General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo End Racism and Police Brutality, End Capitalism!
-- by John Peterson
(Snip)
"The racism of the police is therefore not merely an ideological construction, the result of “bad people,” “bad will,” or “bad ideas.” Rather, it reflects a deeper objective reality. Social being determines social consciousness. Scarcity leads to a struggle over limited resources. Those who have the bulk of the wealth are in a minority, and must therefore hire a force able and willing to unleash devastating viciousness against the majority in order to “keep them in line.” But sheer violence is not sufficient. Other, far more subtle means must also be employed. The development of a system of skin-color-based discrimination during the rise of capitalism and the revival of chattel slavery became an indispensable weapon in the “divide and rule” arsenal of the capitalists. By getting the exploited and oppressed to fight each other over scraps, attention can be drawn away from the real relations of wealth and power in society."
(Snip)
"It is the structural racism of the capitalist system that leads to a racist outlook and ideology—not the other way around. There's no question that there is a heavily racist component in the targeting, degree, and frequency of police brutality. Marxists do not reduce this or any other complex social phenomenon “only” and mechanically to class. But in the final analysis, if there were no classes, there would be no need for police, and without police, no police brutality. Only in a society of superabundance, in which there is no scarcity, and therefore nothing life and death to fight over, will people's prejudices begin to melt away. This is why Marxists continually explain that there is no lasting antidote to the venom of racism within the limits of capitalism, which has tailored and compartmentalized this society to benefit the rule of the bourgeoisie."
(Snip)
"The scandalous decisions not to indict the police involved in murdering Mike Brown and Eric Garner have brought people out on the streets in a way we haven't seen in the US quite some time. For many people, the realization that there is persistent racial, gender and other forms of discrimination, and that this is a systemic component of capitalism, is an important first step towards arriving at a more fully developed class consciousness."
(Snip)
"So while the US Marxists have participated in dozens of these protests, spoken at several, and even organized a handful, our primary task at the present time is to "patiently explain" and to connect with those seeking an explanation and longer-term perspective for how we can collectively change the system once and for all. Without serious organization and a clear set of demands linked to the broader issues facing the working class and youth—such as jobs, higher wages, indebtedness, healthcare, and education—the movement will inevitably tend to dissipate. However, all of these problems will remain, which will only generate more and even larger movements in the future."
Full article at link....
http://www.marxist.com/to-end-racism-and-police-brutality-end-capitalism.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(73,022 posts)
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Capitalism is not necessary.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)JI7
(93,116 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)JI7
(93,116 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Something like that.
JI7
(93,116 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It could be time to try something different.
JI7
(93,116 posts)it's existence in itself.
that's something we haven't really done either.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I also think that capitalism spawns and reinforces racist attitudes and also police brutality against people with no power. I choose to link anti-racism as part of anti-capitalist struggle because I see a link. If you don't see a link that's fine.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Economics might be one tool used by racists, but it's not what is causing the racism.
Racism is caused by social self-identification and group comparisons. It's a social psychology problem.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)What is your idea for how to end that?
In my opinion that problem can best be addressed by creating a just and peaceful world so people don't develop those attitudes. Include even anti-racist education. But if it's just some feature of human brain evolution, then we won't ever be able to eliminate that totally. I'm not a brain evolution expert so I don't know.
I actually thought we were talking about the system of racism.
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_racism
https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism
I thought we were talking about modern systemic racism such as when cops keep killing black people and the system lets the cops walk free. That particular system of racism developed hand in hand with the capitalist system.
When they started buying slaves from Africa they gave the white guys guns and whips to control the slaves and that's how it started. That's how white privilege started as a way to control blacks. That was right during the beginnings of capitalism and modern racism.
We're still doing the same thing. White privilege is what makes white people defend a system that oppresses and exploits everyone, exploiting and oppressing black people the worst.
I think this is not a only psychology problem but a system of social control where one group dominates over another.
JI7
(93,116 posts)but they can feel satisfied in thinking they are better than those others.
i think of the anger of a lot of those cops when they are dealing with black people including young kids . the rage that comes from a black person daring to not be ordered around by them.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).
Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.
In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!
Therefore we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).
This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.
The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.
Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.
Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate:
1. the differences between groups
2. the similarities of things in the same group.
We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more similar than they are. Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. “them” and “us” mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The slave trade began in the 1600s. It began before the US was even a country. A true capitalist system didnt even exist yet until the American revolution. Most of the world was in a mercantile system. This is what originally led to the Atlantic slave trade. It created the triangle.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You say "true capitalism". For me the mercantile system is early true capitalism. The triangle was part of early capitalism.
There may be some imprecise terms as people debate these terms all the time, but I consider slaves, cotton, early textile industry, all to be features of early capitalism, as early capitalists were financing and profiting.
Igel
(37,284 posts)Not for most.
There's a difference between "imprecise" and "quite different."
There's also a tendency for some to want everything that is bad to be called by a word that means little more than "bad." The USSR wasn't socialist; it was "state capitalism." Feudalism is "manor capitalism." China is capitalist, everything's capitalist. Well, maybe not Venezuela, it hasn't collapsed yet and we can still blame the US for things, however tenuous the connection.
Because then every problem is "capitalism's".
The flip side of this is also fairly straightforward: If China and the USSR were socialist, then socialism isn't a solution, or at least it's not obvious how to structure socialism to make it a viable solution. In the '90s this was a topic of discussion: With the failure of socialism in the countries that had tried it for decades, what was a socialist to do? After a few moments of hemming and hawing, the solution was found: Socialism hadn't really been tried because they weren't "true" socialism. Whatever socialists had said for the previous 50 years or so. Then, 25 years on, it's possible for pretend that command economies are a good thing because they are a good thing and do good things. Let's leave data out of it--that was then, this is now. We're all existentialists ... and if we weren't before, it doesn't matter.
The idea that morality and behavior is a function entirely of social environments collapsed in the USSR as they tried to re-engineer people and resorted to ever more paranoid excuses as to why it wasn't working.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The overwhelming point is that modern racism, especially in its American form, started when they brought slaves from Africa, and they gave the white guys guns and whips to control the slaves. And the system was designed that way on purpose for the benefit of the wealthy elite to profit. Certain racist ideas developed to justify this.
The system has evolved over time and progressed with struggle, but this basic feature has remained where black people are on the bottom of a racial caste system, and white people have a level of privilege and that helps keep black people at the bottom. This all operates for the benefit of a wealthy elite who like having a stable system, and benefit mightily by having an endless supply of disempowered black people to exploit for profit with crappy jobs or by locking them in prison.
If you agree with that I think we are on the same page. I don't care if it is called mercantilism, capitalism or anything else.
You are talking about how morality is not function of economy. I agree morality is not a function of economy.
I'm talking about a system of racism as a system of social control. Not what makes a person bad, but how society got to be this way and who benefits.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Just make shit up as we go along.
Why don't socialists ever want to go into detail about the day-to-day workings of a socialist system? All I ever see is proclamations about destroying capitalism, with very little substance about how to pay for the hundred plus millions of people who will be government employees in a system where there will no longer be private enterprise to provide funding.
It's kinda like hooking a motor up to a generator, and then using the generator to power the motor. Even the most efficient system will require outside input, otherwise friction and resistance will wind it down to a stop.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Democratic control of communities. Probably nested councils of delegates or something like that. Basic guarantees for jobs and health care and stuff like that.
There's not like necessarily one right answer. People write volumes about it and there is a ton of stuff available for free on the internet. If you're interested follow what interests you. If not ok.
This was a thread about the relationship between racism and capitalism and the answer seemed sufficient to whoever was involved at the time so there was no need to go off an a tangent about different socialist ideas for how to organize town councils and stuff.
I gave a shorthand response that would quickly indicate to a person with background knowledge a certain general flavor of socialism.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I see that phrase mentioned a lot around here, but I have yet to hear someone explain it in a sentence or two.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Telcontar
(660 posts)Same principles apply. Willing to be same personality types will be drawn to it.
Face it, no matter the system, sociopaths will rise to the top
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in a mature communist system, you have no contracts for starters. Workers produce what is needed by society, nothing more nothing less. Workers are responsible for all the small details, from allocating child care, to allocating housing, to allocation medicine and food.
HOAs do none of this.
Now back in the real world. we have yet to see an actual mature communist system, outside of a a small Kibutz. working with some efficiency. For the record, we will not.
And yes, I live with an HOA and I do not like them.
Telcontar
(660 posts)"First you start with a mature communist system"...um, no.
First you start with the current system and explain to me how we get from here to there.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we have tried. You don't.
For the record, capitalism is at an end. but it will not be replaced by communism.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)JI7
(93,116 posts)as there WERE places which tried this .
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)BainsBane
(57,314 posts)Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact. The US represents the archetype of racism throughout former slave societies. Other countries, like Brazil, declare themselves free of racism because they aren't as bad as the US. (It doesn't make it true, but it nonetheless is a common claim). Few places are. The author's point, however, is that racism is a product of capitalism. That it continues to exist under socialist shows it cannot entirely be reduced to capitalism, as does the fact it pre-dates capitalism.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That's one question. That's a problem that can best be addressed by creating a just and peaceful world so people don't develop those attitudes. But if it's just some feature of human brain evolution, then we won't ever be able to eliminate that totally. I'm not a brain evolution expert so I don't know.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean when you say it predates capitalism. But anyway I did not think we were talking about that.
I thought we were talking about the modern systemic racism such as when cops keep killing black people and the system lets the cops walk free. That particular system of racism developed hand in hand with the capitalist system. When they started buying slaves from Africa they gave the white guys guns and whips to control the slaves and that's how it started. That's how white priveledge started as a way to control blacks. That was right during the beginnings of capitalism and modern racism. We're still doing the same thing. White privilege is what makes white people defend a system that oppresses and exploits everyone, exploiting and opporessing black people the worst.
This is just some idea I made up so it could be wrong.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)and the slave trade. Only that period of history was not capitalist. Slavery was a pre-capitalist mode of production.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)AOR
(692 posts)with the institutionalized racism of African Americans that grew out of Capitalism. Slavery was not adopted out of racism...racism was adopted out of modern day slavery and the attempt to legitimize "free labor." Slave holders would have enslaved purple aliens if it provided cheap labor and then demonized the purple aliens as inferior and not worthy of freedom. Institutionalized racism was the means of legitimizing modern day slavery and cheap labor--the Black race as "inferior humans."
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)You are not calling slavery "free labor." FFS. I'm familiar with the origins of racism that emerged as a justification for slavery. My point is that slavery, according to Marx, is a pre-capitalist mode of production. The idea that slavery has no relationship to racism today is completely and absolutely wrong. Its evolution can be charted through the development of laws enforcing slavery.
Slave owners showed a clear preference for African labor over, for example, enslaved Indians. Sugar mill owners in Brazil estimated African slaves to be worth four times that of an Indian. The preference was not racial but had to do with the strength, skill brought from W Africa, and the fact they were unfamiliar with the land and therefore had greater difficulty running away. At that point, however, the 16th century, the justification for slavery remained religious rather than racial. Racism emerged in conjunction with slavery--but slavery is not capitalism. I repeat, it is a pre-capitalist mode of production. Fernando Novais, borrowing from Eric Williams, argues it provided the primitive accumulation of capital that gave rise to capitalism, but that is not the same as being capitalist itself. Orthodox Marxists define capitalism as being characterized by free-wage labor. Your use of the term free labor is the sort of thing one sees in undergraduate essays. Slave labor was not "free," not to slave owners. One of the advantages of free-wage labor under capitalism is it actually was cheaper. They pay wages only when they need laborers, don't have to maintain them during the dead season, and have no up front costs. Free-wage labor is variable capital, whereas slave labor was fixed. The abolition of slavery was therefore an essential stage in the development of capitalism.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The relationship of slave with owner was a slave mode of production, clearly, and which you explained well, better than I could.
But in the capitalist marketplace the slave was a commodity, like sugar, cotton or horses.
Here you can see a capitalist market place where slaves were bought and sold.
This was the beginning of American racism as white people were given the privileged positions over blacks for the purpose of profiting the capitalist financiers who were dealing in slaves as a commodity. After the civil war this continued with Jim Crow and segregation until today when we still have a lot of this going on. The system of white privilege does exist to keep black people on the bottom.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)as characterized by free-wage labor. Liberal historians commonly refer to slavery as part of capitalism, as do some World Systems Marxist historians. In reality it is a matter of debate. However, the problem with defining capitalism according to global markets, in the Worlds Systems approach, is that it lacks any historical specificity. People have traded since the dawn of civilization. The emphasis on mode of production, or labor system, enables one to provide historical time frames. Under such analysis, slavery is pre-capitalist. It acted as an impediment to the development of capitalism. Slavery and mercantilism were interrelated, and the two broke down around the same historical period.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Probably most of these white dudes.
Certainly the slave drivers, the overseers, alot of them were wage laborers.
I understand the slave trade took place in sort of a pre-capitalist period, the terms are debatable, we shouldn't bog down in terminology.
Mercantilism didn't really break down it just evolved into something slightly different.
Slavery didn't really break down either. The chains were cut, but the system of domination and exploitation continued in a slightly less brutal form.
"To most Americans, slavery ended with the Empancipation Proclamation. Slavery by Another Name gives voice to the largely forgotten victims and perpetrators of forced labor."
This 90-minute documentary challenges one of Americans' most cherished assumptions: the belief that slavery in this country ended with the Emancipation Proclamation. As chattel slavery came to an end in 1865, thousands of African Americans were pulled back into forced labor with shocking force and brutality. It was a system in which men, often guilty of no crime at all, werw coerced to do the bidding of masters. Tolerated by both the North and the South, forced labor lasted well into the 20th century.
We still have slavery today in prisons, and cops are still policing black people like they were runaway slaves.
Even with non-slave labor I question how free people really are when debts and the need for work keep them begging for jobs and not always feeling so free. The capitalist class continues to benefit enormously from America's racial caste system. The system still uses white privilege to keep the descendants of slaves on the bottom, so there is huge supply of bodies to exploit for profit, either in jobs that pay crap or by locking in prison.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)of labor. To him it actually preceded the Serf-Master relationship of the middle ages. He also never said that once an economic system was superseded in the dialectic, older forms would not remain in the periphery of the system. Which is precisely what happened in the American south.
There is more, he said like zip, zero, nada on racism. And modern economic historians understand the rise of modern day slavery as a product of mercantilism. The American south continued to work under mercantilism (and did not have that much of a manufacturing base) until well after the civil war. Jesus, this even includes some Marxist historians. Of course serious folks use it as a basis to create a theory of history, not one on how to run an economy any more. With the death of the USSR... we all know socialism works, like that of Northern European nations, but communism does not.
We get it, Marx was an incredibly gifted historian.
AOR
(692 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Socialist Worker is not precisely known for SOLID historical analysis.
As to Lincoln, he was pro labor, but he would have an issue calling himself a member of the vanguard, This is embarrassing, for you that is. Blue links from sources that are not presicely considered solid is not goign to help.
Here
https://www.learner.org/courses/worldhistory/support/reading_14_1.pdf
By the way, you will have to also explain the rise of the white slave trade
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438040983&sr=8-1&keywords=white+slave+trade
Which of course you will never address. And it is related to yes, MERCANTILISM and the needs for labor in the COLONIES, and not just the American colonies.
And if you do want to explain the present existence of racism in CUBA, this is a good start... though Spain is not quite the same animal though.
http://www.amazon.com/British-Capitalism-Caribbean-Slavery-Interdisciplinary/dp/0521533201/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1438041020&sr=8-5&keywords=mercantilism+and+slavery
Here
http://www.amazon.com/Rebellion-Struggle-against-Atlantic-Envisioning/dp/0807857726/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1438041220&sr=8-3&keywords=slavery+in+the++spanish+colonies
and here
http://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Histories-Slavery-Approaches-Americas/dp/0521694108/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1438041283&sr=8-9&keywords=slavery+in+the++spanish+colonies
And with this, have an excellent day. You really are persistent, I gotta give you this.
And once again, we are moving towards a post capitalist system. And like mercantilism survived along side the medieval system for a while, and later capitalism with mercantilism, this one will also survive side by side with late stage capitalism.
AOR
(692 posts)There are no leftists that agree with the word-salad narrative being produced in your posts. This is one of hundreds of these critiques.
http://socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml
ALEX TAYLOR
(Snip)
"FOR MANY people coming to radical politics--Blacks and whites alike--hatred of racism and a desire to get rid of it is a huge motivating factor. This is in contrast to some of the common assumptions about where racism comes from.
The first is that racism is part of human nature--that it's always existed and always will. The second is the liberal idea of racism--that it comes from people's bad ideas, and that if we could change these ideas, we could get rid of it.
Both assumptions are wrong. Racism isn't just an ideology but is an institution. And its origins don't lie in bad ideas or in human nature. Rather, racism originated with capitalism and the slave trade. As the Marxist writer CLR James put it, "The conception of dividing people by race begins with the slave trade. This thing was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religion and philosophers had…that the only justification by which humanity could face it was to divide people into races and decide that the Africans were an inferior race."
History proves this point. Prior to the advent of capitalism, racism as a systematic form of oppression did not exist. For example, ancient Greek and Roman societies had no concept of race or racial oppression."
AOR
(692 posts)and you'll get the idea. You produce much way too much word-salad in your posts Bains for the sake of attacking actual leftists. Libertarians use the same tactics when trying to confuse the issues. Not sure why you do it.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)I suggest the International Socialist Review: http://isreview.org/topic/race-and-class
AOR
(692 posts)sooner or later those straddling the fence have to face objective material reality and historical reality. It's pretty obvious that many running around calling themselves leftists are not leftists at all. You won't find a hell of lot at ISR that disagrees with Peterson's take.
JI7
(93,116 posts)or other bigotry ?
AOR
(692 posts)of early white European capitalist social relations. There is no other objective historical narrative that proves otherwise. This is common knowledge among the actual left.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)What do you mean by "early white European social relations"? When, where? According to whose analysis?
Marx was first and foremost a historian. History depends on evidence. Where is yours?
Response to AOR (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)becuase the rise of slavery as we know it is the product of MERCANTILISM. Capitalism goes back to 1800 or so. It was first identified in 1776 (maybe) by Adam Smith, but definitely named as such by Ricardo... a time when Slavery was starting to wane, and was getting challenged by the rise of the earliest proletariat, which was also starting to organize.
Quick, when was the first recognized labor strike in the United States? I am sure you can tell me .
Even Marx, well espeially Marx, recognized Slavery as an early method of getting free labor in primitive societies. He had not one word to say about racism either. But plenty to say about labor and capital... and the dialectic.
Yes, my head truly hurts, having actually, shit read Das Kapital. You might want to have this discussion where people are truly ignorant of any of this. You might get more success. I disagree with a lot of people on this site, often. To the point I mostly ignore what they post. But here, you are way out of your league.
Oh and I will further qualify this, Not the American left, as you obtusely write, but a small segment of the left, that is even despised by the rest of the left.
AOR
(692 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)from the rest of the left, is not going to help.
By the way, if you were quitting from an economics journal, the American Historical Review, yes they do run Marxist interpretations, GASP I KNOW, or a few other credible academic journals. But no, you keep posting from the same sources that are NOT that credible. Trust me, socialist worker is not that credible, neither are the rest.
Now don't you have some vanguard work to do?
AOR
(692 posts)but please do continue on with your screeds that Marx never discussed race. Lmao
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Marxist historians have though, regularly. Why EP Thomson is invaluable for studies of EMPIRE.
The concept of race, as we know it today, is somewhat modern. Lukács and Habermas are NOT Marx. Sorry. Nice try though.
At this point this is definitely high comedy.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)You do. You find thoughtful analysis about race and empire. You don't find a reductionist view that it is all due to capitalism and subordinate to class, when in fact racism and slavery predate capitalism. Slavery was a pre-capitalist mode of production. Racism continued and continues to exist in socialist Cuba, despite the once full collectivization of property. All historical evidence shows that racism is not simply a product of capitalism, and many modern-day Marxists understand that. Tithi Bhattchacarya, for example, looks at how gender and race are produced under neoliberal capitalism, but in a far more thoughtful and sophisticated way. http://isreview.org/person/tithi-bhattacharya
AOR
(692 posts)are not "Marxists" at all. They are posers. Any actual view of historical materialism proves you wrong. You will not win this "debate" because there is no debate. You are wrong and not a single actual leftist takes your view. Does Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fit the bill of "modern day Marxists?" It's really hard to tell when the CPUSA endorses Barack Obama and neoliberialsm. IMAO Maybe they will endorse Hillary this time around for the sake of expediency. Yep, lots of phony leftists running around the web swamps.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)about the historical record? How on God's earth do you go from a discussion of Marxism to US politicians? You are way off topic and making absolutely no sense. And anonymous people on the internet who drift off into rants about Democratic politicians out of fucking no where do not have more authority on the state of Marxism than do well-respected scholars. Clearly you are operating from a view of Marxism at least a half century old.
JI7
(93,116 posts)Figures.
JI7
(93,116 posts)but that's what i was reminded of.
and there were some issues in the AA group with him which resulted in a block against him.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)which in itself causes pause. I'm not sure about your particular theory though.
JI7
(93,116 posts)based on his attacks on a member in the AA group they seem pretty familiar things .
"When all the bricklayers, and all the machinists, and all the miners, and blacksmiths, and printers, and hod-carriers, and stevedores, and house-painters, and brakemen, and engineers, and conductors, and factory hands, and horse-car drivers, and all the shop-girls,and all the sewing-women, and all the telegraph operators; in a word all the myriads of toilers in whom is slumbering the reality of that thing which you call Power ... when these rise, call the vast spectacle by any deluding name that will please your ear, but the fact remains a people has risen."
--Mark Twain
AOR
(692 posts)that actually includes Marx, anti-capitalism, and the oppressive relationship between Capital vs Labor. Do you know what the CPUSA is ? Of course you do.That is the "Communist Party" USA. The fucking sellouts who think that "organizing around identity politics and Barack Obama" is more important than gaining actual political, economic, and social power for the working class as a whole. Fuck all the posers Bains and that includes the Frankfurt School of "Cultural Marxists", the Communist Party USA, and any supposed "leftist" that can't get their head on straight on what ruling class and working class means on the ground.
I didn't bring up the CPUSA or the election. Democratic politicians have f all to do with Marxism. Your flailing because you can't continue a point from one post to the next.
Your use of cultural Marxism is a right-wing slur. It is not the same as the Frankfurt School.
Your message is clear enough. Black folks need to fall in line and . . . let me guess, stop their protesting and vote for Bernie?
AOR
(692 posts)because you're so used to arguing with liberals and Democrats. When you have to go up against leftists and Marxists it all falls apart for you. And I got news for you Bains...I don't play the Bernie vs Hillary game. I support a few of Sander's ideas and Sander's narrative for a bit of class consciousness raising. That is what matters not personalities. Cultural Marxism is not the Frankfurt School of pseudo "Marxist"-horseshit That's a very interesting reply for some so "well versed" on Marxism.
AOR
(692 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
AOR
(692 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)
AOR
(692 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was a development of European imperialism.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)"Superabundance" is pure fantasy.
If you want less police criminality, then PUNISH the offenders! Don't rely on a vaporware ideology to fix societies problems.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)for drug and alcohol use?
for those who are going to need it.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)And the cops do SWAT raids on dorms all the time.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and cops actually do not do that many raids... and blacks are still convicted for drug use at much higher numbers than whites, or for that matter hispanics.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)What are you working on to end either? And no, armchair posturing about how revolutionary you are as opposed to all of those "poseurs" you hate? Doesn't count.
AOR
(692 posts)"we can do both" is not a leftist analysis. That goes without saying. No leftists deny that. They can't be separated. The only people who try to separate the two are those who defend Capitalism as the only way forward. I'm familiar with your posts at other venues over the years (some very good work by the way) and I'll leave it at that. Not sure why some (who have provided great insight in the past) have drifted so far from the bottom line. Supporting the neoliberal policies of Barack Obama is not leftist. Endorsing Barack Obama - as the CPUSA did - was not leftist. Supporting Hillary Clinton is not leftist. You know this...why do you promote such things.
The net is an important tool to change the narrative. That IS doing something. As far as what "I'm doing" on the ground goes...that is irrelevant in the grand scheme. I'm a worker and sometimes member of the lumpen group. We all do what we can to spread the message of working class power. You know that also.
"Being a Socialist" is irrelevant. Many claim to be Socialists are doing the bidding of Capital over Labor. There is ZERO possibility of social and economic justice as long as a ruling class exists to profit off of the surplus value of labor produced by the workers. There is ZERO possibility of social and economic justice as long as the commons and the means of production and distribution are in the hands of a very small capitalist ruling class. It is that... that the revisionists and opportunists don't seem to get. Working for reforms as a tool to the end-game is fine. Working for reforms and voting as the be all and end all is not. You also know all that.
The labels are insignificant horseshit and are serving nothing more than blurring those battle lines. One either stands with and serves at the convenience of the ruling class and the owners and their power structure or they stand with the workers who have no power whatsoever and who have been trampled upon for ages. When the CPUSA endorses Barack Obama as "part of the battle plan"... anyone paying attention to leftist politics knows that the labels are utterly meaningless at this point in history. "Being a leftist" under such an umbrella is meaningless.
The responsibility of actual leftists is to point out the failure of Capitalism for the WHOLE of the working class and the people, to point out the oppressive relationship between Capital and Labor under the capitalist modes of production, to point out class struggle and bring class analysis to the table, to point out the property question and theft of the commons ( who owns and controls what and why), and to deal in objective material reality and the facts on the ground for the WHOLE of the working class. How do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fit into that responsibility. Sanders isn't a savior and voting is of minimal impact but at least Sanders is somewhat changing the narrative for people who are looking for a new way forward. At least it's a start in that respect.
You've heard this before as it is from a writer that we are probably both familiar with -- " Leftists are not interested in imagined capitalist "freedoms and equality" that rest on a foundation of straw nor are Leftists interested in the pity, the charity, or the good works of benevolent capitalists and "educators" operating under the guise of "aiding those less fortunate." Leftists are interested in working class power, economic power, and political power so there won't be any "less fortunate" and no privileged and parasitic ruling class will ever need to pity or insult the poor and the struggling again, because there won't be either.
The answer to the systematic and institutionalized racism that goes along with capitalism is not for more "minorities" and African Americans to embrace Capitalism and more "empowered Black capitalists." There will be no "colorblind and wealth-blind social justice" or any other justice as long as Capital and the lust for profit dominates all social, economic,and political relations and Capitalism remains the dominant form of production and social arrangement going forward.
I actually read this a few weeks ago and quickly wanted to puke--"Creating a "cross-class alliance" can be tricky and difficult, but I think it’s essential. Nothing good is going to happen without an
alliance that includes some wealthy people."
A "cross-class alliance" across income and wealth categories" and alliances with the owners and the ruling class. Unbelievable. Let us all please join hands with the ruling class and the owners to negotiate a kinder gentler wage-slavery for the workers and "those less fortunate" is that fatal embrace Starry Messenger.
The question is not "why can't we all get along"...the question is what side are people on. You know this also. Cheers
Rex
(65,616 posts)I wouldn't compare plutocracy to capitalism. END THE PLUTOCRACY!
Before it is too late.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)AOR
(692 posts)and has no place in any leftist discussion or leftist analysis. It's also often used by many of the supposed American "left" to shout down, marginalize, and stop discussions of the destruction, oppression, exploitation, and impoverishment caused by Capitalism.
On Progressive “Red-Baiting”
by Tamara K. Nopper
(Snip)
"Red-baiting of course is not new and today many people throw the word leftist as well as radical, revolutionary, Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist, around like they are accusations rather than oppositional, albeit diverging, positions against capitalism, the state, and for some of us, white supremacy. Most of the people who are the most vociferous in publicly denouncing leftists are white conservatives, including corporate news personalities and members of the inherently racist and white nationalist Tea Party. Yet progressives critical of racism, poverty, corporations, and government officials have their own ways of red-baiting."
(Snip)
"Not all of the targets of this red-baiting of which I speak are associated with Marxist organizations or have specific organizational affiliations. Nor do most progressives publicly use pejoratives such as “Commie” or “Pinko.” Yet some will easily use terms such as “authoritarian leftist,” “radicals” or “revolutionaries” when trying to deflect questions posed by people unimpressed with their political positions but whose opposition cannot easily be dismissed as driven by white supremacy or conservatism. In the process, these progressives often avoid having to explain why they are committed to the positions they take by calling their critics “radicals” or “revolutionaries,” thus situating their positions as logical or natural as opposed to ideological. Such gestures are consistent with red-baiting; individuals can simply shut down inquiry or interrogation of their political positions by using labels that are unpopular among a general public trained to hate such terms due to the aggressive campaigns by the mainstream press, most academics, and the state to demonize and criminalize stances that are too oppositional."
(Snip)
"After Obama’s victory, many of us were expected to hold off on expressing critical views of the election so as to respect the euphoria. Whereas after 9-11 those critical of empire were supposed to remain silent so as not to cause more pain for the victims and the nation, after Obama’s election we were supposed to keep quiet until the celebration was over. Even as Obama reveals himself to be, as one friend puts it, an operative (as opposed to simply being “scared” of whites), many people writing books and commentaries about the significance of Obama’s election defend their positions with red-baiting. It is not uncommon to hear authors go out of their way to ridicule “radicals” and “revolutionaries” for taking issue with Obama. That they never have to identify what they mean by these terms or why they are ridiculing such politics speaks to the ease in which they can engage in such red-baiting among their audiences."
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/progressive-%E2%80%9Cred-baiting%E2%80%9D
Throd
(7,208 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Marxism really is dead. And thank God for that. Billions doomed to poverty because of it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Name a single Marxist nation as successful as the west. Name a single instance where Marxism has produced a higher standard of living than the mixed economies of the west.
AOR
(692 posts)you think what you've offered up here in your two posts is something new ? These slogans you are using are right out of the McCarthy playbook and are used everywhere to try and silence the actual left. Standard issue red-baiting conjuring up scary images of Stalin on Red Square as the tanks roll by. Laughable.
The conversation is about Capitalism... not how some alternate choice on the "buffet table of choices" might stack up in one's imagination. Many are too busy bashing Marx to understand Marx. You apparently think that the foundations of Capitalism are not based on exploitation, the institutionalized theft of labor, and the increasing impoverishment of the workers ?
Marx is a critique of Capitalism and the oppressive relationship between Capital and Labor. Marx is a guide for the working class. Marx is a tool for the working class. Marx is clarification for the working class in understanding the continuous battle between Labor and Capital under the capitalist modes of production. Marx stands the test of time - in that regard - and scares the crap out of "Libertarian" propagandists, economists, and capitalist lapdogs who deny the existence of classes and class struggle and who also deny that profits and Capital set in motion are created by the exploitation of workers, the theft of labor, the theft of the commons, and the commodification of basic human needs and nearly all resources.
You don't have to be a Marxist scholar to understand that labor and the majority of the working class and the poor masses are getting their asses kicked by Capital and the priorities of the ruling class and their gatekeepers.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,496 posts)and yes, because you started the thread on the subject, you do need to show us how Marxism would rid the world of racism. Since others have brought up the existence of racism in other societies, such as India, before anything approaching capitalism, and I'd point to racism and ideas of ethnic superiority in the Chinese Empire, there seems good evidence that racism is a human problem with or without capitalism.
AOR
(692 posts)to your personal outlook has offered a single point of actual analysis other than to defend Capitalism as the only way forward. As was stated to Nadin... bigotry and class caste discrimination are far different than the institutionalized and structural racism that goes along with capitalist social relations. It is you that should be defending YOUR capitalist views because obviously YOUR views have not solved the problem as evidenced by the facts and the history on the ground. The capitalists have the power. The "leftists" have no power because of the marginalization and red-baiting by the "left" that is going on in this thread. Nothing new.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Two sides of the same coin. Both end up being racist, nationalistic and authoritarian.
Mixed economies under the guise of democratic socialism is the only way to create an equitable society.
AOR
(692 posts)Marx is a guide for working class power and the battle between Labor vs Capital. When the guide is no longer needed ... the working class - as a whole - will decide their own destiny. To be perfectly blunt...mixed economies sound very good while they last. If you take note of the realities... you will find the very racism and nationalistic type setup that you are describing. Some of the Scandinavian model countries are now being subjected to the pressures of Neoliberal austerity and gains are being lost.
Without a change in the power structure and who has control of the commons - that serve at the alter of Capital rather than the workers and people as a whole - there's not going to be any "mixture of Socialism and Capitalism" that doesn't leave the Socialism part of it in the dust in the long run.
"But it is not the highness or lowness of wages which constitutes the economical degradation of the working class: this degradation is comprised in the fact that, instead of receiving for its labour the full produce of this labour, the working class has to be satisfied with a portion of its own produce called wages. The capitalist pockets the whole produce (paying the labourer out of it) because he is the owner of the means of labour. And, therefore, there is no real redemption for the working class until it becomes owner of all the means of work -- land, raw material, machinery, etc. -- and thereby also the owner of THE WHOLE OF THE PRODUCE OF ITS OWN LABOUR."
--Friedrich Engels
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)In other words we have to completely reorder society in order to prove them wrong. The main difference being there are actual examples of socialism, none of which have solved the problems you mentioned either.
AOR
(692 posts)were always under pressure from Capitalism all around. We could possibly discuss the Soviet Union experiment in an objective manner if people wanted to discuss it. It would quickly devolve into red-baiting and wouldn't go over well at DU. In any case the idea is not to recreate the Soviet Union Major Nikon. The idea is to learn from the history. Not sure why the critiques of Capitalism always end being a critique of "Socialism."
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)We can't just reorder the US to prove you're wrong, but instead we'd have to reorder the whole world and all the while nobody could offer up any critique of what you're proposing as a solution that has never worked.
I'm utterly amazed you haven't been able to convince anyone but yourself in this thread.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The OP is not fast enough to mention the examples that are currently working and are a natural, to use the lingo, dialectical evolution into a working form of socialism. Of course, he wants to discuss the USSR. There was a time they rejected it as actually communism. (And for the record, they would be correct under marxist classical theory, but American marxists are the laughing stock of marxists around the world, with good reason)
By the way, those examples are Northern European social democracies. I wish this country staid on that path. It was well on it income inequality would be far less
AOR
(692 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the dialectic will not reach that point... sorry. Peddle that somewhere else, like Marxist.com
AOR
(692 posts)just critiquing Capitalism. The people on the ground will find the way if they want something different. You can't force class-consciousness.The overriding responsibility of anti-capitalists (Leftists) is to unyielding critique the mechanisms of Capitalism and everything that goes with it (economic, political, and social) including elections in a capitalist power structure. Regardless of who is nominated and elected in the 2016 election... the capitalist power structure will remain the same and the responsibility of leftists will remain the same. The responsibility of actual leftists is to point out the failure of Capitalism for the WHOLE of the working class and the people, to point out the oppressive relationship between Capital and Labor under the capitalist modes of production, to point out class struggle and bring class analysis to the table, to point out the property question and theft of the commons ( who owns and controls what and why), and to deal in objective material reality and the facts on the ground for the WHOLE of the working class.
"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead
them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you
could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up
your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves."
--Eugene V. Debs
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you really cannot make this shit up.
And using Debs is even funnier than you think.
So no more Vanguard of the revolution? You really have no idea how funny this is. Free clue, actual leftists in places like Mexico, have not given up on the Vanguard idea, they just get it that it has changed. They also understand that mid 20th century classic marxism has failed..
Though the whole concept has changed quite a bit. So is for Europe.
AOR
(692 posts)it is you that is focusing on Marxists exclusively.
A note from an acquaintance who I'm sure you are familiar with over the years.
"If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the Vanguard is a classic of that ideology, though admittedly not fully developed by Marx, but rather by Lenin.
This has to be some kind of performance act.
AOR
(692 posts)Wouldn't want to insult Marx and actual Marxists by claiming the mantle and the knowledge. I'm very fond of what I can understand of the old cat's writings though. I also know where I stand and it's a very simple stance. There are two classes and whoever stands with the priorities of the ruling class and Capital over the working people and Labor are not on the side of the exploited and oppressed.
A little help for you....
"We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.
A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.
"You realise, I presume," he said insolently, "that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making your-selves the tools of murderers and traitors?"
"Now brother,"answered the soldier earnestly, "you don't understand. There are two classes, don't you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We--"
"Oh, I know that silly talk!" broke in the student rudely. "A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don't understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots." The crowd laughed. "I'm a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn't Socialism you are fighting for. It's just plain pro-German anarchy!"
"Oh, yes, I know," answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. "You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me--"
"I suppose," interrupted the other contemptuously, "that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?"
"Yes, I do," answered the soldier, suffering.
"Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans.
"Well, I don't know much about that," answered the soldier stubbornly, "but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat--"
"You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlusselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing 'God Save the Tsar!' My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn't you ever hear of me?"
"I'm sorry to say I never did," answered the soldier with humility. "But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero. "I am," said the student with conviction. "And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?"
The soldier scratched his head. "I can't account for it at all," he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. "To me it seems perfectly simple-but then, I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie--"
"There you go again with your silly formula!" cried the student.
"--only two classes," went on the soldier, doggedly. "And whoever isn't on one side is on the other..."
Ten Days That Shook the World -- John Reed
(Public Domain)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)got off his duff and did quite a bit of revolutionary work. I have a lot of respect for Reed, both as a first primary source, and a man who actually tried to advance his cause. He also saw himself at the end of his life as part of that vanguard I speak off.
AOR
(692 posts)and it's entirely irrelevant to the subject of collective class struggle. There is no "I" above all else in leftist analysis. You are a bee in a hive as am I.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I grew up.
But you did tell me that the vanguard is no longer done.
Response to AOR (Reply #99)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Positrons
(53 posts)You made the claim so back it up. The fact that you feel super warm and fuzzy about it doesn't mean much to the rest of us...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
AOR
(692 posts)in regards to "successful Marxist countries." I offered an article of analysis that critiques capitalist social relations and its effects on racism and police brutality. That is all...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Name a single Marxist regime that has better rights for minorities, for women and for gays than the capitalist west.
Name a single Marxist state that has produced a higher standard of living than the United States.
Marxism has never solved anything. I was a marxist too when I was younger, then I grew up.
I'm a Democratic Socialist, not a Marxist. Marxism is fundamentally authoritarian and I have every right to be hostile to any authoritarian regime and those who advocate it.
AOR
(692 posts)to disparage Marx down pat. It would be hard to find a more reactionary perspective at a Right Wing forum. You do the bidding of the ruling class in your posts. You're not alone. It is what it is. And again...it is you that is talking of "authoritarian regimes" and "Marxist countries"...not I. I am talking about working class power and a democratic distribution of the wealth produced by the working class as a whole.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)This is DEMOCRATIC underground.
Democratic underground is a forum where the Democratic party of the United States is discussed. Democratic socialism is the end goal for a modern society, not a mythical worker paradise that will never materialize. Private property is one of the founding principles of our nation and there is literally no will amongst most Americans to do away with it.
And no I'm not disparaging Marx. Marx was a great thinker and made a lot of very astute observations about his time. His ideas just ultimately translate into what he thought they would. Aristotle was wrong about a great deal, but we still think of him as a great mind. Marx was arguably the most important political thinker and second most important economic thinker (behind Adam Smith) of the 19th century.
It is when people treat his words like religious dogma, ignoring the actual failures of marxist systems, that they encounter problems.
You're the one advocating for Marxist solutions, it up to you to show that they actually work. All the historical evidence points to the undeniable conclusion that Marxism simply doesn't work.
AOR
(692 posts)Been reading here for over a decade. Capitalism good or bad has been discussed at DU for years in General Discussion in many forms. Your post is absurd on all levels in that regard. You are looking to silence critical analysis of the destruction taking place on the ground by capitalist social relations. You are under ZERO obligation to take part in this thread. Ignore is your friend if it doesn't suit your tastes.
This is should be very helpful in explaining the tact you are taking in this thread.
The Legacy of McCarthyism
--by Ellen Schrecker
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker6.htm
(Snips)
"Quantification aside, it may be helpful to look at the specific sectors of American society that McCarthyism touched. Such an appraisal, tentative though it must be, may offer some insight into the extent of the damage and into the ways in which the anti-Communist crusade influenced American society, politics, and culture. We should keep in mind, however, that McCarthyism's main impact may well have been in what did not happen rather than in what did the social reforms that were never adopted, the diplomatic initiatives that were not pursued, the workers who were not organized into unions, the books that were not written, and the movies that were never filmed."
"The most obvious casualty was the American left. The institutional toll is clear. The Communist party, already damaged by internal problems, dwindled into insignificance and all the organizations associated with it disappeared. The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the party itself. With their demise, the nation lost the institutional network that had created a public space where serious alternatives to the status quo could be presented. Moreover, with the disappearance of a vigorous movement on their left, moderate reform groups were more exposed to right-wing attacks and thus rendered less effective."
"In the realm of social policy, for example, McCarthyism may have aborted much-needed reforms. As the nation's politics swung to the right after World War II, the federal government abandoned the unfinished agenda of the New Deal. Measures like national health insurance, a social reform embraced by the rest of the industrialized world, simply fell by the wayside. The left liberal political coalition that might have supported health reforms and similar projects was torn apart by the anti-Communist crusade. Moderates feared being identified with anything that seemed too radical, and people to the left of them were either unheard or under attack. McCarthyism further contributed to the attenuation of the reform impulse by helping to divert the attention of the labor movement, the strongest institution within the old New Deal coalition, from external organizing to internal politicking."
"The nation's cultural and intellectual life suffered as well. While there were other reasons that TV offered a bland menu of quiz shows and westerns during the late 1950s, McCarthy-era anxieties clearly played a role. Similarly, the blacklist contributed to the reluctance of the film industry to grapple with controversial social or political issues. In the intellectual world, cold war liberals also avoided controversy. They celebrated the "end of ideology," claiming that the United States' uniquely pragmatic approach to politics made the problems that had once concerned left- wing ideologists irrelevant. Consensus historians pushed that formulation into the past and described a nation that had supposedly never experienced serious internal conflict. It took the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War to end this complacency and bring reality back in. "
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"When has Marxism ever solved racism"
"DEMANDING EVIDENCE FOR MY ASSERTIONS IS RED BAITING"
Seriously ridiculous.
AOR
(692 posts)but to misunderstand Marx. At this point it's not really worth continuing. Maybe when you're ready to discuss Capitalism as something other "than the end of history" and the "best thing ever for mankind" we can continue. Cheers
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Christopher Hitchens.
AOR
(692 posts)on the quotes of a "leftist" turned Right Wing tool like Hitchens...
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Very telling that.
AOR
(692 posts)better you stayed out of the thread if you had nothing to offer. One -liners are better suited for the DU Lounge.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)It's pretty hard to find shit this funny in the Lounge, BTW.
AOR
(692 posts)it's not about me. On the other hand there are some cases to be made for solid analysis Marxist or not.
Toward a Marxist Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
by Bertell Ollman
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ol...
(Snip)
"When Moses invented ten fundamental laws for the Jewish people, he
had God write them down on stone tablets, Lycurgus, too, represented the
constitution he drew up for ancient Sparta as a divine gift. According
to Plato, whose book, The Republic, offers another version of the same
practice, attributing the origins of a constitution to godly
intervention is the most effective way of securing the kind of support
needed for it to work. Otherwise, some people are likely to remain
skeptical, others passive, and still others critical of whatever biases
they perceive in these basic laws, and hence less inclined to follow
their mandates. As learned men, the framers of the American Constitution
were well aware of the advantages to be gained by enveloping their
achievement in religious mystery, but most of the people for whom they
labored were religious dissenters who favored a sharp separation between
church and state; and since most of the framers were deists and
atheists themselves, this particular tactic could not be used. So they
did the next best thing, which was to keep the whole process of their
work on the Constitution a closely guarded secret. Most Americans know
that the framers met for three months in closed session, but this is
generally forgiven on the grounds that the then Congress of the United
States had not commissioned them to write a new Constitution, and
neither revolutionaries nor counter-revolutionaries can do all their
work in the open. What few modern-day Americans realize, however, is
that the framers did their best to ensure that we would never know the
details of their deliberations. All the participants in the convention
were sworn to life-long secrecy, and when the debates were over, those
who had taken notes were asked to hand them in to George Washington,
whose final task as chairman of the convention was to get rid of the
evidence. American's first president, it appears, was also its first
shredder.
Fortunately, not all the participants kept their vows of silence or
handed in all their notes. Bit it wasn't until 1840, a half century
after the Constitution was put into effect, with the posthumous
surfacing of James Madison's extensive notes, that the American people
could finally read what had happened in those three crucial months in
Philadelphia. What was revealed was neither divine nor diabolical, but
simply human, an all-too-human exercise in politics. Merchants, bankers,
ship-owners, planters, slave traders and slave owners, land
speculators, and lawyers, who made their money working for these groups,
voiced their interests and fears in clear, uncluttered language; and,
after settling a few, relatively minor disagreements, they drew up plans
for a form of government they believe would serve these interests most
effectively. But the fifty years of silence had the desired
myth-building effect. The human actors were transformed into "Founding
Fathers." Their political savvy and common sense were now seen as
all-surpassing wisdom, and their concern for their own class of property
owners (and, to a lesser, extent, sections of the country and
occupational groups) had been elevated to universal altruism (in the
liberal version) or self-sacrificing patriotism (in the preferred
conservative view). Nor have we been completely spared the aura of
religious mystery so favored by Plato. With the passage of years and the
growing religiosity of our citizenry, it had become almost commonplace
to hear that the framers were also divinely inspired."
(Snip)
"What is in danger of being lost among all the patriotic
non-sequiturs is the underside of criticism and protest that had
accompanied the Constitution form its very inception. Not everyone has
been satisfied to treat this product of men as if it came from God. Even
before the Constitution was officially adopted, many people, known to
history as Anti-Federalists, questioned whether what was good for the
property-owning factions that were so well represented in Philadelphia
would be as good for those who owned little or nothing. Then as
subsequently, the main questions raised dealt with the limitations on
suffrage, the inadequate defense of individual rights and freedoms, the
acceptance and even strengthening of the institution of slavery, and the
many other benefits given to men of property."
(Snip)
" What still needs to be stressed—chiefly because even most critics
ignore it—is that on all three levels of analysis and throughout the
entire two hundred years of its history, the Constitution has been a way
of understanding reality as much as it has served to shape it. And it
has succeeded in ordering society in part through how it has made people
think about it, just as these practical achievements have secured
widespread acceptance for the intellectual modes that they embody. In
sum, an important part of the Constitution's work is ideological. As
ideology, the Constitution provides us with a kind of bourgeois fairy
tale in which claims to equal rights and responsibilities are
substituted for the harsh realities of class domination. Through the
Constitution, the struggle over the legitimacy of any social act or
relationship is removed from the plane of morality to that of law.
Justice is no longer what is fair but what is legal, and politics itself
is transformed into the technical wrangling of lawyers and judges. The
Constitution organizes consent not least by its manner or organizing
dissent. The fact that two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the
United States is not, as they say, a coincidence. The main ideologists
in the American system are not teachers, preachers, or media people, but
lawyers and judges.
Unlike political theory, the Constitution not only offers us a picture
of reality but through the state's monopoly on violence it forces
citizens to act, or at least to speak, "as if." Acting as if the rule of
law, equality of opportunity, freedom of the individual, and the
neutrality of the state, all of which are inscribed in the Constitution,
are more than formally true inhibits people's ability to recognize that
they are all practically false, that the society set up with the help
of the Constitution simply does not operate in these ways. It is not a
matter of reality failing to live up to a set of commendable ideals but
of these ideals serving to help mask this reality through
misrepresenting what is legal for what is actual, what is permissible in
law for what is possible in society. When does an ideal become a
barrier to the realization of what it supposedly promotes? When people
are encouraged to treat the ideal as a description, however, imperfect,
of the real, as in the claim that ours is a society ruled by law, where
whatever actually exists that goes counter to this claim is relegated to
the role of a passing qualification. Viewed in this way, the dynamics
of who is doing what to whom and why, together with the structural
reforms needed to change things, can never be understood."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that racism and slavery have existed for far longer than capitalism, or our current system, which is not.
AOR
(692 posts)institutionalized racism is the by-product of capitalist social relations and the introduction of modern, capitalist based, commodity production. You're about the tenth person that has made this claim on the thread Nadin. Please provide the research and historical analysis of your claims.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)India has had a caste system going back hundreds of years, if not longer.
We know Israel was a caste system.
Our modern caste system... is also, like those in the past, a form of structural racism.
One group is better than the other becuase of birth lottery.
AOR
(692 posts)analysis that proves the existence of institutionalized racism before the introduction of capitalist commodity production. Not your opinion. Do you have that research ?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)here from the junior high school module of social studies on India
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/8b.asp
and a book on slavery in the ancient world
https://books.google.com/books?id=t0hXPgAACAAJ&dq=ancient+israel+and+slavery&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMIt9v-r7HyxgIVzZWICh0OXgmf
Also Michele Alexander is the most recent American to compare the current social american system to a caste system not unlike that of India.
You might want to pick up her book "The New Jim Crow."
This is one of the major criticisms of New Marxism, that tries to explain all though one lens.
I love EP thomson and some of his observations are on point, but this is not it.
AOR
(692 posts)like ancient slavery. Far from the institutionalized racism that is being discussed here. I don't think this disputes the findings that institutionalized racism arose out of the modern day slave trade and the rise of capitalist commodity production.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it was not institutionalized. India and the US have way too many parallels in that respect.
And with that good day sir.
MineralMan
(150,532 posts)There is no mechanism that is capable of "ending capitalism" in the United States, and there's not going to be any sort of "revolution," either. I'm afraid we're going to have to work within the system on these things.
Racism is part of most existing societies at some level. If you don't think so, you're not paying attention.
AOR
(692 posts)you are standing on the foundations of revolution... albeit a bourgeois one. It is you that is not paying attention.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
"Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen,on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie,in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."
--Public Domain
--Karl Marx more relevant than ever Mineral Man
MineralMan
(150,532 posts)Name a successful society based on his writings.
Thanks.
AOR
(692 posts)I'll pass Mineral Man. I can find that and debate that elsewhere. Thanks for your efforts though. Old, tired, and shopworn slogans to avoid discussions of the destructive effects of Capitalism. The kind of posts you and a few others have made in this thread are those that belong at Free Republic or one of a hundred other red-baiting Right Wing forums.
Seeya!
EX500rider
(12,132 posts)That's just a dodge instead of answering the question, which was "name any successful marxist country ever" when the answer is obviously none.
AOR
(692 posts)"show me a successful Marxist country" is a Right Wing McCarthy talking point. Has no place on a left forum.Marxism is a scientific critique of capitalist social relations. Anyone who understands Marx understands that. "Show me a successful Marxist country" is not a question that has any relevance to the critique of Capitalism.
EX500rider
(12,132 posts)No, it is relevant to any criticism of Marxism. Also relevant to whether or not Marxism is a failed ideology or not.
Also this is Democratic Underground, not Marxism Underground....
AOR
(692 posts)between Labor and Capital...working class and ruling class. Your inquiry is irrelevant to the discussion. "Show me a successful Marxist country" is a tactic out of the McCarthy playbook. The discussion is about Capitalism and its failure to meet the human needs of the whole of the masses. That is what Marx is.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)neo-Marxists.
I read it in college. They have many insights, but the OP is stuck on something that even they would have an issue with.
Yup, mostly the British school is useful to understand colonialism, but most of them would not take this wild step. Modern day Slavery is a product primarily of mercantilism, as well as very early European colonialism, well before capitalism was a twinkle in anybody's understanding ...why this reductionist shit really bothers me.
For the record...capitalism is dead or dying already. We are in the same kind period of transition as Smith was when he wrote the Weslth. What comes next IMHO has a lot of common with mercantilism actually. This is a matter of discussion in graduate seminars, not the business pages, ergo they get complicated. In many ways Marx is the bookend to the wealth of nations as well. And Marx would not recognize this argument of his either.
I will not bother anymore with the OP. Stretching things like this when we have traditional cultures where structural forms of racism have existed well before mercantilism, or capitalism, India is a prime example, makes my head hurt.
MineralMan
(150,532 posts)They wouldn't recognize Marx, either, I'm sure.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the OP though has a pretty superficial understanding. I am grateful to my professors for making us read from different schools of historical interpretation. With Marxism, we had to read both Marx and Engels, and mostly British historians. This was near the fall of the Soviet Union. It was just one of the schools we read. And in that environment it was fascinating.
It gives you a better understanding of both strengths and weaknesses, and all interpretive schools have them. Suffice it to say, using one explanation, in this case the dialectic, to explain all is actually a weakness. Though good Marxist historians come from a deep understanding of modern day economics, and are well read in things like Austrian and Keynes schools of economics, as well as soviet theories. Most who are good can also tear apart central planning, though tell you where it is useful, like in Limited forms in local, state and federal government.
Don't tell my city council, but their five year plans for infrastructure planning are indeed a form of it.
AOR
(692 posts)You're a good poster here. Read many of your posts over the years on some things. That being said your knowledge of what Marx means for the workers is lacking. You should stick to things you're schooled on and actually listen to leftists who you might actually learn a thing or two from.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)thanks for the laugh. Do you really want me to tell you where American leftists like you have gone off the rails and why you will fail in the end. You really want to play that game? First hint, the understanding of Marxism, both classic and modern, is quite superficial, almost cartoon like for most American New Left. The old left was far better, but the new left is really at extremely superficial level of understanding.
Trust me, outside the U.S. The American left...is quite brutally honest...a joke. And the only one still stuck to the talking points that most actual lefties abroad gave up after the fall of the Soviet Union. There is more...for example the Mexican left, which is all but a single left, could school you in why only the 19th century idea of the dialectic and means of production quite does not work in the developing world. And that is but one example. In fact, even the Comunist Party stopped using it a while ago.
By the way learning of the dialectic from the General Secretary of the Communist Party in Mexico City in a sociology course that in the U.S. Would be college level, was quite an amazing experience. Imagine this, we even read the sociologists that were part of the early part of the movement. .
I am also betting I am to the left of you. I just understand the weakness of looking at all this as if it was a religion...which is a weakness of the New Left...In the United States. And this thread is going the way it is, for some for ideological reasons...for some of us it is just sheer comedy.
AOR
(692 posts)in my short time here have you heard me make the claim that the "American Left" is the actual left. There is no left and that is the point. The left has been destroyed, marginalized, and red-baited into the grave. Don't discount the lifting of the dead though. The CPUSA are not the left. The CPUSA endorsed Barack Obama. Sam Webb and his merry band of "Communists" couldn't find leftism if it bit em in the ass.
The pressing question of working class people and the poor at this moment is history is -- to what actual result ? To what actual result - throughout the history of capitalist relations (political, social, and economic) - have the "reformers and regulators" of the capitalist power structure and "your brand of leftism" benefited the working class and the people AS A WHOLE ? Your supposed brand of leftism HAS ZERO ANSWERS to the problems we face as evidenced by the suffering of millions on the ground. Lets get real here Nadin.
You're batting in the wrong ballpark Nadin. If you would like a refresher course on the actual leftist thought and all things Marx you can start here. Don't hurt yourself though. You might not like what you find. Cheers
http://www.thebellforum.com/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is not about the proletariat and means of production and central plans.
As I said, it is quite the joke. Trying to come here and speak the language none is using anymore is going to get people reacting at you...or quite frankly, wondering how you missed that historical off ramp, pun intended.
By the way, with climactic change the old 'isms of the 20th century are rapidly becoming old news. Also, if you cared to keep up outside that off ramp, the discussion of the end of capitalism as a present, current discussion is already ongoing. Trust me, Marx will not be the answer though.
AOR
(692 posts)people are suffering and people want the truth. Let the people decide what has value and what doesn't. Same goes for the readers on the net.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)if we find this comedic. Mind you, for different reasons.
Expect this reaction every time. In the meantime capitalism is indeed at its end...alas poor Marx will not be the savior here...for that matter neither will poor Smith, or Ricardo.
We will have to come with gasp, I know, a new economic system. That process has started.
AOR
(692 posts)you proclaim some "we" as if there is a definitive movement of we that disagrees and must marginalize. Leftist critique of Capitalism is going on all over the net in many forms. Truthdig, Truthout, Common Dreams, Alternet, and dozens of other places. I'm not sure that in the cocoon of DU you actually have a gauge of how very pissed off are millions of people on the ground and around the net looking for a new way forward. You are really reaching here. There is no new process that will start by merely voting in elections. What part of that are you not getting. Sanders brings a new narrative to the people and is shaking things up a bit and that's very good but Sanders is not the all and end all of solving this nightmare. You really don't get how many people are being utterly destroyed on the ground do you? This is not a game.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am describing. Nor are they using a critique that quite frankly has failed. They are using new critiques...alas that is well underway.
By the way, I cover social movements in my town. I know exactly how pissed people are...none is talking Dialectic as far as I can tell. But a few are talking of the absolute new ideas of a new economy. A few know of Keynes and Strauss, and despise Strauss...a couple even have read Marx. But none is looking at your solution as well...viable.
I guess the streets are my bubble, you got me there. Enjoy trying to convert the masses to the dialectic. You are off by a few decades though. Have fun though.
AOR
(692 posts)There are splinters in the leftist circles that remain but, the splinters are not ones that can't be bridged. What can't be bridged is the separation between those who are on the side of Capital and the ruling class and the status quo and those who stand on the side of Labor and the workers and the struggling. What side are you on Nadin ? That is what you need to ask yourself and no amount of word-salad can blur that line.
The line is drawn between labor and capital. You can't do bidding of both. Anybody doing the bidding on the wrong side of that line is no friend of any working class movement going forward. "New economy" doesn't mean shit Nadin. Capitalism is built on a foundation of institutionalized theft of labor, theft of the commons for profit, commodification of basic human needs and nearly all public resources, and wage-slavery. There is no type of Capitalism or "New Economy" that involves a ruling class that will not result in impoverishment of the majority of working class people and savage economic inequality in the long run.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in my local streets. And yes, I am paying attention.
People will give a chance to social democracy. Marxism, nope. And it is you not paying attention. They will also give a chance to the post capitalist order that is starting to be kind of obvious, alas it has none to do with well, classic Marxist dialectic.
So I would say it is you in a fantastical bubble. Carry on governor. I am trying to finish an actual well...book on partisanship...yup, related by the way. The crisis that will lead to the end of capitalism is well under way...it is also a crisis of democracy. None of this will be solved with failed 20th century ideologies.
While you continue to be gobsmacked by it...a new world is emerging. The jury is very much out as to how good, bad or ugly it will be.
AOR
(692 posts)for an ever increasing amount of the people on the ground. That is the point. It is you that keeps harping on Marx. I simply posted an article from a website that comes from a Marxist perspective. Most likely Trots but that's a story for another day. John Peterson's writing is very easy to understand for anyone Nadin. Try this one... tell me what you disagree with. You don't have to be a Marxist scholar to understand that labor and the majority of the working class are getting their asses kicked by capital. Who cares if "a Marxist" is doing the writing if it hits to the point. People might not agree with the outlook but how is this hard to understand or dogmatic in any way Nadin ?
http://www.marxist.com/the-class-struggle-and-the-american-working-class.htm
Written by John Peterson
(Snip)
"For millions of people around the world, the United States represents the ultimate citadel of reaction: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, imperialism, sanctions, war, drones, anti-communism, discrimination, and exploitation. The American people are alleged to be a homogeneous bloc of ignorant, indifferent racists who blindly and enthusiastically back the reactionary economic and military policies of their government. Many people—even on the left— imagine that the US is immune from class conflict, and that life for the majority in the “belly of the beast” is prosperous and peaceful. However, while there may be an element of truth in some of this, the reality is far more complex. The United States is in fact a society riven with deep class contradictions. It has an enormous and powerful working class and an inspiring revolutionary past—and future."
(Snip)
Class struggle
"So just what is the class struggle? Simply defined, the class struggle is the struggle over the surplus wealth created by the producing classes. Will that surplus go towards further enriching the minority that controls society? Or will it go towards improving the quality of life of the working majority who actually produce the wealth? Or perhaps we can live in a world without exploiters, where society democratically determines what is to be done with the wealth we
ly produce?
The ruling class is that class which controls the state and owns the means of production of society—the land and natural resources, the workshops and factories, the banks. The actual producers of wealth are those who own nothing but their ability to work, and are therefore either owned outright as slaves, tied to the land as feudal serfs, perhaps own a tiny plot of land on which they scrape out an existence while still having to work and pay debts to others, or sell their labor power for a wage to a capitalist. That is the simplified essence of the class struggle. In the modern era, that struggle is above all between the working class and the capitalist class."
(Snip)
Class society
"All of this applies to the US just as much as any other country dominated by capitalism—you cannot have an exploiting capitalist class without a working class that is being exploited. Long before US capitalism entered its predatory, imperialist phase, the ruling class enriched itself on the vast natural resources and labor of millions of people right here on the American continent.
In fact, America’s more than 155 million workers are among the most exploited on the planet. Based on an extremely high level of labor productivity, American workers create vast amounts of wealth for the capitalists, but receive only a small ratio of that back in the form of wages. The effects of a strike of even a small portion of the American workers would be devastating to the profits of the capitalists. For example, just 36,000 unionized dock workers load and unload every ship on the West coast of the United States. This means that every single container imported to the US Pacific coast from Asia and beyond must first pass through the hands of a relative handful of union workers. Even a one-day strike of these dockers would result in billions of dollars in losses to the capitalists. This is a clear indication of the colossal power of the US working class.
The working class is the overwhelming majority of the USA; the wonders of its cities, railroads, highways, mines, industry, and vast tracts of farmland are the result of the workers’ sweat, tears, blood, and brains. And yet, Americans themselves are rarely taught the truth about their own history. There is a very simple reason for this. If American workers were to understand their true power and their class’s repeated attempts to change society, they might be tempted to engage in open class struggle again and again—and this represents a mortal threat to the continuation of the capitalist system."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)yes, capitalism is in the process of getting replaced, like mercantilism did, which was kind of obvious when...Adam Smith wrote The Wealth. By the way, what he described as capitalism has none to do with the modern form.
Alas, Marxism will not be the savior here. To use dialectical analysis, it's been superseded. It never got here, but it will not come to fruition. So enjoy your bubble. Truly you are late by 50 years.
One cannot expect to do more than lead a horse and all that. 
Have a great evening.
AOR
(692 posts)exploitation of the workers and the poor and the foundations remain the same. The foundations are built on the institutionalized theft of labor of working people and funneling of the wealth created by workers into the coffers of a parasitic ruling and ownership class. You're whistling past the graveyard. So as is so often asked of the "looney dogmatic leftists"...what is your plan for this "New Economy" that's on the way and being built as we speak Nadin ?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and new Marxists understand that as well.
Hell, Marx Das Kapital is the other bookend to classic 19th century economics. But hey, what I said about the American New Left applies here. Only folks still that doctrinaire, oh and a few old Russian Citizens who were party members.
Yup, the irony. And why you will not make much headway. You are late by 50 years or so.
AOR
(692 posts)Where is this New Economy that is being built as we speak. What does it look like and how will it change the facts on the ground for the 50 percent of those existing on less than $27,000 grand a year in the "greatest country in the world." How will this New Economy being built as we speak lift those living in abject poverty and unspeakable conditions in every Urban slum in in the United States ? Answers Nadin ?
You keep yakking about Marx. Try Einstein.
" Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.
This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. "
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but economics departments are already talking of it. So are a few books already out.
Here, for example
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
And here from Alternet
https://plus.google.com/+AlterNet/posts/PXfVjr8w3B8
None is talking of well Marx, because that is not in the cards.
Same piece but I suspect Guardian would not be of your taste. There is discussion of this in academic circles as well...there are rare souls who are still using Marx. Time to evolve...
And with that, well good night. At one time I got smitten with it as well...but then I read...gasp I know, Marx and EP Thomson, and Derrida and Foucault, and yes, Smith and Ricardo, and of course Keynes and Strauss. I came to realize nobody had the full magical answer or explanation.
AOR
(692 posts)Who is this we ? Piketty the Marx wannabe doesn't understand Marx ? The foul-dog Greenspan in a rare moment of clarity didn't proclaim Marx right all along ? Richard Wolff for all his worker coop mystical thinking doesn't focus on Marx. I never figured you for this kind of ridiculousness Nadin.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/karl-marx-relevant-21st-century
Why the ideas of Karl Marx are more relevant than ever in the 21st century
Marxism enjoys new currency in economic crisis.
http://www.wsj.com/video/nouriel-roubini-karl-marx-was-right/68EE8F89-EC24-42F8-9B9D-47B510E473B0.html
Nouriel Roubini: Karl Marx Was Right
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/30/was-marx-right
March 30, 2014
Was Marx Right?
http://fortune.com/2014/04/17/a-comeback-for-marx-inequality-debate-comes-full-circle/
A comeback for Marx? Inequality debate comes full circle
Guest Post: Karl Marx Makes a Comeback
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/believe_it_or_not_karl_marx_is_making_a_comeback/
Believe it or not: Karl Marx is making a comeback
Sunday, Jun 22, 2014
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 01:19 PM - Edit history (4)
but Picketti did not call for Marx. He said his critique was correct. Yes, I read it.
By the way, the critique offered by Picketti and others could have been said of the man who started the cycle of classic economics. You would understand this if you bothered reading Smith. Quick, what was the view of Adam Smith when it came to monopolies? (Break them up) How about business people getting together? (Like monopolies he would favor anti trust laws. He understood they got together to scheme, ergo it should be regulated or not permitted) In your wisdom you surely know what he said about wages right? (He was in favor of living wages and ranted against the maximum wage laws that existed at the time. The ghost of smith stands by all folks who fight for a living wage). You can take these and see how both Ricardo and later Marx developed these major points.
All of classical economics is a big critique of what we have right now, that includes Marx. Mostly, we are living through something all of them would recognize, and not precisely as a good thing. You want headlines from reporters who don't get it, you will not get them by telling them Smith was right. Ricardo? You shit me. So you go for for the other bookend.
By the way, so we are clear. If I am to call this process part of the dialectic, the synthesis will not magically be Marxism. Hell, if you could call it the antithesis it has been a very poor one using Dialectical thought. And Marx did not come up with it by the way. That was oh Hegel.
Edited to add Smith's major wickets. After all, no self respecting doctrinaire Marxist has read Smith. Oh and bonus point, if you told Smith he is the father of Capitalism, he would have a puzzled look and he did not consider the Wealth his major accomplishment...nor was the hand an endorsement. The three pages of caveats that follow that single sentence would make that clear to doctrinaire free market types.
Most doctrinaire types really are on horses, and will not get off them. And yes, we are at the end of capitalism. Mark my words, Marxism, oh glorious Marxism is not next.
AOR
(692 posts)The capitalists know it and the leftists know it.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Leftists fight for Labor over Capital and for the workers to control their own destiny without a ruling class. That is our guide from Marx. Your word-salad is meaningless in that context.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)especially as we move slowly into that nirvana of a post capitalist society and it does not look to anybody who is ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION, that it will be anywhere close to what Marx posited. Please do stick to where you brought that piece of bad, even sloppy, historical analysis from. Or learn how to make an argument.
AOR
(692 posts)at an ever increasing rate...you are also trying way to hard in trying to defend capitalist social relations as the "end of history."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as we speak (well type).. just not by marxism. Yes, your goal of ending capitalism is happening... I recognize that, you seem not to, because Marxism is not at the end of the road.
What they will be, is a good question at this point. Or what name we will give to it. Trust me, I could not call for the rise of Capitalism in 1776... it took another 20 years for it to be named.
And embarrassing myself? Even more funny.
At this point this has to be performance act.
AOR
(692 posts)let me know when the ruling class returns the commons to the people and wage-slavery working for the owners has ended.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)shocking I know
And part of the forces behind this are what you understand as the classic forces described first by actually SMITH, I know shocking. (though they are part of the soup), but things like climate change and issues of extreme poverty, as well as globalization are part of it, as well as automatization, and of course the transhuman ideology that has been rising for a while. Now, neither Smith or Marx could predict the modern day computer or it's role in modern day societies.
The soup is complicated.
Now run along son... you really need to read more. And chiefly, open your mind. Or you might risk becoming even more of a historical anachronism.
clarity
AOR
(692 posts)Where can I find the phone number of the board of directors for the post-industrial, technocratic, New Economy that doesn't resemble Capitalism. Will there be a pamphlet available describing the individual spiritual power behind the idea of "the cooperative New Economy" as a powerful new lifestyle choice that will free the masses from poverty and oppression ? The only thing missing from your narrative is a statue of the Great Moloch of " left libertarianism."
I can read your screeds in three notes Nadin despite your attempts at intellectual word-salad at every turn. Your problem is there is way to much much libertarian in your "New Left-Libertarian Economy"
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)word salad. Definitely high comedy. And at this point entertaining as hell.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'll pass.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
AOR
(692 posts)not a caricature you have created in your mind of what an alternative might look like. The problem is not innovation...the problem is the spoils and control of innovation are in the wrong hands. Better for the people to decide the distribution of innovation than a dictatorship of capitalist parasites.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Don't believe me? Get 5 people together and ask them to come up with a consensus pizza with 4 toppings. Any system, ANY system, no matter how much it idealizes and strives for pure fairness of distribution, will succumb to the fact that different humans have different priorities and capacities and charisma and ambition. Hierarchies and schisms will develop regardless of the energy and enthusiasm of proper Marxists.
The biggest problem we face is concentrations of power. Whether "capitalist" or "socialist" or whatever "-ist", monopolies are destructive. What you are advocating is trading capitalist parasites for the Marxist parasites that will inevitably infest the bureaucracy.
The experience of Marxist governments demonstrate that widespread black markets will develop. A draconian security apparatus becomes necessary to combat the natural human impulse to conduct commerce as simply and efficiently as possible.
What is needed is diluted, widespread private enterprise with ethics and practices guided by fairness, respect for agreements, and respect for quality and accomplishment.
AOR
(692 posts)for good or bad (depending on one's perspective) in claiming that collective struggle is not possible and has not effected change. Your post is laughable from a historical context.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So. Is this written for a target audience of uneducated chumps?
AOR
(692 posts)please provide your research that proves otherwise.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not!
AOR
(692 posts)of no substance...
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)AOR
(692 posts)
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Overall, I have little argument with Marxist philosophy. I'm not a fan of unregulated capitalism and less a fan of our current system of oligarchy. But the view espoused here is so tunneled as to be useless. There is a glaring blind spot that simply isn't true. It's enough to make me throw up my hands in despair. There is no cure for glaucoma.
AOR
(692 posts)I have quibbles with the Trots myself but the overall view in the article seems to have some merit.
As an acquaintance once quoted...
"It has been this way for a long time. In the 19th century, Capitalism ripped small holders from the land, chained children to machinery, and pushed entire populations, on threat of extinction, across the surface of the earth. In the first part of the 20th century, Capitalism was synonymous with War and Fascism, Imperialism? Colonialism? Famine? Genocide? All the faces of Capitalism...If you hang your hat on regulating Capitalism, believe that your "freedoms" depend on the continuation of Capitalism, or think that Capitalism is "still preferable to everything else", all it means is that your turn hasn't come yet...
Please do expand on your inquiry LiberalAndProud
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
AOR
(692 posts)and the "private property" of the ruling class that is gained by the instutionilized theft of labor and the theft of the people's commons.
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #101)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JHB
(37,902 posts)Clearly it's a corporate site trying to exploit the glorious proletariat by seizing the historical didactic, or dialectic, or whatever the fuck it's called.
/end sarcasm
In a word, horseshit. Those things won't end even if you could somehow end capitalism (and fat chance of that one, even communist countries had their black markets). People exploit prejudices to take and maintain power, and that happens under any system. Ask Soviet Jews and other minorities under communist regimes.
Racism and police brutality can be fought, but not by anything so pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by as "ending capitalism".
AOR
(692 posts)and not analysis. Leftist politics is not about personal opinions. Leftist politics is about power and resources and who controls what and why that is and who it affects. Objective material reality and historical analysis and not personal opinion.
The bottom line is this...the capitalist empire that is America - in present form - is unsustainable without the ruling class oppressing and destroying millions more struggling working class people through poverty, low wage slavery, and austerity. The sooner the capitalist faithful get that through their head the better. Under capitalism "freedom" goes to the highest bidder. Any illusion of "freedom" is a pay as you go concept . Capitalism was neither the beginning nor is it the "end of history" of mankind.
While you're reviewing "Communism"...look up the figures on the the dead bodies produced by Capitalism and all its far reaching tentacles across the globe over the last century. Start with the Shah of Iran, Marcos, Suharto, Ian Smith, Botha, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Martinez, Trujillo, Branco, Selassie, Samoza, Pinochet, Batista and a horde of other Capitalist dictators that left a barbaric and bloody trail across the 20th century that totals hundreds of millions of dead.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)But welcome to DU...
AOR
(692 posts)material from a Marx website at DU would go over all that well. Some points to consider though for those who might be interested. Not many takers from the looks of it.The response wasn't quite as bad as I expected though. At least nobody responded with kill all the Commies now!!! 
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What would be some steps folks could take to do so?
AOR
(692 posts)fight, organize,and agitate against all things that put the priorities of the ruling class over the priorities of the workers and the poor. Fight, organize, and agitate against all things that put the profits of the few over the human needs of the whole. That's a start.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Can you suggest one specific action that a person could take?
AOR
(692 posts)to change social conditions of systematic oppression and exploitation. Class struggle is a collective struggle. Leftist politics are not about personal choices, lifestyle choices, and individual choices. One can certainly focus on those things but they have nothing to do with political action. Leftist politics are about changing the power structure, class struggle, and recognizing the need for organization, agitation, and resistance. Without organization any individual personal resistance is meaningless. It takes a mass movement to rise up and fight against oppression in any form. None of us have the power to individually produce some alternative system that will break the chain of systematic oppression of the majority of working people under capitalism. It is and must be a collective struggle for any changes to come to pass.
"The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. ... If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
--Frederick Douglass
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And it's the problem with leftist politics in general. It's one thing to identify a problem. It's another to have an actual, executable plan. Class Struggle is just jargon without a rock-solid proposal of not only what that means, but a plan for how a flexible and sustainable economy emerges from it.
Also, the concept that racism is a symptom of capitalism is only a partial explanation. It disregards deep cultural factors, and that's always been a weakness of Marxist theory, IMO.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)there is a plan... and it goes beyond JUST educating, or creating a vanguard, or whatever other nonsense... that Marxist outside the US just point and laugh at a group stuck in the 1950s.
It involves things like, in the US, reimposing Glass Steagal, single payer, higher taxes for the obscenely wealthy, social security (which came from the Communist party... FDR just ahem, stole it... in current terms, triangulated it away from them.)
And anyway, our friend here is not just about to get left behind, the ism's of the 20th century will give way, slowly to a post capitalist economy that is taking shape all around us.
What form it will take is not clear yet, But if this does not address income inequality and ecologic degradation, there will be trouble. It will have to address climate becuase this is the emergency of our time, and Classic Capitalism is incapable of dealing with it, but so is classic marxism.
One of the central features of it, is information and information sharing and what you can do with that for deficiencies sake. It might take some "socialist" features, such as single payer and worker rights, but in the beginning it will be a hybrid, why we really have no idea what it will look like. I remember some years ago speaking about what we call today capitalism is not either... it was very theoretical, and seeing economists now speak of some of those concepts is kind of nice.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But your plan (which is pretty much a main stream progressive plan) is not the same thing as destroying capitalism. It creates a heavily regulated market, but the core concept of capitalism is still there (not a bad thing, IMO.... the market is a very powerful, albeit dangerous tool). You mention a "post capitalist " economy, but it's not clear to me what exactly that means.... I don't see capital leaving the economy anytime soon (certainly not in my lifetime). I guess in the end, neither do you. It's hard for us to conceive of something so very different from all that has gone before.
Anyway, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and now it is getting discussed far more, that capitalism as it exist these days is nowhere close to the actual concept of Adam Smith,
I recommend this a LOT
http://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438043570&sr=8-2&keywords=stiglitz
Mind you, he once was a member of the Economic Advisors to the President.
Much harder read
http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438043614&sr=8-1&keywords=picketty
But critical to do. Yes, he does stay it, Marx's critique is correct... but his prescription is not marxism... it is something else...
and the discussion on post capitalism has started. I cannot vouch for some of these, since they are in my list of books to read, but will offer you some links... yes, I do some reading that is just insane, but I like systems analysis.
http://www.amazon.com/Post-Capitalist-era-towards-post-capitalist-socio-economic/dp/1484102053/ref=sr_1_sc_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1438043675&sr=8-8-spell&keywords=post+capitalsim
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Exposure-Postmodern-Postcapitalism-Palgrave/dp/1137312394/ref=sr_1_sc_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1438043675&sr=8-7-spell&keywords=post+capitalsim
Some much easier reads
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/welcome_to_the_post-capitalist_era_20150722
And even Forbes is getting into it
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/07/20/is-capitalism-ending/
What will come is an excellent question.
Short term, some will be the usual progressive solutions that we all love and speak off. (Some of them work very well), but in the long term... we are really in a new and unexplored country. This will piss off the few radical lefties who were left behind a while ago. Why he or she is fighting so hard. Oh and Karl will remain a good tool for a good while. He just is an excellent took in analyzing some of the excesses of capitalism. But I am talking of an academic discussion here, not doctrinaire, we will all live in an utopia kind of a thing.
Though I expect some of those sites to give us far more comedy in years to come.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I have saved those to my reading list. I have had Piketty's book on the list for a while.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
AOR
(692 posts)move in the exact opposite direction of what you claim possible. On the one hand you say Capitalism is in its final hour and with the other you are talking about regulating something that is in it's final hour. Nice cognitive dissonance there Nadin.
What we are "hoping for" and what is objective material reality are two entirely different things. What you are asking for is not possible as long as Capital dominates every economic, social, and political relation.
Some time ago there was an article at Common Dreams. One of the many in recent years that continues the nostalgia for the "American Dream" and "prosperity for all" once found and "now lost." The very solutions you claim are possible while the capitalist power structure remains in place. This was the response to the author of the piece.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2010/07/22/restoring-vibrant-middle-class-america
"Restoring a Vibrant Middle Class in America"
By Brian Miller
(The writers conclusion and "solution"
"Even in a game – like Monopoly – we can see the need for rules to
ensure that opportunity continually circulates throughout our economy
to create a broadly shared prosperity for all, not just a select few.
Preserving a strong estate tax is essential to ensuring that each
subsequent generation has a chance to achieve the American dream.
Without it, we have to ask ourselves, is the game hopelessly stacked?
Should we even bother playing?"
The response from an acquaintance with permission to use.
Mr. Miller is so confused by what he sees in life that he misses the
exquisite irony in his own analogy. Consider the game of Monopoly.
Through ruthless competition, and a bit of luck, six players are reduced
to one. The reduction is a constant: it always happens because that IS
the game. Properties are bought and sold, houses are built and
destroyed, hotels erected, competitors bankrupted... there is no hint of
unemployment or malnutrition or disease or war because it is only a
game; yet its operative pathos - to triumph at financial competition and
destroy your enemies without regard to any other factors, which in fact
, remain largely invisible - that is probably much closer to reality
than any description of the current "system" that Mr. Miller might pen.
The game is an abstraction that captures a mighty truth.
Now, Mr. Miller, consider a gigantic pyramid of monopoly games, with
each level being a continuance of that which came before it. Each
beginning at that level is based on the accumulation that occurred at
the end of the preceding level. Each level restarts the ruthless
concentration and competition with the proceeds of the last.
Starting with perhaps ten million small producers, this game winnows out
the many until only a few thousand are left. The Losers are rendered
invisible... as invisible as the make-believe maids who make up the
make-believe beds in the hotels of monopoly. Should any come late to the
game, they are gone before they start: entirely unable to make up the
difference.
And, this game never ends...
Now, gazing on this new "game", Mr. Miller is outraged. "This is not
fair", he cries, "the game is hopelessly stacked". Actually, a single
game of monopoly is "hopelessly" stacked within a few turns. This
pyramid game has been stacked for over a hundred years. Mr. Miller is
actually protesting that he was not asked to play the game in the 1870s,
with the great railroad boom... or perhaps during the Civil War when
the first real fortunes were made...
You have over one hundred years of Monopoly games to retrace, Mr.
Miller, if it is "fairness" that you are after. And, even if that were
possible, it would disappear again within hours or days.
Well then (hands on hips), "Should we even bother playing?"
No one is asking you, Mr. Miller. You will play or you will starve. You
have already lost the game of Monopoly, Mr. Miller... or your parents
did... or their parents... makes little difference. Now, you will play
Employee of Monopoly, Mr. Miller... and, if you lose that, you will play
Wanna-be Employee of Monopoly before moving on to Dumpster-Diver. And
this will happen to you Mister Miller, regardless of your sense of
"fairness".
Because, though it might now seem like you have entered the Twilight Zone, you have actually entered reality.
Welcome to "Freedom", Mr. Miller.
Your posts and "vision" are those of a Mr.Miller Nadin...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)AOR
(692 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)AOR
(692 posts)do continue on with your narrative though when you have a chance...I have some things I'd like to get out there in response...
AOR
(692 posts)until that had "an executable plan" to end it. That is like saying you don't fight against a fatal illness until you have an "executable plan" about what you will do with the rest of your life if you beat it. Very strange.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Every one of us depends on a functional economy. We MUST have a realistic, executable plan or we will end up like Venezuela.... a huge freaking mismanaged disaster.
You plea reminds me to the GOP calling for the repeal of the ACA, but with no actual plan to replace it. That way lies disaster.
But this is a very old problem for leftist thinking going back to Marx and before. Marx had excellent (and accurate) criticisms of capitalism. But his solutions were more theoretical than practical. He could conceive of a replacement, but ultimately didn't have anything that could work.
AOR
(692 posts)until we have it all mapped out ? Lots of intelligent people out there among the working class. The working class will have no problem taking over and distributing the wealth we created in a more equitable and democratic manner. We built it. We own it. Labor is entitled to ALL it creates.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Look. If you're a hardcore communist, good luck to you and your doomed attempt.
I'm not interested.
History is littered with such disasters as you describe. I'm not a doe-eyed optimist looking for the American Lenin (who is SURE to get it right THIS time).
But I am not content to let things lie where they are. I will act to move towards what I think is a sustainable and just economy. It's just not the one you seem to have in mind. Capital should be heavily regulated, but it's not going away in our lifetimes.
AOR
(692 posts)sustainable economy... heavily regulated Capitalism...a New New Deal...ect. The reality is that any gains that were made were the result of pressure applied by militant labor and organized working class leftist movements that scared the shit out of the capitalists. At this point in history... it is clearly time for the reform movement of Capitalism to make happen what they claim they can make happen or get the hell off the stage. There is no more room for pragmatic incremental crumbs when people millions are suffering and being destroyed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the radical left does not. Why it has failed. Time to grow up, be a man or woman, and admit it.
Others among us do have a plan, but we also realize where we are at a systems analysis. By the way, Marx gave a theoretical system, one that was extremely good, and had many components of others, such as both Smith (his critique of his equivalent of the masters of the universe), and the dialectic, from Hegel. But he presumed, the GREAT WEAKNESS of it, that it would just happen.
This is why Marxists have spent over 100 years trying to come up with a replacement. The USSR was a disaster, the Norther European economies do work, but they are CLASSIC MIXED economies, which is where the US will likely head to save itself from a revolt. Not my crazy idea... it'd done that in the past.
By the way that change is happening, under your nose. Even in the same organic fashion that Marx did envision, just not what you expected.
AOR
(692 posts)of severe austerity and ever increasing impoverishment of more and more of the working class. At each point when capitalist crisis rears it's head more and more workers are relieved of their imagined "Middle Class" status and enter the ranks of the poor and "lower class." But as long as some get to be "winners" everything is fine right Nadin?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Yup... why you few, happy few, band of idealist, give the rest a bad name.
BKH70041
(961 posts)The answer is the same as the last time. Don't call us, we'll call you.
Ruling class = parasites who own and control the means of production and thus are able to dominate and exploit the working class by the institutionalized theft of labor.
Working Class = the class of people employed as wage-workers who create all wealth and have the surplus value of their labor stolen by parasites and thieves that make up the ruling class.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Now run along and go play with you little friends, son (pats AOR on the head).
mythology
(9,527 posts)It relies on ideas that can't be supported by any reading of history like if we just have a marxist society we can get rid of cops. Because of course none of the marxist governments had any police forces, secret or otherwise.
Also historically, in the U.S. a majority of the unions were on the side of the Civil Rights Movement. There really isn't the same level of institutionalized racism in the unions as there is in the overall economic, political and judicial systems in the U.S. Yes some unions were against integration, but Dr. King died in Memphis working on behalf of the Memphis sanitation workers, who were unionized. The CIO unions were integrated back in the 1930s.
At best this article is presupposing the end point, ie that marxism is the best long term solution and then stating that via some form of magic, everything will be better once we go with marxism, without bothering to provide evidence to make the case. Not that I think they could as every time marxism has been tried on a large scale it has failed and there were plenty of divides racially that predate capitalism, or existed in non-capitalist societies.
AOR
(692 posts)Marx is a critique of the oppressive relationship between Capital and Labor. The article deals with the facts on the ground on the relationship between racism, police brutality, and capitalist social relations. The article sad NOTHING of "trying Marxism" or "Marxist governments." These are words you are using to cloud the critique of Capitalism. Dr. King most certainly understood what was going on.
“For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of society, a little change here, a little change there. Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have are construction of the entire society...a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”
--MLK May 1967
demosincebirth
(12,812 posts)AOR
(692 posts)and it's effects. We could discuss the Soviet Union but that is for another thread.
demosincebirth
(12,812 posts)AOR
(692 posts)but tired old slogans and red-baiting... it's better to not offer anything.
Ralph Chaplin didn't like the "Commies" either but at least old Ralph still got the gist of it.
Solidarity Forever
When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong.
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.
It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;
But the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.
In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
For the union makes us strong.
JustAnotherGen
(37,476 posts)AOR
(692 posts)you're honest about it. The problem is when people are not honest about where they stand and claim to represent leftist politics.
TBF
(35,463 posts)Solidarity.
big fan here of your work and writings. It is quite a lions den that I've run into on this thread. Lots of roaring in defense of Capitalism. We got a long ways to go TBF. The fight back is always just beginning it seems. Solidarity TBF from this half-assed leftist. I'm trying. lol
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)realizing marxism is not the future, but something is indeed happening and we are at the end of capitalism, apparently is defending capitalism. I truly am baffled by this inability to understand basic English. Especially when you are told bluntly that CAPITALISM HAS FAILED.
Also I notice how you deride a hard left movement in Greece I should not be too shocked by this though.
It is what it is. Nothing with your corner of the American left should surprise me.
AOR
(692 posts)and Syriza are a bunch of pseudo-leftist sellouts that most actual leftists called as the frauds and posers they are from before and after their election and "rise to power."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)actual leftist like you I suppose.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Peacekeepers will always be necessary mental illness, greed, power, control, narcissism, these causes of crime are not due to scarcity.
Reducing police violence would be to change our police to a more customer service orientated mindset. Instead of the us against them mentality the police should live locally and be willing to walk unarmed in the street with the people. They should interact and not harrass the public.
A reform of our drug laws is a must. Especially mj. Most stops for "minor traffic violations" are police actually looking for other crime like possession of a plant. This boost police arrest records and budgets. Reforming cannabis laws and allowing people to possess plants would greatly reduce these kinds of stops and the harassment by police for people peacefully using a plant. Or peacefully just driving down the street.
Now the propaganda of division that is pushed by the mega wealthy is right on. The media pushes the fear and division and people feel isolated and untrusting of even their neighbors. Media programming is just that and the power of suggestion and propaganda pushed by the wealthy owned media is real.
The cops are working class just like the rest of us, they hold no allegiance to the wealthy. But like many americans so many have been brainwashed with fear and mistrust and they fit a personality that easily follows orders and laws even if those orders and laws are unjust. It is bad laws that continue discrimination and bad training and a cultural fear and division that we must face and we must change.
AOR
(692 posts)and that is to protect the interests of the ruling class and the owners.