A Modest Proposal for the 21st Century

[synthesis]

It is arguably impossible to find a period in the history of the radical left in which its constituents were more ineffective and just as difficult to find a time in which they were needed more. (By the left, I am referring to those who at some level agree with the statement that "people should be more important than their social constructions.")

Recently, the most powerful political position in the most powerful hegemony in the world was reserved for someone who captured popular demand for radical change in both domestic and foreign policy and politics. His rhetoric was sound, and his charisma impeccable; unfortunately, by all indications his actual implementations will address few if any of the real concerns which paved his path to power.

It is also the case that Western class society has never been more confused. The children of the bourgeoisie want to buy their clothes at Salvation Army and the urban proletariat wants to drive luxury cars and wear European designer clothes, but by and large the material conditions of either group have not changed significantly.

These tendencies have surprisingly complex roots in social psychology; it is not necessary or even feasible to examine them here, given the paucity of actual scientific insight into those subjects.

In any case, we of the Western left should not be any more immune to fear of internal change than any other ideology. Fear of internal change is good. At the end of the day, we can all feel better about criticizing the status quo without having to take action to substantively change it.

Therefore, I submit to you all a modest proposal for the radical left of the 21st century:

Let us not speak of modifying our ideology to fit our circumstances; let us instead wait patiently for our circumstances to adapt to our ideology; let us broker no compromise.

Let us not speak of our own complicity in the marginalization of radical leftism in the West; let us not speak of how we can reintegrate the left into the mainstream without abandoning our integrity; let us not abandon our contempt for the mainstream in favor of efficacy.

Let us not attempt to consider the ways in which the radical left can co-exist with other ideological trends in the political mainstream. That would just mean more work for us.

Also, let us develop a dogma of our own, based on a definition of socialism or communism as "whatever we believe" in exclusion of all others' definition of the same; let us in turn shout "dogma!" at anyone who even implies that although such ideas may not be wrong, they were not present in the writings of the movement's founders and therefore cannot be considered inherent in the movement. Those people are just assholes.

Let us ignore the absurd proposition that our overwhelming predilection with "sexual freedom" is merely a reflection of the sexualization of bourgeois culture. Our ideas, contrary to everyone else's ideas, are not a product of our material conditions.

In turn, let us not attempt to appeal to the anti-abortion constituency - which contains many proletarians - by arguing that our system would reduce abortion rates by ameliorating the material conditions of poor people which force them into abortion.

Let us instead focus more on attacking religious people for their preoccupation with the "nuclear family" without ever forcing them to consider that capitalism has done far more damage to their traditional structures than anything perpetrated by the radical left. We all know that everyone besides us is incapable of rational thought, because obviously, if they could think rationally, they would totally agree with us.

Fuck that. Let us instead dismiss everyone who disagrees with us as being "oppressors" and "reactionaries."

Why use modern political issues to further the leftist political agenda when we can instead polarize everyone with our "with us or against us" mentality? That's way more fun, and let's admit it: we feel cool being on the fringe.

So, should people be more important than their social constructions? I agree, and therefore I argue that we should forever antagonize those people who continue to hold on to their social constructions - it's way easier and more entertaining than cooperating with them in the faith that our system will change their conditions in such a way that their social constructions will become obsolete. That's just boring.

You've heard my modest proposal for the 21st century. What do you think?

[Demogorgon]

Sigh, I could have written this post, right down to the exact same sarcastic nuance.

Needless to say, your point is impeccable.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Funny and sad at the same time... your point is very well made!

[danyboy27]

i could have written the opposite, but then again i am a social democrat...great post anyway.

[Killfacer]

So what are you suggesting we actually do?

[synthesis]

So what are you suggesting we actually do?

Well, on this board, we can ban and restrict more people who might sympathize with our general intentions yet differ from us on tangential issues.

Offline, we can throw blood on politicians, disrupt churches on Sundays, and generally do everything we can to make ourselves look like a bunch of overly aggressive nutcases.

Above all, we should keep doing whatever it is we do that relegates us to our current state of irrelevance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Offline, we can throw blood on politicians, disrupt churches on Sundays, and generally do everything we can to make ourselves look like a bunch of overly aggressive nutcases.

Has anyone ever done any of these things?

I've got far more interesting things to do on Sundays than bother the God-botherers. Like sleeping.

As for throwing blood on politicians - tsk tsk, what a waste of good food.

Mmm, black pudding.

[synthesis]

Has anyone ever done any of these things?

Oh, yes. Don't let anyone tell you that the revolution hasn't already begun.


http://www.bloggerfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/feb282008codepink_condi.jpg

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bash-back-bashes-t94309/index.html

[Killfacer]

Has anyone ever done any of these things?

I've got far more interesting things to do on Sundays than bother the God-botherers. Like sleeping.

As for throwing blood on politicians - tsk tsk, what a waste of good food.

Mmm, black pudding.

He makes a persuasive point. Particuarly about sleeping.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You've heard my modest proposal for the 21st century. What do you think?

You kick my ass at writing satire about the Left.

[synthesis]

He makes a persuasive point. Particuarly about sleeping.

Who needs sleep when you have lots and lots of amphetamines?

[Bud Struggle]

Excellent post Kun Fana. While the Left sits in it's ossification--the Reagans and the Obama's rule the world.

You should be restricted for that post! ;)

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, the post was funny. I often try and think positive myself. For example, as Chomsky - who often is accused of being "too negative" -- likes to talk about the social progress that has been made in Western societies.

My own thinking is that democracy has been challenging rightist tyrannies for centuries, from aristocracy to modern libertarianism. So, ideas about freedom and socialism are very important to keep around, to serve as critiques of capitalist tyranny.

And have you read the original TomK? I heard it's a pretty interesting work. There is some other literature I wanted to ask if you had read, perhaps I'll bring it up in Reactionary Chatter.

[Bud Struggle]

And have you read the original TomK? I heard it's a pretty interesting work. There is some other literature I wanted to ask if you had read, perhaps I'll bring it up in Reactionary Chatter.

I read it in college many years ago--unfortunately revolutionary works like that when divorced from politics often fade to mere literature. And no doubt that's how I read it. I was a Classics Major at a major Catholic University-- so I read a lot of everything worth reading.

But that was long ago. In a similar tone to Swift is Carlyle's Sartor Resarutus which I've just started reading again--more in a radical political mood than when I was a wannabe William F. Buckley, Jr. in school.

Interesting book, too.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I read it in college many years ago--unfortunately revolutionary works like that when divorced from politics often fade to mere literature. And no doubt that's how I read it. I was a Classics Major at a major Catholic University-- so I read a lot of everything worth reading.

By the time I got to High School, we were tought that he really wanted to eat little children. :lol:

Honestly, though, the US economy is now shrinking at 5%/year. Unemployment is going to the teens. The job market for college graduates is going to shrivel like a puddle in the Sahara. We may be approaching the worst holiday for every retailer in the world except for wal-mart.

Yet the far-left is alien to the working classes. Not because of the brainwashing people have had about the SU, not because of a disagreement of the premise that we're geting fucked. But because of general feeling of animosity between working class values and the working class agenda they supposedly have.

Please don't insult someone's religion, or think that you're some kind of revolutionary for doing so. All your doing is making yourself look alien to the Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Whateva' worker across from you, who would benefit from a Leftist turn, and you turn him off to the struggle.

Seriously, if you're going to insult religion, or speak for the "Left" when doing it, DON'T.

Nobody. Cares.

[Killfacer]

Basically if your an american leftist, don't mention religion or everyone will hate you?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Basically if your an american leftist, don't mention religion or everyone will hate you?

Basically.

It's like when liberals blast cigarettes and raise taxes on it, and then working class people resent them over it because they're the ones who smoke.

[Mindtoaster]

By the time I got to High School, we were tought that he really wanted to eat little children. :lol:

Honestly, though, the US economy is now shrinking at 5%/year. Unemployment is going to the teens. The job market for college graduates is going to shrivel like a puddle in the Sahara. We may be approaching the worst holiday for every retailer in the world except for wal-mart.

Yet the far-left is alien to the working classes. Not because of the brainwashing people have had about the SU, not because of a disagreement of the premise that we're geting fucked. But because of general feeling of animosity between working class values and the working class agenda they supposedly have.

Please don't insult someone's religion, or think that you're some kind of revolutionary for doing so. All your doing is making yourself look alien to the Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Whateva' worker across from you, who would benefit from a Leftist turn, and you turn him off to the struggle.

Seriously, if you're going to insult religion, or speak for the "Left" when doing it, DON'T.

Nobody. Cares.

^

Epic wisdom.

Some leftists need to fucking understand that if we start getting big there are going to be ALOT of workers who dislike abortion.

One of the biggest examples of a disconnect from the working class that I've seen on this site is the fact that anyone who even questions abortion is restricted and labeled "OMG SEXIST"

Obviously we need to keep the pro-choice stance, but labeling a worker as a sexist reactionary is utterly fucking stupid. Most oppose it because they are told that a fetus is a living human.

Alot of people here need to learn to deal with this shit and educate, not throw all the pro-lifers to the gulags.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

^

Epic wisdom.

Some leftists need to fucking understand that if we start getting big there are going to be ALOT of workers who dislike abortion.

One of the biggest examples of a disconnect from the working class that I've seen on this site is the fact that anyone who even questions abortion is restricted and labeled "OMG SEXIST"

Obviously we need to keep the pro-choice stance, but labeling a worker as a sexist reactionary is utterly fucking stupid. Most oppose it because they are told that a fetus is a living human.

Alot of people here need to learn to deal with this shit and educate, not throw all the pro-lifers to the gulags.

First, thank you.

Second, let me say that I agree completely. If I can offer an example from our domestic politics it's that, John Kerry lost Ohio in 2004 mainly due to "moral issues." Despite the fact that that area was being extremely hard hit by Bush's demonic economic policies, many people simply saw Kerry as an out-of-touch northeastern liberal elite.

Of course the Left should have a pro-choice stance, and oppose all restrictions like a 24-hour waiting period that would punish the rural poor. But a pro-choice effort needs to be focused around the educational deficiencies and economic hardships which practically make abortion a necessity in our society.

[RGacky3]

Some leftists need to fucking understand that if we start getting big there are going to be ALOT of workers who dislike abortion.

One of the biggest examples of a disconnect from the working class that I've seen on this site is the fact that anyone who even questions abortion is restricted and labeled "OMG SEXIST"

Obviously we need to keep the pro-choice stance, but labeling a worker as a sexist reactionary is utterly fucking stupid. Most oppose it because they are told that a fetus is a living human.

Alot of people here need to learn to deal with this shit and educate, not throw all the pro-lifers to the gulags.

I think as leftists we should be putting our attention on the working class, workers taking over the economy, those issues, the socalled "New Left" delt the death blow to Socialism in the minds of western workers, it compleatly ignored them and went after other things (which are not wrong in themselves are postive, but not the big picture), Socialism in the west did best when it did what it was supposed to, be for all working people, to fight the bosses, to fighting the Capitalist system. THAT is what we should focus on.

[Demogorgon]

That is a good point concerning the New Left. I agree with the various new left causes, most of them anyway, but focusing on them over the core issue, the issue of economic exploitation has lead to the left becoming impotent. Offering nothing other than a more obnoxious version of socially liberal mainstream politics.

The refusal to address anybody who holds a different position on any issue to the Holy Catechisms of the faith is more pronounced on this board than it is in general left wing circles of course, but it is present everywhere to one extent or another. The trouble is a lot of people find the fringes exciting, they enjoy it, it makes them a bit edgy and gives them an interesting talking point at parties. And in order to be on the fringes you need to be exclusive, and that means not letting other kids into the club. I think that is behind a lot of this behaviour. Certainly the broader "more radical than thou" behaviour is causing this.

The irony is that those wanting to be so socially Libertarian often end up embracing authoritarian politics without even realising it. They often want to abolish freedom of speech for instance, not letting people speak against their positions and have a tendency to fall into "benevolent dictator" thinking, even if they call it something else. Not wanting those that disagree with them to have any say in their society. Not to mention of course, that many of these people still manage to adopt various very right wing social positions anyway, such as supporting the death penalty.

We preach tolerance and it is time for us to get a bit more tolerant, tolerating those who disagree with us and making allies of them on the causes where we agree. The most important freedom of all is perhaps the freedom of dissent and we should respect that. Rosa Luxembourg had some good words here.

[Glenn Beck]

Posting in epic thread.

We've killed forests of trees (and whatever the electronic equivalent metaphor) explaining what we're against, how about telling people, loudly, convincingly, enthusiastically, and in an inspiring and accessable way, what we're FOR?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

the socalled "New Left" delt the death blow to Socialism in the minds of western workers,

Couldn't agree more.

Since FDR, the Left has been about social issues, not labor issues.



The irony is that those wanting to be so socially Libertarian often end up embracing authoritarian politics without even realising it. They often want to abolish freedom of speech for instance, not letting people speak against their positions and have a tendency to fall into "benevolent dictator" thinking, even if they call it something else. Not wanting those that disagree with them to have any say in their society.I've made the same observations and have come to a similar conclusion in some aspects.

Nobody will go to Church because everyone will know it's false. Nobody will speak ill of the system because everyone will believe in it. Nobody will be allowed to publish dissent because it is counter-revolutionary propaganda, etc. etc. etc.

I like your admission that being on the fringe sucks. More people need to get the same idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I guess I have a programmatic question in regards to the history of the various Socialist parties in the United States and "New Left" revisionism.

Is it possible that a lot of supporters of the old Socialist parties held socially conservative views, especially the rural supporters? For all its faults, the minimum-maximum program also turned "New Left" issues into, using Trotsky's words, "holiday speechifying."

[Bud Struggle]

Is it possible that a lot of supporters of the old Socialist parties held socially conservative views, especially the rural supporters?

I'm no expert and I can't speak across the board but since joining the CPUSA I've been spending some time in the NY Public Library (when I'm in town) going over letters to the old Daily Workers from the 1924 (when the paper started) to the 50s and a couple of things are pretty obvious--the old line Socialists of the USA at least were REAL working people and were often lightly educated but were vastly intelligent and practial in their application of Socialist values.

There was a really beautiful homespun appeal to the average guy writing into the newspaper. They were radicals but very down to earth ones.

[RGacky3]

There was a really beautiful homespun appeal to the average guy writing into the newspaper. They were radicals but very down to earth ones.

I agree, thats what the left needs to get back too.


Is it possible that a lot of supporters of the old Socialist parties held socially conservative views, especially the rural supporters? For all its faults, the minimum-maximum program also turned "New Left" issues into, using Trotsky's words, "holiday speechifying."

Thats true, but whether or not they had socially conservative is'nt the point, they were fighting for labor issues, thats the main thing.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

We've killed forests of trees (and whatever the electronic equivalent metaphor) explaining what we're against, how about telling people, loudly, convincingly, enthusiastically, and in an inspiring and accessable way, what we're FOR?

Who do you mean by we?

If you're talking about the Left that's one thing. If you're talking about Stalinists it's quite another.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I'm no expert and I can't speak across the board but since joining the CPUSA I've been spending some time in the NY Public Library (when I'm in town) going over letters to the old Daily Workers from the 1924 (when the paper started) to the 50s and a couple of things are pretty obvious--the old line Socialists of the USA at least were REAL working people and were often lightly educated but were vastly intelligent and practial in their application of Socialist values.

There was a really beautiful homespun appeal to the average guy writing into the newspaper. They were radicals but very down to earth ones.
Well, to be fair, the level of discourse in America has greatly diminished. We don't need "vastly intelligent and practical" people. Just people a little higher than functioning retards, given our competition. I completely agree though. If you're communist and don't have a job, then fuck off. Maybe you're the next Marx. Maybe you're the next Lenin. Maybe you're spending your families fortune to support revolutionaries, but I'm working 3 jobs, supporting myself, and funding a local group of revolutionaries. If I can do it, all of these other mother fuckers should be able to do it.

To be fair, I think high school communist have their value. If they stay communist long enough to make it through their 20s I think they'll stay for the rest of their lives. Still, it's a little disheartening to hear about the "exploitation of the workers" from someone whose never had a job.

[bcbm]

If you're communist and don't have a job, then fuck off.

Cuz the economy is booming and jobs are just laying about everywhere, eh?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Cuz the economy is booming and jobs are just laying about everywhere, eh?

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing.

Guess those dudes at Republic Glass ought to just fuck off then, eh?

But I promised not to make snarky little remarks and I think what he was getting at was people who are well off because of stuff they didn't do (ie their parents made money) and in that I agree with him.

[bcbm]

Yeah, I've actually had similar conversations with friends, that phrasing just rubbed me the wrong way a bit.

[Robert]

First, why is this in OI?

But since you post it here, I guess I am free to opine: I do not see how you guys can ever hope for revolution without, well, revolting. Violently. Comprehensively. Unyieldingly. Universally. The capitalist mind set is more deeply ingrained in western culture and the western mind than you seem to realize. It's not going to gradually fade away. Teachers and auto workers may form and join unions, but I wonder how many of them would agree with you if you told them that the ultimate goal of organizing was to throw off the yoke of wage labor and end private ownership of their companies?

Many of the teachers in the USA aspire to go on to other careers in the private sector, opening charter schools, consulting, catering, you name it. They don't want to exploit anybody, though they may want to offer a kid or a retiree a summer or part time job. (The alternatives you offer to these freedoms are fuzzy and grey.) In the meantime, they are teaching little kids that they can grow up to be anything, including ...

a sole proprietor of a business.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

First, why is this in OI?

But since you post it here, I guess I am free to opine: I do not see how you guys can ever hope for revolution without, well, revolting. Violently. Comprehensively. Unyieldingly. Universally. The capitalist mind set is more deeply ingrained in western culture and the western mind than you seem to realize. It's not going to gradually fade away. Teachers and auto workers may form and join unions, but I wonder how many of them would agree with you if you told them that the ultimate goal of organizing was to throw off the yoke of wage labor and end private ownership of their companies?

The capitalist mindset maybe be widely set, but I don't think it's so deeply set. I think two things contribute strongly to this. First, Capitalism is relatively new. Given the 100,000+ years of human history, capitalism has accounted for about 350 of them. I think that's something people often forget. Feudalism lasted around 1000 years. I don't expect capitalism to last quite so long, but even if it does so what? The goal is its abolition. So either we'll succeed or we'll all be dead (or wish we're dead) so who cares?

Secondly, the mechanisms of capitalism are not clearly socially ingrained. People certainly can understand that "People have a right to what they earn." However, even this conception is ambiguous and not completely rooted in a Capitalist ideology. For example, many common people believe that individuals shouldn't be allowed to become filthy rich by playing the stock market. Yet, if they really understood capitalism, they'd realize this is no more or less legitimate than "hard work." Moreover, the hope to own one's own business is often a displaced hope to avoid exploitation. One wants to own one's business because one doesn't want to be dominated by some other master.

As for fighting it unrelentingly, that seems clearly to be necessary. Now the million dollar question is, what exactly does "unrelentingly" and how can it most effectively be implemented.

[RGacky3]

I do not see how you guys can ever hope for revolution without, well, revolting. Violently. Comprehensively. Unyieldingly. Universally. The capitalist mind set is more deeply ingrained in western culture and the western mind than you seem to realize. It's not going to gradually fade away. Teachers and auto workers may form and join unions, but I wonder how many of them would agree with you if you told them that the ultimate goal of organizing was to throw off the yoke of wage labor and end private ownership of their companies?


I've said this before, about the nature of revolution, it is'nt overthrowing a government (or it does'nt have to be), its slowly shifting power, and control, its weakening the state and the Capitalists and giving power to the workers and citizanry. Maybe eventually it will turn violent, but our goal now is to do anything to shift power.


Many of the teachers in the USA aspire to go on to other careers in the private sector, opening charter schools, consulting, catering, you name it. They don't want to exploit anybody, though they may want to offer a kid or a retiree a summer or part time job. (The alternatives you offer to these freedoms are fuzzy and grey.) In the meantime, they are teaching little kids that they can grow up to be anything, including ...

a sole proprietor of a business.

Yeah, but we are hoping to give them another option. If I knew nothing about Socialism or Anarchism, I would probably have those dreams too, even if they are far fetched.

[Robert]

Gack, how can you simultaneously 1) give power to the workers and 2) weaken the state?

What is the mechanism for the transfer of power? Legislation? Expropriation? Nationalization? All require the heavy hand of government.

After the transfer occurs, how is the transfer solidified and safeguarded other than through force or the threat of force, which again necessitates a strong state?

[Robert]

even if they are far fetched.

I just saw this: what is far fetched? The idea of your owning a business? I hope that this misconception isn't at the bottom of your politics, because it's wrong. You mention poor immigrants in Calif. You also know many successful immigrants who are small proprietors, some in import-export, some in restaurants, some in trades. Some in professions. I admit that many fail, but they want the right to try.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I just saw this: what is far fetched? The idea of your owning a business? I hope that this misconception isn't at the bottom of your politics, because it's wrong. You mention poor immigrants in Calif. You also know many successful immigrants who are small proprietors, some in import-export, some in restaurants, some in trades. Some in professions. I admit that many fail, but they want the right to try.
That's neat anecdotal evidence. Do you have something that might be substantive to back that up? I'd be very interested to see that if you have it.

[RGacky3]

Gack, how can you simultaneously 1) give power to the workers and 2) weaken the state?

Syndicalism my friend.


What is the mechanism for the transfer of power? Legislation? Expropriation? Nationalization? All require the heavy hand of government.


Again, see Syndicalism. Workplace occupations, takeovers. They don't need the State at all. We are doing this, workplace by workplace, neighborhood by neighboorhood. Anarchists don't worry about nations, we don't see our goal as a specific country, its liberating as many areas and as many people as possible.


After the transfer occurs, how is the transfer solidified and safeguarded other than through force or the threat of force, which again necessitates a strong state?

Considering the vast majority of the people are part of the underclass, all that needs to be done is to prevent the overclass (or those wanting to become the overclass) to attain any power of force, or be able to use force. Its not the same as a State takeover, where its a small group taking power over a large group.


I just saw this: what is far fetched? The idea of your owning a business? I hope that this misconception isn't at the bottom of your politics, because it's wrong. You mention poor immigrants in Calif. You also know many successful immigrants who are small proprietors, some in import-export, some in restaurants, some in trades. Some in professions. I admit that many fail, but they want the right to try.

VERY VERY VERY FEW, if you look overall, and generally speaking, those that do are still at the mercy of others above them, (building owners, bankers, contractors and the such). They want the right to try, which means, they want the right to attempt to get out of being the underclass and attain some sort of freedom.

I say, they should'nt have to try, people should be free to begin with.

[Robert]

Do you have something that might be substantive to back that up? I'd be very interested to see that if you have it.


Try this:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs334tot.pdf

Note that it's a California study. That's you, Gack.

Are you guys sure that I'm the one who is out of touch?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Try this:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs334tot.pdf

Note that it's a California study. That's you, Gack.

Are you guys sure that I'm the one who is out of touch?
I haven't had a chance to go through all of it, but did you even bother to read it? According to the introduction and first page,
The nearly 1.5 million immigrant business owners in the United States represent
12.5 percent of all business owners. Immigrants constitute 12.2 percent of the total work force in the United States. They own a large share of businesses in the lowest- and highest-skill sectors and in several industries, an indication that their contributions differ across sectors of the economy. Immigrant business ownership is geographically concentrated in a few states. Nearly 30 percent of all business owners in California are immigrants. One-fourth of New York business owners are foreign-born, as are more than one-fifth of business owners in New Jersey, Florida, and Hawaii.
2.
For example, business
ownership is higher among the foreign-born than the native-born in many developed countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia (Borjas, 1986, Schuetze and Antecol, 2006, and Fairlie et al., 2008). Businesses owned by some immigrant groups are also very successful, with higher incomes and employment than native-owned businesses. Many developed countries have created special visas and entry requirements in an attempt to attract immigrant entrepreneurs (Schuetze and Antecol, 2006). The United States has a small program that gives pecial preferences for admission to immigrants who invest $1 million in businesses that create at least 10 new full-time jobs (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007).
This seems not so much to support your argument, but rather point out that immigrant entrepreneurship follows the same class lines as other native institutions. Again, I haven't read all of it, but this seems to be the clear argument of the paper. Now tell me how it helps your case that rich immigrants continue to be rich.

[Robert]

The nearly 1.5 million immigrant business owners in the United States represent
12.5 percent of all business owners. Immigrants constitute 12.2 percent of the total work force in the United States. They own a large share of businesses in the lowest- and highest-skill sectors and in several industries, an indication that their contributions differ across sectors of the economy. Immigrant business ownership is geographically concentrated in a few states. Nearly 30 percent of all business owners in California are immigrants. One-fourth of New York business owners are foreign-born, as are more than one-fifth of business owners in New Jersey, Florida, and Hawaii.
2.

I claimed that numbers of immigrants own their own businesses. You scoffed and dared me to provide support, as though this were some extravagant claim. So I gave you a cite. You're still not happy. Of course some of the owners are foreign investors. But if you don't know any immigrants of humble origins who have done well under capitalism, or won't acknowledge that they exist in significant numbers, then you're either dishonest or ignorant.

If there is a Vietnamese community in your area, go walk around and find out who owns what. You'll be in for a pleasant -- or in your case, unpleasant -- surprise.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I claimed that numbers of immigrants own their own businesses. You scoffed and dared me to provide support, as though this were some extravagant claim. So I gave you a cite. You're still not happy. Of course some of the owners are foreign investors. But if you don't know any immigrants of humble origins who have done well under capitalism, or won't acknowledge that they exist in significant numbers, then you're either dishonest or ignorant.

If there is a Vietnamese community in your area, go walk around and find out who owns what. You'll be in for a pleasant -- or in your case, unpleasant -- surprise.I had a large post ready, but then the power went out so you're getting this instead.

If you're just claiming "immigrants own business" than that's a very uninteresting claim. They do, but not in any substantive way (9.5 us born to 9.7). However, it seemed you were implicitly claiming that the American system of capitalism is somehow receptive to immigrants and the American Dream is alive and well. Moreover, we were all stupid and out of touch for not realizing how great immigrants had it here. This is generally not true. The average American born business makes 50,643 the average immigrant business makes 46,614. In fact, most of the immigrant groups that have a significantly higher percentage of small business ownership and profits are generally from either first world countries, countries with emerging technology sectors (like Inda), or some unexplained outlier. I'll be honest, I don't know why Iran and Greece are so high, but I'm pretty sure it's not the grace and fairness of American capitalism.

Maybe you should be a little more intellectually honest and read the actual statistics you presented. Your Vietnamese small owners only own business at a fractionally higher rate (9.5 us born to 9.9 Vietnamese). Moreover, that Vietnamese business owner makes substantially less than the American born one (50,643 us born to 34,540 Vietnamese). You're entire argument is terrible. Anecdotal evidence isn't appropriate for this discussion. You were kind enough to provided so you should be honest enough to read it and use it.

[Robert]

<Your>


I'm pretty sure it's not the grace and fairness of American capitalism.

Not to sidetrack, but the basic reason your side and mine will never agree about anything is that you, I fear, see "grace and fairness" as essential to a valid economic system. I don't find them unimportant to society overall. But if we are talking narrowly about job creation and opportunities for immigrants to prosper economically, then I would say that they are not only non-essential, but irrelevant.

It may strike some as "fair" that they enjoy the same rewards for 30 hours of labor per week as those who work 60, and I guarantee you that the immigrant business owners I am thinking of easily put in 70/week and they aren't crying about it. They know that their work is validated by customer satisfaction. Sometimes that takes more than, say, the 35 hour workweek under "attack" in France and the 40 hour work week that is standard in the USA. Plus some people just like to work, okay?

Sorry for the digression, but you sort of invited it. And thank you for taking the trouble to read the material. I confess you read it closer than I did!

[Reclaimed Dasein]

<Your>



Not to sidetrack, but the basic reason your side and mine will never agree about anything is that you, I fear, see "grace and fairness" as essential to a valid economic system. I don't find them unimportant to society overall. But if we are talking narrowly about job creation and opportunities for immigrants to prosper economically, then I would say that they are not only non-essential, but irrelevant.

It may strike some as "fair" that they enjoy the same rewards for 30 hours of labor per week as those who work 60, and I guarantee you that the immigrant business owners I am thinking of easily put in 70/week and they aren't crying about it. They know that their work is validated by customer satisfaction. Sometimes that takes more than, say, the 35 hour workweek under "attack" in France and the 40 hour work week that is standard in the USA. Plus some people just like to work, okay?

Sorry for the digression, but you sort of invited it. And thank you for taking the trouble to read the material. I confess you read it closer than I did!Ok, well it's a different argument if we're going to talk about what values are going to remain in play in the economic sphere. I highly recommend, if you haven't already, you read John Rawls a theory of justice.

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

In it, he argues for egalitarian liberalism that spares the people the worst excesses of free market capitalism. I obviously don't agree with that position and I think capitalism should be abolished in all of it's forms. However, you seem intelligent that I would imagine certain aspects of capitalism are at least problematic to you. You seem to be an unrepentant capitalist. Moreover, I find the notion that ethical principles aren't central to the economy untenable. That not withstanding, I think that Rawls "from your side" and anarcho-Syndiclism from "our side" might be closer than you might think.

Also, I want to thank you for recognize that I actually put effort in to read the statistics. An honest enemy is a rare occurence in arguments in general, let alone online. I still think your position is wrong, but at least we can more clearly define to contours of our disagreement.

[synthesis]

I apologize for resurrecting this thread, but I did want to reply to one post in particular.


I do not see how you guys can ever hope for revolution without, well, revolting. Violently. Comprehensively. Unyieldingly. Universally. The capitalist mind set is more deeply ingrained in western culture and the western mind than you seem to realize. It's not going to gradually fade away.

I'm not arguing for revolution, not right now, for precisely the reasons you listed.

I'm arguing that there are ways in which we can facilitate the reintroduction of radical leftism into mainstream Western politics - so that what was once "radical" then becomes "sensible" to the majority of the population.

And some people won't want to see those changes. When that happens, then we will see revolution. Potentially civil war - that would be the worst part; both sides would likely commit grave atrocities.

After that, the arc will bend towards justice. Like the last time.


Teachers and auto workers may form and join unions, but I wonder how many of them would agree with you if you told them that the ultimate goal of organizing was to throw off the yoke of wage labor and end private ownership of their companies?

It's all in how you phrase it.

The real goal is economic democracy. Capitalism is fundamentally autocratic, even if the character of the autocracy changes over time.

That was a point made by a far wiser individual than myself. Another once said:

"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour."


Many of the teachers in the USA aspire to go on to other careers in the private sector, opening charter schools, consulting, catering, you name it. They don't want to exploit anybody, though they may want to offer a kid or a retiree a summer or part time job. (The alternatives you offer to these freedoms are fuzzy and grey.)

The reality is that under capitalism, the majority of people do not and cannot accomplish everything of which they dreamed in their youth.

The "American Dream" is one of those magnificent lies with its glimmering kernel of truth - that's the only way it survives.

As a side note, one of the greatest fantasies of capitalism is that the human drive to excel is borne solely from material incentive. In psychology, that's called "extrinsic motivation" - and it is nowhere near as potent as intrinsic motivation.

Here, the alternative is truly implementing the degree of occupational freedom of which you speak, to allow everyone a greater degree of freedom to pursue that which they are intrinsically motivated to do, which could be achieved if a society could ask every individual to chip in a few hours of their time every so often, just so the "dirty work" gets done.

(It's like jury duty. That's a service you're asked to perform to try and make the system fair.)

And first things last:


First, why is this in OI?

Because the majority of the world participates in one or more "opposing ideologies". We need them (you) for this shit to work.

[Bud Struggle]

Well thought out.

Your post was better, Dude! :thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

I'm arguing that there are ways in which we can facilitate the reintroduction of radical leftism into mainstream Western politics - so that what was once "radical" then becomes "sensible" to the majority of the population. Than the same can be said for Fascism--it matters not if it's "true" just ingrained.


And some people won't want to see those changes. When that happens, then we will see revolution. Potentially civil war - that would be the worst part; both sides would likely commit grave atrocities.

After that, the arc will bend towards justice. Like the last time. And the Berlin Wall fell. Indeed.


The real goal is economic democracy. Capitalism is fundamentally autocratic, even if the character of the autocracy changes over time. Capitalism is economic freedom--you can build what you want, work for who you want. Start your own business, if you want. Communism is indeed the Dictatorship of the Proles.


That was a point made by a far wiser individual than myself. Another once said:

"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour." Except it's not true. Everyone's worth in an hour is different than everyone elses worth during an hour. I may make ten widgets, you twenty--your hour is worth more than mine--and we should be compensated differently.


The reality is that under capitalism, the majority of people do not and cannot accomplish everything of which they dreamed in their youth. But that's their own fault--not Capitalism's. People need to take responsibility for their actions--


merican Dream" is one of those magnificent lies with its glimmering kernel of truth - that's the only way it survives. Not it survives if you stop being a dreamer and WORK for it.


de note, one of the greatest fantasies of capitalism is that the human drive to excel is borne solely from material incentive. In psychology, that's called "extrinsic motivation" - and it is nowhere near as potent as intrinsic motivation. Nope, that's not how Capitalism works. Really. In Capitalism people work towards a dream--and sometimes they make a lot of money.



Here, the alternative is truly implementing the degree of occupational freedom of which you speak, to allow everyone a greater degree of freedom to pursue that which they are intrinsically motivated to do, which could be achieved if a society could ask every individual to chip in a few hours of their time every so often, just so the "dirty work" gets done. Freedom only exists is you have the right to succeed OR fail--if you can only succeed--it's called kintergarten--or Communism, whichever term you prefer.


And first things last:

Because the majority of the world participates in one or more "opposing ideologies". We need them (you) for this shit to work.

That's why you Comrades should switch from your "I know more than you do" modes of dialogue to something more in the idea of "how can I help?" There's some good ideas in Communism, but unfortunately they can't get through to the people because of the dogmatic, beaucratic Communists standing in the way. :)

Just look at RevLeft as an example--so full of Commissars. ;)

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is economic freedom--you can build what you want, work for who you want. Start your own business, if you want.

Capitalism is not economic freedom at all, its Capitalism, freedom for if you can afford it, and freedom nowerdays is VERY expensive.


But that's their own fault--not Capitalism's. People need to take responsibility for their actions--

Well, poor people do, rich people don't, they can afford not to take responsibility, and STILL make it.


Except it's not true. Everyone's worth in an hour is different than everyone elses worth during an hour. I may make ten widgets, you twenty--your hour is worth more than mine--and we should be compensated differently.

As I said before in another post (value of labor), Capitalims compensation has NOTHING to do with actual value, the people that set the value are the ruling class, which is why a CEO make millions more than a machinist, it has nothing to do with actual value, it has to do with the fact that the CEO is part of the ruling class.


Nope, that's not how Capitalism works. Really. In Capitalism people work towards a dream--and sometimes they make a lot of money.

Have you ever met poor people? Seriously.


Freedom only exists is you have the right to succeed OR fail--if you can only succeed--it's called kintergarten--or Communism, whichever term you prefer.

Freedom has nothing to do iwth success or failier, it has to do with not being ruled over, not have cooercion, not having tyranny. You can't redefine freedom to justify Capitalism.


That's why you Comrades should switch from your "I know more than you do" modes of dialogue to something more in the idea of "how can I help?" There's some good ideas in Communism, but unfortunately they can't get through to the people because of the dogmatic, beaucratic Communists standing in the way.

Thats EXACTLY what a lot of us are doing, how can we help, liberate the working classes, how can we help, over throwing the ruling class and the bosses, how can we help, people take control of their own lives. THATS what we are all about.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism is not economic freedom at all, its Capitalism, freedom for if you can afford it, and freedom nowerdays is VERY expensive. If you can't succeed OR fail--it's not freedom.



As I said before in another post (value of labor), Capitalims compensation has NOTHING to do with actual value, the people that set the value are the ruling class, which is why a CEO make millions more than a machinist, it has nothing to do with actual value, it has to do with the fact that the CEO is part of the ruling class. But that's totally made up crap--just as my stuff is totally made up crap--there are no REAL rules of economics--it's not like anythings true here. It's just what you choose to believe.




Have you ever met poor people? Seriously. Been there done that. As I've said before: Dad (and Mom) were Polish immigrants--Dad built our 1200sf house after work--four kids. The whole 9 yards of poor. Oh, oh then I worked hard in America and made a bucket of cash. Complicated last name, really odd peasent Polish world view, all of that. As a matter of fact--you don't have a clue, but that's another story. :rolleyes:


Freedom has nothing to do iwth success or failier, it has to do with not being ruled over, not have cooercion, not having tyranny. You can't redefine freedom to justify Capitalism. You can't be free with a safty net.




Thats EXACTLY what a lot of us are doing, how can we help, liberate the working classes, how can we help, over throwing the ruling class and the bosses, how can we help, people take control of their own lives. THATS what we are all about.

Well, here we agree. :)

[RGacky3]

If you can't succeed OR fail--it's not freedom.


Freedom and Socialism has nothing to do with being able to succeed or fail, it has to do with power structures and authority and control, stop redefining it. Of coarse you can succede and fail in socialism in different endevours, that has nothing to do with anything really, what socialism is about is ending economic power structures.

BTW, you did'nt respond to my post, Capitalism is freedom for sale, at a high price, and slavery for those who can't afford it.


But that's totally made up crap--just as my stuff is totally made up crap--there are no REAL rules of economics--it's not like anythings true here. It's just what you choose to believe.


Tomk, there we go again, you compleatly ignore my post, refuse to respond to any point I put up, and just made a baseless statement.

Its not what you choose to believe, its pretty damn obviouse that those who make the pay checks and buy the stocks are the ones determaning their value.

TomK there are facts and power relationships that you can choose to ignore, but that does'nt make them non existent.


You can't be free with a safty net.


If thats the case rich people arn't free :P, your definition of freedom makes no sense.


Well, here we agree.

Ok then, your a communist, welcome aboard.

[Demogorgon]

You can't be free with a safty net.

Whose freedom exactly is hurt by a safety net and why?

[Bud Struggle]

Whose freedom exactly is hurt by a safety net and why?

Mine, really. How can I be a success if there isn't a chance for me to fail? A major problem with Communism is that it takes all of the fun--the danger out of life. If no matter what I do it will be just "OK", without the real genius of success or stupidity of failure--how the heck will I ever learn to be better the next time I try?

Where's the fun in living under Communism? The Soviets found it with vodka. Is that the plan?

[Bud Struggle]

TomK there are facts and power relationships that you can choose to ignore, but that does'nt make them non existent.



There are, I'll agree. But the real art to living life is to find a way to say: FUCK YOU to them and do what the hell you want.

That's the stuff that makes the world turn.

[Demogorgon]

Mine, really. How can I be a success if there isn't a chance for me to fail? A major problem with Communism is that it takes all of the fun--the danger out of life. If no matter what I do it will be just "OK", without the real genius of success or stupidity of failure--how the heck will I ever learn to be better the next time I try?

Where's the fun in living under Communism? The Soviets found it with vodka. Is that the plan?
Well actually, research shows that without a safety net you likely wouldn't take risks in the first place. Rational people don't like to take action that could end up with their family on the streets. After all, would you stake your life savings on a game of poker? The rewards would be potentially huge-but the consequences of failure?

Capitalism actually needs a social safety net to function, without it only idiots (or those with plenty of family wealth to fall back on) would take risks.

So if you take a capitalistic view of freedom, you really ought to conclude that a safety net is necessary for freedom.

I still don't see how you can claim that removing much of the risk of crashing and burning hurts your freedom though. It is like saying that the existence of seat belts and airbags hurts the freedom of car drivers.

[synthesis]

If you can't succeed OR fail--it's not freedom.And yet in capitalism, the cost of failure is the loss of freedom - i.e., wage slavery.


Been there done that. As I've said before: Dad (and Mom) were Polish immigrants--Dad built our 1200sf house after work--four kids. The whole 9 yards of poor. Oh, oh then I worked hard in America and made a bucket of cash. Complicated last name, really odd peasent Polish world view, all of that. As a matter of fact--you don't have a clue, but that's another story.As I said, every lie has a kernel of truth.

I'm not calling you a liar - you obviously believe this to be true - but the system would not be tenable if it did not work for some people, and it works for you.

You're the kernel of truth.

Most people cannot achieve any kind of real power precisely because the system dictates that some people's lives must be relegated to powerlessness.


How can I be a success if there isn't a chance for me to fail?See, you're in a position to say such a thing, because you're capable of ignoring that "failure," an act or state which you argue should be an inherent freedom, results in a loss of freedom, influence, and anything resembling power over one's everyday life.

So we are dealing with two different freedoms here. The freedom to fail, and the freedom to pursue your calling as long as you make a fair contribution to the society enabling you to do so.

You, as a business owner, you love the "freedom to fail" - that's how you get the lifers.

Should people be free to sell themselves into chattel slavery? That would be both an absolute freedom and an absolute loss of freedom.

Demogorgon made some very good points in the post above this one.


Than the same can be said for Fascism--it matters not if it's "true" just ingrained.Well, that's just the thing.

When conditions get truly extreme, so will the politics. The radical left and right will both surge in numbers. I'm arguing we should get a head start so we have a better chance of winning.

You claim to hate Fascism, but when it is resurrected under a new name, it will probably be in your political interest as a business owner to support it, at least when it is competing against the radical left.

So think long and hard about which "freedoms" you truly value.

[RGacky3]

There are, I'll agree. But the real art to living life is to find a way to say: FUCK YOU to them and do what the hell you want.


Thats easy when your wealthy and are a boss.

When most people say that they get fired/arrested/killed (in many countries) and lose everything. So no Tomk, thats not the answer, anymore than is is for the slaves just to say that, you need to overthrow and end the power structure, you can't ignore it, especially when your under it.

I think you have a really dillusional understanding of the nature of power how it works in real life.


A major problem with Communism is that it takes all of the fun--the danger out of life. If no matter what I do it will be just "OK", without the real genius of success or stupidity of failure--how the heck will I ever learn to be better the next time I try?


The luxury of failier and success is really only for the rich, the poor don't have that, they can't succede (really), and if they fail, they starve.

Communism allows people real control over their lives, they can fail or succede in endevours, they can work together in other endevours, your notion that somehow communism means the state giving you everything you need, shows you hav'nt learned a damn thing here.

Also your idea that the prospect of not being able to feed your family is somehow "fun" for hte majority of the world shows how dillusional you are.

Economics is'nt about fun, its about power for some, and survival for the rest, thats Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

And yet in capitalism, the cost of failure is the loss of freedom - i.e., wage slavery. Then it's a good excuse to try hard. No problem there.




As I said, every lie has a kernel of truth.

I'm not calling you a liar - you obviously believe this to be true - but the system would not be tenable if it did not work for some people, and it works for you.

You're the kernel of truth. Hey, Indian (from India) immigrants own 30+ of the hotels in the US, and lots more--they CHOOSE to work. They come over here with nothing and MAKE IT WORK. good for them. No the real lie is that people need government and a helping hand to succeed in life, that they can't make it like REAL men and wome on their own. That's the lie.



Most people cannot achieve any kind of real power precisely because the system dictates that some people's lives must be relegated to powerlessness. That kind of thinking is so sick. People can do whatever they want--when you religate them to failure, that's all they'll do. People need to be EMPOWERED so they can lead strong productive lives--Communists want to disempower the so they can get their Political agenda across.


See, you're in a position to say such a thing, because you're capable of ignoring that "failure," an act or state which you argue should be an inherent freedom, results in a loss of freedom, influence, and anything resembling power over one's everyday life. And then a man or woman, gets up after he or she is knowked down dusts themself off and starts again. That's how it's done.


So we are dealing with two different freedoms here. The freedom to fail, and the freedom to pursue your calling as long as you make a fair contribution to the society enabling you to do so. Freedom to "contribute" is worth nothing unless the marketplace tells your contribution is worth something--otherwise it's just masterbation.


You, as a business owner, you love the "freedom to fail" - that's how you get the lifers. I've failed and I've succeeded. I've done a bit more of the latter--but it all was worth the effort.


Should people be free to sell themselves into chattel slavery? That would be both an absolute freedom and an absolute loss of freedom. I'm against slavery. The great thing about America is that you can try AGAIN!


Demogorgon made some very good points in the post above this one. He always does.


When conditions get truly extreme, so will the politics. The radical left and right will both surge in numbers. I'm arguing we should get a head start so we have a better chance of winning. Communism like Fascism is 20th centruy flotsam and jetsam. Time to plan for something different in the 21st Century.


You claim to hate Fascism, but when it is resurrected under a new name, it will probably be in your political interest as a business owner to support it, at least when it is competing against the radical left. Fascism is like Communism a disproven theory of the 20th Century--no Hitlers or Stalins--hipefully we learned from our mistakes.


So think long and hard about which "freedoms" you truly value. American Democracy and capitalism--they work pretty darn well.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats easy when your wealthy and are a boss. I WAS more Proletarian than you could ever DREAM of being.


When most people say that they get fired/arrested/killed (in many countries) and lose everything. So no Tomk, thats not the answer, anymore than is is for the slaves just to say that, you need to overthrow and end the power structure, you can't ignore it, especially when your under it. We need to get more people into the rather beneovelent Capitalism that the United states has--not abolish Capitalism. America has a good formula.


I think you have a really dillusional understanding of the nature of power how it works in real life. You want it you take it--what's to know?


The luxury of failier and success is really only for the rich, the poor don't have that, they can't succede (really), and if they fail, they starve. No not starve--people don't starve in America--they have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and try again.


Communism allows people real control over their lives, they can fail or succede in endevours, they can work together in other endevours, your notion that somehow communism means the state giving you everything you need, shows you hav'nt learned a damn thing here. I'm learning what works and what fails here--I look at this place with a gimlet's eye. Some stuff is really worthwhile--but the Communist's understanding how human nature works--is almost absurdist.


Also your idea that the prospect of not being able to feed your family is somehow "fun" for hte majority of the world shows how dillusional you are. No: we have to introduce American Demoracy and capitalism to the rest of the world--it's not going good in large parts of the world.


Economics isn't about fun, its about power for some, and survival for the rest, thats Capitalism.I wish I had 1/100th of the power you think I had. :)

[Plagueround]

I'm learning what works and what fails here--I look at this place with a gimlet's eye. Some stuff is really worthwhile--but the Communist's understanding how human nature works--is almost absurdist.


Again, I really don't enjoy replying to the "Think For Me" forum anymore, but I do have to ask about this one.

The communist understanding of human nature is driven by one accepted of two sociological macrotheories. These ideas are driven by carefully researched and documented observation of social interaction throughout history. They aren't simply made up.

If not their understanding, what? Do you accept the other theory? Do you even know what it is? If you reject both these theories, I'm sure you would then have the proper knowledge to refute and dismiss them. I'm interested to hear the refutation of either one.

[Bud Struggle]

Again, I really don't enjoy replying to the "Think For Me" forum anymore, but I do have to ask about this one. For me this is a "teaching" forum ;)


The communist understanding of human nature is driven by one accepted of two sociological macrotheories. These ideas are driven by carefully researched and documented observation of social interaction throughout history. They aren't simply made up.
'Cept they don't work in actual practice--witness the vast numbers of crash and burn takes on Socialism/Communism in the last century. People don't work in their own best self interest--at least not on a large scale--it MAY work for a short time (WWII) but long term a looser economic society seems to prevail. As far as Class conflict goes--I've been pronouncing the un viability of that theory for some time--there just aren't "classes" in any real sense--maybe socially, but at least in America--the membrane between the rich and poor is so porous it really doesn't exist.


If not their understanding, what? Do you accept the other theory? Do you even know what it is? If you reject both these theories, I'm sure you would then have the proper knowledge to refute and dismiss them. I'm interested to hear the refutation of either one.

Laze faire Capitalism doens't work, Communism doesn't work--that leaves Social Democracy of one sort of another.

The "Other" Elephant in the Communist closet is that Marx's little prediction of Revolution taking place in Industrial societies--and it's of particular note that Revolutions ONLY take place in Feudal societies. Kings, Emporers, Tsars, alway seem to leaving town (or worse) when Communist take power. The best Example is Nepal--Communist had to hunt down to the ends of the earth the one remaining king and depose him. All well and good--becaus the REAL purpose of Communism is to take backword feudal societies and take them over--update them and then turn them over to capitalism when the update is done. Or that's the way it seems to have been working--Actually that's the TomK Corrollary to the Marxist theory. See I have been paying attention.:D

[Plagueround]

'Cept they don't work in actual practice--witness the vast numbers of crash and burn takes on Socialism/Communism in the last century. People don't work in their own best self interest--at least not on a large scale--it MAY work for a short time (WWII) but long term a looser economic society seems to prevail.

I was reading a great web page that outlined Marx's theories the other day which was quite good and I wish I had bookmarked it. The best part was that it called this type of argument, no matter what theory you apply it too, the "NYAH NYAH HA HA" arugment. As I said in another thread, using a paper rocket doesn't disprove space travel because you burned your cosmonauts to death.


As far as Class conflict goes--I've been pronouncing the un viability of that theory for some time--there just aren't "classes" in any real sense--maybe socially, but at least in America--the membrane between the rich and poor is so porous it really doesn't exist.

Thus far, I don't think you've been able to conceptualize conflict theory beyond thinking it means the rich and poor hate each other and are factioning off somehow.


Laze faire Capitalism doens't work, Communism doesn't work--that leaves Social Democracy of one sort of another.

However, I wasn't talking economics. I'm talking about sociology. Even if the conclusions the field has come to don't lead one to become a communist, you cannot simply dismiss what they've established about human interaction without more backing for your argument.

[Robert]

As I said in another thread, using a paper rocket doesn't disprove space travel because you burned your cosmonauts to death.

That's pretty good. But why can't you say "astronaut"?

Plague, I thought you were fed up with OI, casting pearls before swine and all that. Tell the truth, it's more fun hanging with us than all those grim comrades over in Theory and Worker Struggles. Come onnnnnn, say it.

I'll sing a verse of L'Internationale and post an mp3 of it here if you do. But you have to be sincere.

[synthesis]

Fascism is like Communism a disproven theory of the 20th Century--no Hitlers or Stalins--hipefully we learned from our mistakes.

I don't give a shit about theories. I'm a materialist. Haven't you picked up on that yet?


Hey, Indian (from India) immigrants own 30+ of the hotels in the US, and lots more--they CHOOSE to work. They come over here with nothing and MAKE IT WORK. good for them. No the real lie is that people need government and a helping hand to succeed in life, that they can't make it like REAL men and wome on their own. That's the lie.

There is truth and fiction in all fantasies - yours and mine alike.


That kind of thinking is so sick. People can do whatever they want--when you religate them to failure, that's all they'll do. People need to be EMPOWERED so they can lead strong productive lives--Communists want to disempower the so they can get their Political agenda across.

Being "productive" does not entail having "power." Again, in capitalism, power is centralized, by necessity, and whether power is fluid or not is irrelevant. Again, we argue for economic democracy - real "power to the people."

[synthesis]

One more thing.


Everyone's worth in an hour is different than everyone elses worth during an hour. I may make ten widgets, you twenty--your hour is worth more than mine--and we should be compensated differently.

But you don't actually make widgets, right? You just tell people to make them.

In that sense, I think we could do just fine without you.

[Plagueround]

That's pretty good. But why can't you say "astronaut"?

Because given the context I think cosmonaut is funnier, no other reason really.


Plague, I thought you were fed up with OI, casting pearls before swine and all that.

I would really like to enjoy the OI, but to be quite honest, I don't think our current batch of OIers are capable of much beyond a constant barrage of strawmen about how the system has worked for them so it must be working, or a constant barrage of reminders about Stalin.


Tell the truth, it's more fun hanging with us than all those grim comrades over in Theory and Worker Struggles. Come onnnnnn, say it.

I think this might be true if the OI was capable of stepping up their level of debate. As it stands, we tend to get so caught up in explaining the same principles over and over and having to constantly remind people that we aren't simply proponents of Soviet Union 2: Dialectic Boogaloo. I could not imagine how dreadful this forum would be if every post devolved into a capitalism vs. communism debate.


I'll sing a verse of L'Internationale and post an mp3 of it here if you do. But you have to be sincere.

As tempting as it is, I suppose I shall have to stick to Rasco's beautiful voice for the time being.

[RGacky3]

I WAS more Proletarian than you could ever DREAM of being.

So? I don't dream of being more proletarian :P, that would suck. What does have to do with what we are talking about?


We need to get more people into the rather beneovelent Capitalism that the United states has--not abolish Capitalism. America has a good formula.


Really? Benevolent Capitalism? Ask the rest of the world, ask the millions of laid of workers, are you high?

Also, you can't get people into benevolent Capitalism, unless you get the Capitalists on board, and thats never gonna happen, unless it will increase their profits.

Your solution would be the same as saying, "We don't need democracy, we just need friendlier dictators."


No not starve--people don't starve in America--they have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and try again.

Yes they do Tomk, and no they don't, most people don't have the opportunity to try again, Tomk, don't post high.


I'm learning what works and what fails here--I look at this place with a gimlet's eye. Some stuff is really worthwhile--but the Communist's understanding how human nature works--is almost absurdist.


Whereas your, "lets just make Capitalism friendly" i.e. "the worst of people will do the best of things for the worst reasons." is logical?


No: we have to introduce American Demoracy and capitalism to the rest of the world--it's not going good in large parts of the world.


We have done that :P, well, at least the second part, and guess how much we are loved.

BTW, who's we? The benevolent CEOs, politicians, the ones in power that somehow don't care about power only about helping people?


I wish I had 1/100th of the power you think I had.

Well you do have power over your own life and the livelyhood of some other poeple.


Laze faire Capitalism doens't work, Communism doesn't work--that leaves Social Democracy of one sort of another

Laize Fair Capitalism does'nt work your right, Social Democracy does'nt work either, Leninism does'nt work, Communism does work (Anarcho-communism), and has worked.

And by worked, I mean worked in creating a free and equal society.

Capitalism and Social Democracy and Leninism works for those in power to certain degrees.