10 and hour you earn $400--you work more you get more. You know that.

Yeah me too, I know a couple big shot money makers, and some of them are really nice guys, I also know poor working class douche bags. But Social ideologies and power structures have nothing to do with who is a nice guy or not. Well, there is something ou there as "power" And I see it and I'm around it, but I know that I'm as borgeois as you can get and I don't have it--and I don't really know who does. I certainly will let you know when I can quantify it better. At this time, I'm at a loss. Or I could be misinterpreting it--I'm not sure.

The SU and the USA were both, class societies, with imperialistic motives. The "peoples revolutoin" reason for invading is as BS as the "spread democracy" reason, they were both (ultimately, looking at the big picture) for the ruling class interest of those 2 nations.We agree there.

danyboy27

28th November 2008, 21:03

I think you have to take that in two pieces. If you are born in some third rate third world country where there is only death an oppression--it's hard to blame you for not being asuccess.

But as a First World American, Canadian or for the most part European--it's hard to blame society of anyone else for one's failure.

agree with you on that.

RGacky3

28th November 2008, 21:39

Now as to the meaning of "good" that changes over time--doens't it?

Arn't you christian?

They were valid institutions--it doesn't mean they were "good" institutions.

They wern't valid institutions, because they could not be morally defended properly, without giant fallicies and contradictions, the same with Capitalism.

Backword. We don't take away from one another--we ADD to one another to make a product that can bring us all a profit. I supply the factory, Bill supplys the labor to make the product, Fred sells, Shela does customer suervice. We all make a couple of bucks. (Now I as the factory owner do the distribution of the profit--so granted I might be at an advantage.) You do see why we are at loggerheads.

You don't "supply" the factory, you own it, its your ownership of it that we challenge, thats like saying the farm owner "supplies" the farm, we say, its not his farm to begin with.

Now you may not agree, but thats is where us communists are comming from.

Well, we can all go to the bottom of the illegal scale--but for those of us that ARE NOT illegal--you earn $10 and hour you earn $400--you work more you get more. You know that

Yeah, but like was said before, that does'nt make anything valid, thats not na argument. It still matters immensly, hugely, who has what, and there be a slight chance of class mobility does'nt change anything.

Well, there is something ou there as "power" And I see it and I'm around it, but I know that I'm as borgeois as you can get and I don't have it--and I don't really know who does. I certainly will let you know when I can quantify it better. At this time, I'm at a loss. Or I could be misinterpreting it--I'm not sure.

You have to power to hire and fire, you have peoples lively hoods in your hands, you control the resources of your company, even though its a little company, now for the gran bourgious that power is over thousands and thousands of people, and even more thousands indirectly, and those resources and industries are much much larger, infact (as we have just recently seen) their power influences the entire nation.

I think you have to take that in two pieces. If you are born in some third rate third world country where there is only death an oppression--it's hard to blame you for not being asuccess.

But as a First World American, Canadian or for the most part European--it's hard to blame society of anyone else for one's failure.

CAPITALISM IS A GLOBAL SYSTEM!!! I've said this more times than I can count. The nations of the world are intertwined by Capitalism, exploitation is global.

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 22:19

Arn't you christian? I am and I can thus give meaning to the tems "good" and "evil". Without a God the closest you can come to those terms is nice and naughty.

[uote]They wern't valid institutions, because they could not be morally defended properly, without giant fallicies and contradictions, the same with Capitalism.[/quote] If it can exist it's "valid." Nazism was "valid." YOU personally might nit lie it, but you can't say the refime hadn't any right to exist.

You don't "supply" the factory, you own it, its your ownership of it that we challenge, thats like saying the farm owner "supplies" the farm, we say, its not his farm to begin with. Own, supply, much he same thing. Without me supplying the factory the business wouldn't exist--without the workers supplying the labor the business wouldn't exist. We all work together.

Now you may not agree, but thats is where us communists are comming from. And I have been trying to show--that Communism is a thing of the past. It helped SOME third world countries to become industrialized--and then it was thrown off. Social Democracy is the future. Not Capitalism, not Communism. Thesis, Antithesis Synthesis. The Dialectic.

Yeah, but like was said before, that does'nt make anything valid, thats not na argument. It still matters immensly, hugely, who has what, and there be a slight chance of class mobility does'nt change anything.IF it exists--it's valid. The problem with your argument is that Communism (exept in sxtremely stunted forms--never existed,) Communism isn't valid--but no matter there--it's been surpassed by Social Democracy inn the last couple of months.

You have to power to hire and fire, you have peoples lively hoods in your hands, you control the resources of your company, even though its a little company, now for the gran bourgious that power is over thousands and thousands of people, and even more thousands indirectly, and those resources and industries are much much larger, infact (as we have just recently seen) their power influences the entire nation. No as long as people have the power to quit, I have no power at all. People have the ultimate power over their lives.

CAPITALISM IS A GLOBAL SYSTEM!!! I've said this more times than I can count. The nations of the world are intertwined by Capitalism, exploitation is global. It's no more global than Communism at it's height. Some people buy into it-- some don't. But stop blaiming others and go and make a life for yourself. (RGacky, I'm not speaking of you personally.)

danyboy27

28th November 2008, 22:44

somehow, even bourgeois have to obey to what the governement say.

people can say whatever they want about Tomk, he dont have the full control over the worker, there is regulation, laws, rules. I dont know in the us, but over here in canada, if your boss fuck up with your security, do discrimination etc, the governement fall on him like a fucking rock.

he make you work without security boots? give a call to the governement, he gonna send a inspector that gonna fine him good. he want to fire you? he must have a valid reason, otherwise, the governement gonna fine him, and gonna condemn him to give you 1 full year of salary.

has i mentionned, i dont know about the us, but here, if you fuck up with the job regulation, the governement strike back. you dont even have to fine the guy, the governement doing it!!

Robert

28th November 2008, 22:47

Is there anyway we could focus on us, the poor and the working class instead?

No. There is no way. You can't have communism without a revolution. You can't have a revolution without a power shift. The bourgeoisie have the power. So you must focus your energy on the bourgeoisie. Otherwise you'll be ladling out soup and crumbs to the powerless forever.

The question is: do you want revolution, and everything that comes with it, or not?

danyboy27

28th November 2008, 22:49

No. There is no way. You can't have communism without a revolution. You can't have a revolution without a power shift. The bourgeoisie have the power. So you must focus your energy on the bourgeoisie. Otherwise you'll be ladling out soup and crumbs to the powerless forever.

The question is: do you want revolution, and everything that comes with it, or not?

no

lol

RGacky3

28th November 2008, 23:01

Own, supply, much he same thing.

Not at all, thats like saying the Mafia "Supplies protection," yeah, from themselves.

am and I can thus give meaning to the tems "good" and "evil". Without a God the closest you can come to those terms is nice and naughty.

If you believe that, then you must believe that good and evil don't change, unless god changes, but thats neither here nor there.

We all work together.

No, they work FOR you, you can have as many dillusions about how Capitalism is equal and everything, but ultimately you have the power to hire and fire and you control the money and the resources. So does every other Capitalists, big Capitalists to a bigger degree, thast reality.

And I have been trying to show--that Communism is a thing of the past. It helped SOME third world countries to become industrialized--and then it was thrown off. Social Democracy is the future. Not Capitalism, not Communism. Thesis, Antithesis Synthesis. The Dialectic.

Social Democracy is as much the past as "communism" and if you mean communism as in leninism then I agree. Also trying to apply dialectics to this to proove anyhting is pointless. Social Democracy failed and is failing, Capitalism fails for 95% of the world, Leninism failed, Communism, anarchist-communism, real communism, thats (hopefully) the future.

IF it exists--it's valid. The problem with your argument is that Communism (exept in sxtremely stunted forms--never existed,) Communism isn't valid--but no matter there--it's been surpassed by Social Democracy inn the last couple of months.

Now we are juts arguing over the definition of valid, you know waht I mean when I say valid.

No as long as people have the power to quit, I have no power at all. People have the ultimate power over their lives.

People have the power to quit, and work for someone else, or risk everything and maybe, maybe, unlikely, but maybe, make it by themselves, thats only an option for a few working people in the world, but people might have somewhat power over their lives, but Capitalist, have power of the world, and that makes a difference.

Some people buy into it-- some don't. But stop blaiming others and go and make a life for yourself.

Thats what us Syndicalists are doing, we are making a life for ourselves, we can't do it with wealth like Capitalists do, but we are doing it with numbers.

What Capitalists always say is "do it yourself, get rich, make a life for yourself." Which is great, because its not an equal playing field when some have masses of recourses and most and nothing, what we say is "lets get it together, if we stand together we'll gain more," and thats what you want right? every to succede? Then you have no problem with syndicalism right?

Ultimately ideology does'nt matter, what matters is that working people do whats best for them, and whats best for them is to organise and take whats theirs. Kind of sounds like the American dream does'nt it :), only its workable for working people.

somehow, even bourgeois have to obey to what the governement say.

First of all no they don't, its very rare that labor laws are enforced, and many times unions have to fight just to get companies to obay the freaking law (many active wooblies know this first hand.)

Second, the big shot Capitalists have a HUGE HUGE influence over government policy.

It's no more global than Communism at it's height.

So? First of all "Communism" was never as global as Capitalism was, second of all, that has nothing to do with my points, my point was Capitalism cannot by judged country by country, becaust Capitalism is a global system.

BTW Tomk, no ones talking about the USSR here, just you.

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 23:04

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 23:30

Social Democracy is as much the past as "communism" and if you mean communism as in leninism then I agree. Also trying to apply dialectics to this to proove anyhting is pointless. Social Democracy failed and is failing, Capitalism fails for 95% of the world, Leninism failed, Communism, anarchist-communism, real communism, thats (hopefully) the future. The greatest economic disaster in the last 80 years just happened--and there was exactly NO Communist response to it. Wall Street the epitome of Capitalism failed and there wasn't a murmer from Communism or Communists. The Government simply took control of Wall street and now we--as in the people--own it. You don't see that as a fundamental shift in the power structure of the world? The move was Socialist. Not what Communists would expect of Socialism--but the change was that the PEOPLE now own a good chunk of what was the most private institution on earth--Wall Street.

You don't see this as a thing that will have far ranging influence on the way business is done in America if now the world? I do. There has been a huge shift--and it will take years to sort out but in one move THE PEOPLE became the prome movers in business--not private investors. And Communism was no where to be seen. Not a wimper, not a revolt. Nothing.

Thats what us Syndicalists are doing, we are making a life for ourselves, we can't do it with wealth like Capitalists do, but we are doing it with numbers. I never understood that whole Syndicalist thing--but if that's what they are doing--good for them.

What Capitalists always say is "do it yourself, get rich, make a life for yourself." Which is great, because its not an equal playing field when some have masses of recourses and most and nothing, what we say is "lets get it together, if we stand together we'll gain more," and thats what you want right? every to succede? Then you have no problem with syndicalism right? I have no problem with Syndicalism at all. It seems similar to the franchise system.

Ultimately ideology does'nt matter, what matters is that working people do whats best for them, and whats best for them is to organise and take whats theirs. Kind of sounds like the American dream does'nt it :), only its workable for working people. The American dream is achievable for everyone., OK almost everyone. It's a work/time/idea thing.

First of all no they don't, its very rare that labor laws are enforced, and many times unions have to fight just to get companies to obay the freaking law (many active wooblies know this first hand.) I don't see that at all--the laws are published and god hjelp the factory owner that breaks one of them--he'd be tangled upp sith the government forever. Best just to obey.

Second, the big shot Capitalists have a HUGE HUGE influence over government policy. so do unions.

So? First of all "Communism" was never as global as Capitalism was, second of all, that has nothing to do with my points, my point was Capitalism cannot by judged country by country, becaust Capitalism is a global system. It was semi-global. The SU and China were as close as Communism will ever be to actuallity in real life. Have another Revolution and you will have another police state enforcing Communism. And that's just the way it is.

BTW Tomk, no ones talking about the USSR here, just you.Read the MIM web page and you'll see that those guys don't think RevLeft talks about Communism at all.

danyboy27

29th November 2008, 00:23

First of all no they don't, its very rare that labor laws are enforced, and many times unions have to fight just to get companies to obay the freaking law (many active wooblies know this first hand.)

.

i completly disagree here

JimmyJazz

29th November 2008, 00:39

I agree it's a lot easier, and more important, to prove the existence of a wage-earning proletariat than of a bourgeoisie. Capital ownership is split up into stocks and bonds, and so on, so that people usually end up just talking about the "top .5%" or something stupid.

I agree it's more important to talk about the liberation (self-emancipation) of the exploited working class. All the other stuff, like reflections on how our culture or media reflect class rule, is really just icing.

I'm also all in favor of dropping the French and using "working class" and "capitalist class".

Glenn Beck

29th November 2008, 00:52

you work more you get more.

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/n/images/no-country-for-old-men-4.jpg

RGacky3

29th November 2008, 01:23

You don't see that as a fundamental shift in the power structure of the world? The move was Socialist. Not what Communists would expect of Socialism--but the change was that the PEOPLE now own a good chunk of what was the most private institution on earth--Wall Street.

First of all, it was just a couple companies, some banking firms, second, the PEOPLE took it over as it was failing, meaning the PEOPLE are taking the loss, and as soon as it starts going up again its gonna go back to the Capitalists at discound prices, so no, thats not Socialism, and its obvious that you've learned absolutely nothing from being here.

And Communism was no where to be seen. Not a wimper, not a revolt. Nothing.

What happend, was Capitalist failier, Communists, and Anarchists have been working where it really matters for decades, in workplaces, in neighborhoods, in cities, in the third world, and so on, this wall streat crash was something that Communists have known is going to happen, we've been saying it all along, Capitalism cannot sustain itself. Also what are you expecting to happen? Communists (for all practical purposes) are not interesting in wall street, they are interested in working people and doing things that actually make a difference, organizing, going on CNN and talking about Wall Street does'nt make a big difference.

I have no problem with Syndicalism at all. It seems similar to the franchise system.

Syndicalism is'nt a system, its a term used to describe radical (as in revolutionary) union organizing, meaning changing the system through worker solidarity rather than political parties or whatever.

You may not have a problem with syndicalism but almost every other Capitalist looses his mind and lets loose his true colors once his workplace starts to organize.

I don't see that at all--the laws are published and god hjelp the factory owner that breaks one of them--he'd be tangled upp sith the government forever. Best just to obey.

Well, like I said, its widespread, and anyone that does any organizing knows that. If labor laws were inforced, union busting would'nt happen, everyone would be payed minimum wage or more, over time would always be paid, employees would be paid and treated as such, emloyers would'nt twist the status of their employees to save money, and so and so forth. You'd be suprised (considering you seam to live in a fantasyland) how unenforced labor laws are.

so do unions.

Much, much less so. Also Unions power comes from voting block, Capitalist power comes from cold hard cash, resources and industry, a whole differeny type of power.

Also many Unions don't fit what I would call a true syndicalist workers union, a democratic one.

The SU and China were as close as Communism will ever be to actuallity in real life. Have another Revolution and you will have another police state enforcing Communism. And that's just the way it is.

That statement goes to show, you've learned absolutely nothing here, either that, or you just choose to ignore everythats been said. I'm not oing to explain it again, because its been explained millions of times, and you choose to ignore it.

Read the MIM web page and you'll see that those guys don't think RevLeft talks about Communism at all.

So?

Tomk, if you choose to ignore everything that people have told you, and choos to ignore the actual nature of the communist/anarchist line of reasoning and movements, and still argue from your origional mistaken ideas about what you think communism is, what you think justifies capitalism, even though we've explained it over and over again. Then you really have no place making arguments, its impossible to have an honest discussion when one of the parties simply ignores the other and argues against his pressumed notions.

Robert

29th November 2008, 10:31

People have the power to quit, and work for someone else, or risk everything and maybe, maybe, unlikely, but maybe, make it by themselves, thats only an option for a few working people in the world

You see this as an outrage, an injustice? How is it any different than the unlikelihood that you'll ever be a rock star or professional athlete?

It's great that Microsoft and Dow and Toyota exist. Their "wage slaves" would be shivering in a dark, wet forest without them. With them they have regular meals, air conditioned homes, and the opportunity to save and accumulate capital. What do you want?

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2008, 10:41

somehow, even bourgeois have to obey to what the governement say.
Bull. Ever heard of capital flight? Tax loopholes?
Though yes, without minimum wages and such there would be far more unrest.

Their "wage slaves" would be shivering in a dark, wet forest without them.
I don't get your point. Workers need capitalists in order for jobs to exist?

The SU and China were as close as Communism will ever be to actuallity in real life.
The Spanish Communes?
No, state capitalism is not socialism.

Have another Revolution and you will have another police state enforcing Communism. And that's just the way it is.
Why? 'Leninists revolted, mainly in feudal states. This went down the shithole. Thusly, all forms of socialism are impossible.'

Hiero

29th November 2008, 14:39

It's great that Microsoft and Dow and Toyota exist. Their "wage slaves" would be shivering in a dark, wet forest without them. With them they have regular meals, air conditioned homes, and the opportunity to save and accumulate capital. What do you want?

You should learn about historical materialism.

The capitalist's revolution was built on the industrial revolution. What they provided was a leap in human history. No serious Marxist denies that. But with the capitalist revolution brought new conflicst, new seeds of revolution, a different revolution. The capitalist have done their job in human history, their part has given risen to new contradictions will lead to their own expropriation by their own proleteriat.

I can't explain in a paragraph, you have to do our own research. Which I doubt you wont and still post some sentiment bullshit as usuall.

Robert

29th November 2008, 16:01

new contradictions will lead to their own expropriation by their own proleteriat.

The proletariat won't be expropriating anything. If you mean that there will always be leftist despots lurking in wait for the opportunity to lead them by the nose to another failed utopia, I agree 100%.

ernie

29th November 2008, 16:09

You see this as an outrage, an injustice? How is it any different than the unlikelihood that you'll ever be a rock star or professional athlete?
It's actually less likely than that. But what's your point?

It's great that Microsoft and Dow and Toyota exist. Their "wage slaves" would be shivering in a dark, wet forest without them. With them they have regular meals, air conditioned homes, and the opportunity to save and accumulate capital.
Without workers, Bill Gates would have never made his fortune. Or do you think he could have made all his money by his own labor?

What do you want?
We want more than regular meals (very crappy meals) and air-conditioned homes (very crappy homes). We want freedom from boring jobs and crappy wages. We want for everyone to do what they love without having to worry about surviving.

The only people who could reasonably object to this are the capitalists; they are the only ones that have anything to lose. Are you part of the capitalist class? I'd say you're most likely from the middle class...so why do you object to this vision?

Dean

29th November 2008, 16:27

maybe a lot of you will hate me for that statement, but anyway.

one major concern i have with communism is the bourgeois boggeyman that tend to show up everytime in a discussion.

now, i know that class of society have a lot of influence, but is there anyway we could focus on us, the poor and the working class instead?

-can i be a nationalist? no beccause the idea of state is a invention of bourgeois!!!!

-can i support the bureaucracy? no beccause its will create a bourgeois class!

-can i advocate interventionism? no beccause it would mean imperialism by the bourgeois!!!

can i love the bbc? no beccause its a new channel made by the bourgeois!!

Can you stop making a new thread for every idea you have? I don't have any problem with you posting it, but it is frustrating to look in the forum and 50% of threads were started by you.

RGacky3

29th November 2008, 17:05

Can you stop making a new thread for every idea you have? I don't have any problem with you posting it, but it is frustrating to look in the forum and 50% of threads were started by you.

And please think them through.

You see this as an outrage, an injustice? How is it any different than the unlikelihood that you'll ever be a rock star or professional athlete?

I'm saying slight social mobility is not a justification for capitalism, your saying it perfectly well, the chance being a rock star of professional athlete to escape wage slavery does not justify wage slavery.

It's great that Microsoft and Dow and Toyota exist. Their "wage slaves" would be shivering in a dark, wet forest without them. With them they have regular meals, air conditioned homes, and the opportunity to save and accumulate capital. What do you want?

No, if there were no Capitalists, the workers would'nt have to rely on Capitalists, because they would be controling their own economies.

I want equality, freedom and justice, Capitalists did not 'invent' production, or resources, they control it.

danyboy27

29th November 2008, 17:06

Can you stop making a new thread for every idea you have? I don't have any problem with you posting it, but it is frustrating to look in the forum and 50% of threads were started by you.

well a fews people make new tread,other just goes on with older boring thread, i just cant believe myself they decided to make a arbortion round 2.

so far, when my thread are stupid, they dont generate much post, people just ignore it or apathy maybe go ask jazratt to kill it beccause its a piece of shit.

BUT if you are pissed at me making new thread, i can do an effort i guess.

my thread are soo stupid people keep posting stuff in it all time :D

Bud Struggle

29th November 2008, 19:17

Tomk, if you choose to ignore everything that people have told you, and choos to ignore the actual nature of the communist/anarchist line of reasoning and movements, and still argue from your origional mistaken ideas about what you think communism is, what you think justifies capitalism, even though we've explained it over and over again. Then you really have no place making arguments, its impossible to have an honest discussion when one of the parties simply ignores the other and argues against his pressumed notions.

I understand your point--but I don't ignore what I've learned, I use the dialectic. I take what you give me take other stuff that comes at me from all around and combine it together and move on. I don't take any theory as gospel (except, of course, the Gospel.;))

You have to remember I'm not an idealogue--I'm a pragmatist, I'm in the businesses that I'm in not because of love or interest or faith. They just happened to be the right things at the right time to make me the most money. And that philosophy has served me well.

And to be honest--THATS THE WAY THE UNIVERSE WORKS. I see the take over of Wall Street as Socialistic--not because it's classically socalistic and written that way in some book--but because the consequences of such a buy out will impede once free markets.

The world and its politics and its economy are never static--they constantly move on in new and interesting directions. By staying one step ahead of the trends you will always do well, really well. Fall into a pattern of thinking there is something in that past that can tell you anything at all--and you don't do so well.

Just the way it is.

my thread are soo stupid people keep posting stuff in it all time :D

Bada-BING! :D

Robert

29th November 2008, 21:31

It's actually less likely than that. But what's your point?The point is that I am no more likely to complain about the unequal distribution by god of athletic prowess or musical talent, and all that comes with it, than I am to complain that TomK is more financially or commercially astute than I. I'm sorry, it just doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, I'm sorry. The time you spend worrying about it is time you could spend learning a marketable and highly remunerative skill.

Without workers, Bill Gates would have never made his fortune. Or do you think he could have made all his money by his own labor?I concede this point, as would Bill Gates I imagine. However, I see his ingenuity and perseverance as having been more indispensable to Microsoft's success than the guys implementing his vision. You can train Bill Gates to do my job. You can't train me to do his. His SAT score was 1590 out of 1600. That's why he went to Harvard and I didn't. He has made billions, yes, but created a lot of wealth for others in the process. He is a real foot soldier in a real revolution. He doesn't talk about revolution in chat rooms. He has also given away over $28 billion to charity. Don't know about you, but that's substantially more than what I have given to charity.

We want more than regular meals (very crappy meals) and air-conditioned homes (very crappy homes). Unless you live in Zimbabwe or Haiti, you can have these, though there's a worrisome and faintly juvenile entitlement tone to that statement. No offense.

We want freedom from boring jobs and crappy wages. Are you sure it's freedom and not license you want? Look, Bill Gates actually wrote tons of code, line after line after line of it, for years. His slaves didn't do it for him. Some would call this "boring," I guess, but it's really just hard work done by a mature individual with dedication, perseverance and vision. Surgery can be boring too, but I thank god for surgeons.

We want for everyone to do what they love without having to worry about survivingI want the Dallas Cowboys to draft me next year. And I want equal playing time with Tony Romo. Then I want to be a brain surgeon.

I'm saying slight social mobility is not a justification for capitalism, your saying it perfectly well, the chance being a rock star of professional athlete to escape wage slavery does not justify wage slavery.There are lots of problems in there. The biggest one is this persistent misconception about successful people in capitalism. Professional athletes not only run faster than you and I, they work their asses off. Every day. Much harder than the peanut vendors and janitors. They play in pain. They risk paralyzing injuries, at least in football. I simply do not begrudge them the fantastic returns they enjoy.

ernie

29th November 2008, 22:15

The point is that I am no more likely to complain about the unequal distribution by god of athletic prowess or musical talent, and all that comes with it, than I am to complain that TomK is more financially or commercially astute than I. I'm sorry, it just doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, I'm sorry. The time you spend worrying about it is time you could spend learning a marketable and highly remunerative skill.
It doesn't bother you because it doesn't affect you. Those who have the desire and the potential to do worthwhile things but can't, lest they starve, do care about that. It's in their interest to want a society like communism.

I concede this point, as would Bill Gates I imagine. However, I see his ingenuity and perseverance as having been more indispensable to Microsoft's success than the guys implementing his vision. You can train Bill Gates to do my job. You can't train me to do his. His SAT score was 1590 out of 1600. That's why he went to Harvard and I didn't. He has made billions, yes, but created a lot of wealth for others in the process.
I disagree. All the ingenuity in the world by itself cannot create any wealth. It is the labor of the thousands of workers that actually created that wealth, yet they are denied most of it.

He is a real foot soldier in a real revolution.
No, he isn't. He had a few ideas, stole others and screwed a bunch of people. He was mostly lucky.

He has also given away over $28 billion to charity. Don't know about you, but that's substantially more than what I have given to charity.
I gave $28.1 billion, so I beat him. (That's my way of saying: who gives a shit?)

Unless you live in Zimbabwe or Haiti, you can have these, though there's a worrisome and faintly juvenile entitlement tone to that statement. No offense.
I said we want more.

Are you sure it's freedom and not license you want? Look, Bill Gates actually wrote tons of code, line after line after line of it, for years. His slaves didn't do it for him.
So what? Thousands of people do that every day for their entire lives.

Some would call this "boring," I guess, but it's really just hard work done by a mature individual with dedication, perseverance and vision.
And a lot of luck.

\I want the Dallas Cowboys to draft me next year. And I want equal playing time with Tony Romo. Then I want to be a brain surgeon.
I take it you think this is impossible. Is that why you object to it? If you were a wage-slave, I don't think you'd be so happy with capitalism.

Hiero

29th November 2008, 22:28

The proletariat won't be expropriating anything. If you mean that there will always be leftist despots lurking in wait for the opportunity to lead them by the nose to another failed utopia, I agree 100%.
It has been happening in since the 20th century. It is called a struggle for a reason.

Labor Shall Rule

29th November 2008, 22:58

You should learn about historical materialism.

The capitalist's revolution was built on the industrial revolution. What they provided was a leap in human history. No serious Marxist denies that. But with the capitalist revolution brought new conflicst, new seeds of revolution, a different revolution. The capitalist have done their job in human history, their part has given risen to new contradictions will lead to their own expropriation by their own proleteriat.

I can't explain in a paragraph, you have to do our own research. Which I doubt you wont and still post some sentiment bullshit as usuall.

This is what Marxism is all about.

It's not about revolutionary cruelty, but about how and why capitalism operates the way it does. It's been more or less proven that the amount of surplus value created in a production process (i.e. profit) decreases overtime, leading to large quantities of labor to be laid-off through crisis. It potentially leads to the dilapidation of human fitness, which necessitates under those material conditions, a degree of 'rebellion' or 'struggle' that you can't stop.

If you want to debate that this won't happen, then tell me how capitalist production will "self-fix" itself from such contradictions that have been proven to be inherent to it. I doubt that most OI'ers, however, do not have a sufficient knowledge of history or economics to offer the mathematical evidence to prove otherwise.

Bud Struggle

29th November 2008, 23:24

This is what Marxism is all about.

It's not about revolutionary cruelty, but about how and why capitalism operates the way it does.

Not "does"...."DID". Now on to better and less dated explainations. :) Don't get me wrong Marxism STILL has a lot to offer--in the same way Newtonian Physics has still has lot to offer--as a teaching structure.

It just in the final analysis is dated and wrong. Helpful as a guidepost, worthwhile as a learning tool, really true and valid in it's limited relm--but essentially wrong whe it comes to 21st century politics and economics.

If you want to debate that this won't happen, then tell me how capitalist production will "self-fix" itself from such contradictions that have been proven to be inherent to it. I doubt that most OI'ers, however, do not have a sufficient knowledge of history or economics to offer the mathematical evidence to prove otherwise.Nothing will self fix--it will evolve in ways beyond any 19th century reporter for the New York Trubune's imagenation. Easy as that. Economics just as physics isn't a static science--it constantly moves in ways unimaginable--just as Marx couldn't discuss today's physics, he couldn't discuss today's economics. Nor that he wasn't smart--he just didn't have the data. In the end Marx never had the history or the mathematics to understand today's world.

Marx is a man of the past, like Newton or Adam Smith or Kepler--they did as best they could with the knowledge of their day, but history has moved on. Marxists are the Newtonians of Economics.

Labor Shall Rule

29th November 2008, 23:43

Not "does"...."DID". Now on to better and less dated explainations. :) Don't get me wrong Marxism STILL has a lot to offer--in the same way Newtonian Physics has still has lot to offer--as a teaching structure.

It just in the final analysis is dated and wrong. Helpful as a guidepost, worthwhile as a learning tool, really true and valid in it's limited relm--but essentially wrong whe it comes to 21st century politics and economics.

Care to enlighten me?

In the end, it's been the purchase of mortgages and asset backed securities (buying fake shit, in other words, through nationalization) that has stopped a wider global crisis from ripping everything else to shreds faster. Leading 'left' economists have acknowledged that if a public entity (i.e. a federally-owned bank) existed, credit could be pumped into the real economy, which would stop the crisis altogether. It's clear that the 'free market' ideology is being proven wrong by Marx's predictions as socialization is being carried out, so his 'final analysis' isn't that far off from being realized.

Bud Struggle

29th November 2008, 23:50

Care to enlighten me?

In the end, it's been the purchase of mortgages and asset backed securities (buying fake shit, in other words, through nationalization) that has stopped a wider global crisis from ripping everything else to shreds faster. Leading 'left' economists have acknowledged that if a public entity (i.e. a federally-owned bank) existed, credit could be pumped into the real economy, which would stop the crisis altogether. It's clear that the 'free market' ideology is being proven wrong by Marx's predictions as socialization is being carried out, so his 'final analysis' isn't that far off from being realized.

Sure--it was government getting involved in mortages in the first place--through the outlawing of redlining and instance that mortages should be made available to ALL people no matter if they could pay or not that instigated this crisis. Granted that the banks took advantage of the situation--but Marx said nothing of WHY all this would happen. Nothing said about exended credit markets and default swaps--just a general "Capitalism will fail" not quite enough to get my vote.

If you really look at the current problem --not to make to fine a point of it, but it's not Capitalism that is failing--it's gambling that is failing.

danyboy27

30th November 2008, 00:14

i dont think its about free market, but about the lack of rules and regulations.

In canada we have tight control over our financial institution, that why so far we been relatively safe from the crisis.

of course we take some hit, its nothing compared to what the us is getting right now.

Hiero

30th November 2008, 00:32

Nothing will self fix--it will evolve in ways beyond any 19th century reporter for the New York Trubune's imagenation. Easy as that. Economics just as physics isn't a static science--it constantly moves in ways unimaginable--just as Marx couldn't discuss today's physics, he couldn't discuss today's economics. Nor that he wasn't smart--he just didn't have the data. In the end Marx never had the history or the mathematics to understand today's world.

I don't think there has been any qualitative changes in how capitalism works. There has been different changes in "management" (I can't think of a better word) but still capitalism is about creating new capital through creation of surplus value by explioting labour. The economic science is still there. The problem why it looks outdated is looking at each individual country as parallel economies.

There has been alot of acadamic stuff on globalisation, but they just never hit the spot when it comes to class, that is why they generally deny class. In the first world they claim class is breaking down and the 3rd world is only to follow through modernisation brought on by globalisation. When really it is one system, we have an international bourgeoise, a 3rd world comprador bourgeoisie and a concetration of expliotated labour in the 3rd world. When looked at this way we are still back to explaining the process of thecreation of capital through explioted labour and resources. Then of course the Marxist political, sociological and the philosophical notions only stand when they follow the science.

ernie

30th November 2008, 01:00

Marx is a man of the past, like Newton or Adam Smith or Kepler--they did as best they could with the knowledge of their day, but history has moved on. Marxists are the Newtonians of Economics.
But somebody already generalized Newton's theories; that is why there are no longer any "Newtonians". When that happens for Marxism, then we'll start using the new theory. Until then, it remains the most useful tool we have for these analyses.

Robert

30th November 2008, 01:51

It doesn't bother you because it doesn't affect you.If you mean I'm not suffering at the moment, you're right. As for those who do suffer, please concede that the Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian revolutions caused as much useless suffering as they alleviated, that of North Korea created more, and the first three are gradually throwing off Marxism anyway. I'm sick of the "there was only state capitalism in China" argument, so save it.

All the ingenuity in the world by itself cannot create any wealth
Never claimed the contrary. But if you think you can teach programming and supply chain management to an average wage slave who wants to do only what he wants to do, regardless of societal/market demand, on the schedule he chooses, well then we disagree. Programmers can, however, easily learn to stuff boxes, solder, sweep up, and type invoices. In fact, most of them did so at one point or another. I will not believe that you don't accept this.

He was mostly lucky.
Oh.

I gave $28.1 billion, so I beat him. (That's my way of saying: who gives a shit?)You would if you were more fair minded.

I said we want more.
Know what? I changed my mind: you cannot get it. Not in the West or in Zimbabwe. Not anything. Ever. Unless you change your attitude.

I take it you think [playing pro football] is impossible [for you].
Now you're getting it.

Is that why you object to it?
No, I guess you don't get it.

.

Bud Struggle

30th November 2008, 01:59

Interesting--in fact brilliant piece by Michael Lewis

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

RGacky3

30th November 2008, 02:02

but I don't ignore what I've learned, I use the dialectic. I take what you give me take other stuff that comes at me from all around and combine it together and move on.

What you do is put forward an argument and ignore the responce, then repeat the argument again, and ignore the responce again.

I'm a pragmatist, I'm in the businesses that I'm in not because of love or interest or faith. They just happened to be the right things at the right time to make me the most money. And that philosophy has served me well.

Thats a personal philosophy, not a social system.

And to be honest--THATS THE WAY THE UNIVERSE WORKS. I see the take over of Wall Street as Socialistic--not because it's classically socalistic and written that way in some book--but because the consequences of such a buy out will impede once free markets.

Its not socialistic, do you know why? Because NO socialist, now or in the past would consider it socialistic or support it.

Thats not the way the universe works thats the way Capitalism works, slavery used to be the way the universe works, does'nt make it right.

If you really look at the current problem --not to make to fine a point of it, but it's not Capitalism that is failing--it's gambling that is failing.

Thats the way Capitalism works, take risks, be a step ahead, short term profits, its Capitalism that failed, it failed a long time ago, and its just been pumped to to keep afloat.

i dont think its about free market, but about the lack of rules and regulations.

Capitalists will only take so much crap from the state. Remember, the Capitalists have the money, the resources, the industry, the state only has the pen and police, that being said they always work together, don't count on the State turning to the poor people side any time soon.

Robert

30th November 2008, 02:08

Thanks, Tom. Very instructive. But there are already people who tripled their money on Ford stock just last week. Doubled it on GM.

I ripped this comment off of a poster on that blog: The best thing about Lewis is his humorous writing style,but he could of spared us the wall street as Darth Vader crap.From the Dutch Tulip to the canal,railroad,car,oilwell,silicon chip,internet,and now housing bubble there have always been booms followed by busts.You would of thought they taught Keynes at Princeton. The reason is simple,people like to try and get ahead both investment bankers and investors.We will get through this present calamity and thousands of fine people will have rewarding careers on wall street and the securities industry and millions of people will fund their children's education and retirement through their investments.