You're all a bunch of Bourgeois!

[Reaganista]

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/art/animation/wwc.html

There is no proletarian class in the first world!

[Against Miik!]

How can you listen to that? I would comment, much to your dismay, but I can't really understand whats being said.

[Danish]

Wow.

I half agree with that. The working class in the Global South has clearly become akin to the proletariat that toiled in North America and Europe until the 1940s, but that doesn't mean there is no working class left here. The shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy has had a heavy impact on the working class in the North. We are facing major regression, an onslaught from the ruling class. Because the working class here is become increasingly poor, we are forced to buy goods produced in the South for ridiculously low wages because they are cheap. This is what's refered to as "the race for the bottom."

Nevertheless, whoever came up with that animation has very little understanding of a Marxist class analysis. Anyone that sells their labour and doesn't own capital is proletarian.

[Reaganista]

Anyone that sells their labour and doesn't own capital is proletarian.
He says as he drives his gold plated Escalade to his summer home.

[dislocated214]

The people that work white-collar jobs are still working class people (proleterians). They have bosses. In the Marxist sense, as Danish said, anyone that sells their own labor to someone else and doesn't own their means of production (computers, hammers, etc) are proleterians.

But how do you define the working class today? There are still many who fit the categories traditionally thought of as the workers. But what of the millions of white collar employees whose tools are computers and telephones? What of the millions of service workers, mostly women, whose output can't be measured in so many yards of cloth or tons of steel? What about the millions of men and women behind bars, many of them producing profits for the prison-industrial complex?

Yes, they are all part of the working class, and what they do contributes to the overall social product.

You can't put just one face on the working class of today. It is as diverse as the population of this country. In recent years, women and people of color have joined the work force in great numbers, changing forever the idea of what labor looks like.

Generally, these workers are more exploited and they bring with them a greater eagerness to organize. The most successful organizing drives of the union movement in recent years have been in industries with lots of underpaid women--most of them Black and Latina.

Nevertheless, all workers, be they women or men, gay or straight, living in small towns or cities, have some things in common. They don't own the plants, stores or offices where they work. They live from wages, not from dividends or interest or any other token of ownership.

And, in most cases, the work they do gives value to something that's for sale. The process of production is so broken up into tiny segments today that often it's hard to see what each worker contributes to the final product. But whatever is required in the process--from sweeping the floor to parking the boss's limo--is ultimately factored in to the value of something to be sold: a commodity.

Marx looked very carefully at commodities and at the relations between worker and boss in the production process. What he discovered about the system of capitalism and its tendency to drive down workers' wages is of the greatest interest to all workers.

http://www.workersworld.net/wwp/article_23.shtml

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

office temps - the damned of the earth

anyone remember when danish said that the paris riots were class war?

[dislocated214]

The paris riots were more like immigrants getting really ****ing mad when they saw the white French being treated like royalty and themselves getting treated like ****. I have a French friend who said that the Muslim/African immigrants that live in Paris live in separate districts from the white French and their neighborhood schools suck and homes, etc.

[Reaganista]

The people that work white-collar jobs are still working class people (proleterians).
like bigshot murderer lawyers who sit by their pools eichmanning the third world to death but just haven't made full-partner yet?

sorry, no, those people are not oppressed.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

No I meant the middle class students getting upset about the possibility of not having a job for life

[Reaganista]

The paris riots were more like immigrants getting really ****ing mad when they saw the white French being treated like royalty and themselves getting treated like ****. I have a French friend who said that the Muslim/African immigrants that live in Paris live in separate districts from the white French and their neighborhood schools suck and homes, etc.

Washington DC

You're unfamiliar with this?

this is the story of Africans all throughout kanada and amerika, read the origin of urban crisis.

[dislocated214]

You're unfamiliar with this?

this is the story of Africans all throughout kanada and amerika, read the origin of urban crisis.
When did I say that I was unfamiliar with it?

[mx]

Marxism as a valid theory died in the 20th century. History is not formulaic. And I could care less about my class.

[Reaganista]

that's a ridiculous thing to say, capital has only become more and more dominating over the world's people in the intervening 6 years

When did I say that I was unfamiliar with it?

You acted as though the situation in paris was different from the reality that Africans face in every single Amerikan city

[dislocated214]

like bigshot murderer lawyers who sit by their pools eichmanning the third world to death but just haven't made full-partner yet?

sorry, no, those people are not oppressed.
I think I'm pretty sure that the third world proleterians are "more" opressed then the first world proleterians. But I mean look at the middle-class and mortgage rates. Especially in my area, Northern Virginia and DC mortgage rates are skyrocketing. Even the middle-class is struggling to hold two jobs and make ends meet.

Back to my Marxist self:
We are waiting for the third world to kick the **** out of imperialism there. But they are also waiting for us to kick the **** out of it here.

[/endmarx]

that's a ridiculous thing to say, capital has only become more and more dominating over the world's people in the intervening 6 years



You acted as though the situation in paris was different from the reality that Africans face in every single Amerikan city
Maybe thats how I came off. Oh gawd I hate the capitalist internet opressing me and not letting Tway understand who I truly am. :(

[dislocated214]

Marxism as a valid theory died in the 20th century. History is not formulaic. And I could care less about my class.
How is history not dialectical?

[mx]

I can't speak for all historians, but as an Honors History student at an Ivy League University I can say, very strongly, that Marxism is very, very out of fashion. Viewing history as a scientific progress ignores the fact that humanity is comprised of individuals, not classes, who act on free will and sometimes, almost understandably. What I want is not necessarily what my neighbor wants. History is a continuous, not a process.

[Reaganista]

I think I'm pretty sure that the third world proleterians are "more" opressed then the first world proleterians. But I mean look at the middle-class and mortgage rates. Especially in my area, Northern Virginia and DC mortgage rates are skyrocketing. Even the middle-class is struggling to hold two jobs and make ends meet.
omg you might not get to buy a new car and take a trip to cabo this year!

HORROR OF HORRORS!


Back to my Marxist self:
We are waiting for the third world to kick the **** out of imperialism there. But they are also waiting for us to kick the **** out of it here.


and a fat lot of good the blue collar slob amerikans do by buying everything they can from wal-mart at super-low rape of asia, africa and south america discount prices. if you shop at these places you're just as murderous as the politicians who further their goals and the people who own them. (the companies and the politicians)

[Hababi]

How is history not dialectical?


Marx claimed it was linear, yet individual society's moved into communism, then realized how terrible it was and moved backwards in Marx's dialectic, to capitalism. Thus destroying his dialectic.

[Reaganista]

I can't speak for all historians, but as an Honors History student at an Ivy League University I can say, very strongly, that Marxism is very, very out of fashion.
shocking that private institutions funded by private capital wouldn't teach you how said private capital is ruining the earth for everyone but first world eichmans.

[mx]

and a fat lot of good the blue collar slob amerikans do by buying everything they can from wal-mart at super-low rape of asia, africa and south america discount prices. if you shop at these places you're just as murderous as the politicians who further their goals and the people who own them. (the companies and the politicians)

Some people can't afford to make political statements when they go to stores. They buy from Walmart because it is cheap, simple. And they are not bad people for doing so.

[mx]

shocking that private institutions funded by private capital wouldn't teach you how said private capital is ruining the earth for everyone but first world eichmans.

Ah - the bottom line argument, the conspiracy theory. Usually a cop out =)

[Reaganista]

Marx claimed it was linear, yet individual society's moved into communism, then realized how terrible it was and moved backwards in Marx's dialectic, to capitalism. Thus destroying his dialectic.
no one moved from capitalism to communism.

all communist revolutions took place in feudal or otherwise agragrian societies.

marx didn't even perdict global communism to come about until capitalism had driven out all trade barriers everywhere and there was effectively no difference from one country to the next

[dislocated214]

Marx claimed it was linear, yet individual society's moved into communism, then realized how terrible it was and moved backwards in Marx's dialectic, to capitalism. Thus destroying his dialectic.
Wrong. Even Trotsky/Cannon discussed this in numerous occasions. The Soviet Union ALWAYS had classes and a state. Therefore, it was never communist. Trotsky even predicted in the 30s/40s that the Soviet Union was so far from a socialist state that either there had to be another workers revolution against the bureacracy or it would one day revert back to capitalism (1991)

# "The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship [in the Soviet Union], if it were not replaced by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a catastrophic decline of industry and culture."

Trotsky - Revolution Betrayed

[Hababi]

no one moved from capitalism to communism.


True. Communism, as practiced, was always a mechanism to industrialize as opposed to a reaction to industrialization.

[mx]

Marx's theories revolve around the assumption that man is not flawed, and wants what is best for the society rather than his own selifsh goals. History has proved the latter, and overwhelmingly. What motivates work is self-interest.

[Reaganista]

Some people can't afford to make political statements when they go to stores. They buy from Walmart because it is cheap, simple. And they are not bad people for doing so

thousands of south american and asian trade unionists have been murdered so that these piggish amerikans can afford an extra pair of shoes, or a second car, or toys in their happy meals or tons of other **** that they have no need for and THEY DO NOTHING TO PUT A STOP TO IT.

they are eichmans.

Ah - the bottom line argument, the conspiracy theory. Usually a cop out =)

private capital acting in the interest of private capital is in no way at all a conspiracy theory, it's the only thing it could rationally be expected to do.

[mx]

Agreed that the USSR was not communist. But then again, communism is an unattainable ideal.

[mx]

thousands of south american and asian trade unionists have been murdered so that these piggish amerikans can afford an extra pair of shoes, or a second car, or toys in their happy meals or tons of other **** that they have no need for and THEY DO NOTHING TO PUT A STOP TO IT.

they are eichmans.

You are just parroting political slogans. Eichmans? Snap back into reality. These are ordinary people, doing what ordinary people do. Don't push your extremism onto other people. And anyways, most of those asians would love to have happy meal toys or extra shoes if given the chance. Americans are 'piggish' just because they can be, not because of any fundamental difference

[Reaganista]

Marx's theories revolve around the assumption that man is not flawed, and wants what is best for the society rather than his own selifsh goals. History has proved the latter, and overwhelmingly. What motivates work is self-interest.
so let people work in what they're interested in.

[Hababi]

Agreed that the USSR was not communist. But then again, communism is an unattainable ideal.


Yeah, how many times does it have to be tried before people realize that Communism always leads to its own class structure--the rulers (Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) and the rest.

[mx]

so let people work in what they're interested in.

How many janitors would there be then? Society needs menial jobs to function.

[Reaganista]

You are just parroting political slogans. Eichmans? Snap back into reality. These are ordinary people, doing what ordinary people do. Don't push your extremism onto other people.

everyone contracting for the murder of a south american unionist doesn't make it ok.

[Hababi]

You are just parroting political slogans.


Tway's just parodying Marxist talkers. He's an acquired taste ;)

[dislocated214]

Marx's theories revolve around the assumption that man is not flawed, and wants what is best for the society rather than his own selifsh goals. History has proved the latter, and overwhelmingly. What motivates work is self-interest.
Marx also stated that people are under an illusion in capitalism, which therefore ends up being unhealthy for mankind. According to Marx, only under socialism/communism can man truly prosper and work with each other for common goals. etc

How many janitors would there be then? Society needs menial jobs to function.

Argh. Some Marxists (not all) believe that people should hold multiple jobs. For example, you're a doctor for some time. And then you drive a bus for kids. And then you are a janitor, etc. Without janitors, how would students learn in a healthy enviornment? Who would clean up the vomit in hospitals? yeah boi

[Reaganista]

Yeah, how many times does it have to be tried before people realize that Communism always leads to its own class structure--the rulers (Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) and the rest

that's why we need to 'storm the government center', as the chairman instructed us, even after the revolution.

How many janitors would there be then? Society needs menial jobs to function.

in socialism, yes people would have to be persuaded or forced into cleaning.

in communism, if no one in a commune wants to clean up everybody else's **** and vomit then they would clean up their own. society only needs menial jobs to demean the underclass, people are fully capable of doing these things for themselves.

[Hababi]

How many janitors would there be then? Society needs menial jobs to function.


Actually, more importantly: how many doctors would there be? If there is only one class and you are in essentially the same spot being a janitor as you would be being a doctor, how many people are going to go through 8 years of schooling, residency, etc.? Actually, the problem with that idealogy isn't a lack of desire to do menial jobs, it'd be a manifest lack of desire to achieve professional jobs. If I can make as much as a doctor cleaning toilets, I'm going to clean toilets. Actually, I wouldn't clean toilets (yuck), I'd just work as a clerk or something of the sort.

[dislocated214]

Yeah, how many times does it have to be tried before people realize that Communism always leads to its own class structure--the rulers (Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.) and the rest.
Check out some of the first organized Christian societies and tell me if that was barbarism and a tangent off of "true" Christianity. (See 15th-17th century Spain, England, France, Italy etc)

[Hababi]

Argh. Some Marxists (not all) believe that people should hold multiple jobs. For example, you're a doctor for some time. And then you drive a bus for kids. And then you are a janitor, etc.


Dude. Would you want to be operated on by the guy who just cleaned the toilet you crapped in?

[Cain]

shocking that private institutions funded by private capital wouldn't teach you how said private capital is ruining the earth for everyone but first world eichmans.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dude. Would you want to be operated on by the guy who just cleaned the toilet you crapped in?

I don't see the problem. If he performed both tasks correctly I have nothing to complain about.

Stupid.

[dislocated214]

Actually, more importantly: how many doctors would there be? If there is only one class and you are in essentially the same spot being a janitor as you would be being a doctor, how many people are going to go through 8 years of schooling, residency, etc.? Actually, the problem with that idealogy isn't a lack of desire to do menial jobs, it'd be a manifest lack of desire to achieve professional jobs. If I can make as much as a doctor cleaning toilets, I'm going to clean toilets. Actually, I wouldn't clean toilets (yuck), I'd just work as a clerk or something of the sort.
Do you realize how much it costs to BECOME a doctor in current situations? MORE people would want to be doctors in socialism, IMO, because it wouldn't cost as much and socialist thought would be to "help out your fellow man". This also applies to teachers and jobs of the like.

[dislocated214]

Dude. Would you want to be operated on by the guy who just cleaned the toilet you crapped in?
Maybe. Depends if he washed his hands. I'm sure there would be communist propaganda posted all over the red streets, ALL COMRADES MUST WASH THEIR HANDS BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK!

[Hababi]

Check out some of the first organized Christian societies and tell me if that was barbarism and a tangent off of "true" Christianity. (See 15th-17th century Spain, England, France, Italy etc)


I think they were more a product of their times. Communism came around and instigated the massive bloodshed at a time when the world was moving toward freedom and human rights.

[Reaganista]

And anyways, most of those asians would love to have happy meal toys or extra shoes if given the chance. Americans are 'piggish' just because they can be, not because of any fundamental difference

Of course they would be. I'm not saying Amerikans are genetically different.

Actually, more importantly: how many doctors would there be? If there is only one class and you are in essentially the same spot being a janitor as you would be being a doctor, how many people are going to go through 8 years of schooling, residency, etc.? Actually, the problem with that idealogy isn't a lack of desire to do menial jobs, it'd be a manifest lack of desire to achieve professional jobs. If I can make as much as a doctor cleaning toilets, I'm going to clean toilets. Actually, I wouldn't clean toilets (yuck), I'd just work as a clerk or something of the sort.

free education serves as it's own reward. people are naturally curious and will want to learn about the thing which interest them. Instead of telling every child who is curious about the way his body works that he's got to get to work in the nike factory now, we'll send him to a school where he can become a doctor.

[Cain]

Actually, more importantly: how many doctors would there be? If there is only one class and you are in essentially the same spot being a janitor as you would be being a doctor, how many people are going to go through 8 years of schooling, residency, etc.? Actually, the problem with that idealogy isn't a lack of desire to do menial jobs, it'd be a manifest lack of desire to achieve professional jobs. If I can make as much as a doctor cleaning toilets, I'm going to clean toilets. Actually, I wouldn't clean toilets (yuck), I'd just work as a clerk or something of the sort.

You speak as though no doctor ever became one because he wanted to save people.

EDIT: Or, as Tway pointed out, because it actually interests them.

[Hababi]

I don't see the problem. If he performed both tasks correctly I have nothing to complain about.


There's are reason why, in sane society's, people who are janitors are janitors. Let's be honest: they tend to not be the most intelligent people.

Now, my dad is an exception. He has a bachelor's degree from Penn State University but he works as a janitor. The people who he works with are imbeciles. They can't even spell the word college (one spelled it "colage").

Now, what else is a marginally intelligent person supposed to do? And why force an intelligent person who has achieved a high skill level to dimean themselves by working such a job?

Also, by taking the focus off the medical job for any period of time, you are reducing the skill of the individual. Doctors need to constantly keep up to date on evolving medical technology and research. If they don't, they diminish in their ability as medical professionals. That's why doctors stay doctors and janitors stay janitors.

[Reaganista]

widespread laziness only comes about in people whose consumption is far more important to capital than their production.
i.e. Amerikans.

[Hababi]

free education serves as it's own reward. people are naturally curious


Not anymore, at least here in America. There's a reason why the Dukes of Hazzard was a hit movie and 50 Cent is a succesful recording artist--we are moving into an anti intellectual stage. We are growing less curious and less willing to work to achieve, in an era of instant gratification.


and will want to learn about the thing which interest them.

In the real world, it diminishes as financial returns diminish. Let's face it: if you could make as much as a doctor, right now, working a cash register or flipping burgers, you'd do so.

[Reaganista]

Now, what else is a marginally intelligent person supposed to do? And why force an intelligent person who has achieved a high skill level to dimean themselves by working such a job?

someone with a high skill level should be working to the best of their ability at whatever they are best at.

[PerpetualBurn]

If there was one thing Tway needed then it was a hilarious left-wing gimmick.

[Reaganista]

Not anymore, at least here in America. There's a reason why the Dukes of Hazzard was a hit movie and 50 Cent is a succesful recording artist--we are moving into an anti intellectual stage. We are growing less curious and less willing to work to achieve, in an era of instant gratification.


Amerika is an exception because Amerika has become a global consumption center. Capital wants Amerikans to be lazy because any time spent working is time they didn't spend consuming.


In the real world, it diminishes as financial returns diminish. Let's face it: if you could make as much as a doctor, right now, working a cash register or flipping burgers, you'd do so.

there's a lot of informal rewards to having a higher level of education and a better job. there are even more in a society that is more achievement oriented than this one.

[Reaganista]

I forgot how much fun being a communist was. I never wanna stop passing judgement on people for going about their daily business.

[SubtleDagger]

Anyone remember when I theorized Tway and fenwood combining to create a person who has no ability to argue?

...

[PerpetualBurn]

You do demonstrate an interesting point: people will argue with anything; no matter how stupid.

Edit: But not as well as LittlePound does, except he does it by accident.

[Hababi]

Amerika is an exception because Amerika has become a global consumption center. Capital wants Amerikans to be lazy because any time spent working is time they didn't spend consuming.


:lol: Oh dear, ok, Anti Tway.

*is beginning to wonder if Tway wasn't Fenwood*

[Reaganista]

I actually like that idea. I'm sure somebody else had it first. but if not, I could become a marxist celebrity

where's danish when you need him?

[Britney Diva]

that's a ridiculous thing to say, capital has only become more and more dominating over the world's people in the intervening 6 years
oh god oh god oh god

I think I just plotzed.

[PerpetualBurn]

George Galloway is on Questiontime. I can't help but think that he is the anti-Tway.

And that Max Hastings is some relation of BDR.

[Amit]

I can't speak for all historians, but as an Honors History student at an Ivy League University I can say, very strongly, that Marxism is very, very out of fashion. Viewing history as a scientific progress ignores the fact that humanity is comprised of individuals, not classes, who act on free will and sometimes, almost understandably. What I want is not necessarily what my neighbor wants. History is a continuous, not a process.

eww you and i both know cornell isn't really part of the ivy league ;-)

[italic zero]

I forgot how much fun being a communist was. I never wanna stop passing judgement on people for going about their daily business.
Well you always called them idiots.

[coheneran]

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/art/animation/wwc.html

There is no proletarian class in the first world!

That depends how you define it. In one way, we are all bourgeois because the world's poor work for us, but in another way, most of us are neither. Us that are not bosses, but still work, are middle class. We do not exploit (work-wise) anyone in our country (presuming we are not bosses), therefore we are proletariat. But, since globalisation happened, we exploit other poor people, so we are not fully proletariat, but since we are still being exploited by our bosses, we are not quite bourgeois. That was a long pointless explanation to get to a simple point.

[Reaganista]

Well you always called them idiots.shut up, eichman

That depends how you define it. In one way, we are all bourgeois because the world's poor work for us, but in another way, most of us are neither. Us that are not bosses, but still work, are middle class. We do not exploit (work-wise) anyone in our country (presuming we are not bosses), therefore we are proletariat. But, since globalisation happened, we exploit other poor people, so we are not fully proletariat, but since we are still being exploited by our bosses, we are not quite bourgeois. That was a long pointless explanation to get to a simple point.

In that case then there would be almost no bourgeois, because everybody is constantly getting screwed by somebody.
western consumers are absolutely critical to the subjugation of the third world.

[Iskandar]

Marx claimed it was linear, yet individual society's moved into communism, then realized how terrible it was and moved backwards in Marx's dialectic, to capitalism. Thus destroying his dialectic.
They never moved into communism though. ...

[Reaganista]

socialism/state communism same thing different words

[Iskandar]

socialism/state communism same thing different words
I'm considering adopting a capitalist alter ego.

"What's good for big business is good for all people, everywhere!"

[mx]

I don't think that at all. You don't have to be 100% laissez fair capatalist if you disagree with communism.

[Amit]

Can I pretend I'm Zero?

[coheneran]

In that case then there would be almost no bourgeois, because everybody is constantly getting screwed by somebody.
western consumers are absolutely critical to the subjugation of the third world.

Only in very technical and precise terms. But class types are generalised. I'm sure there are lots of homeless guys who don't work and don't drink or smoke, and eat only from garbage, which means they don't get exploited by anyone, but they're far from bourgeoisie, and most bosses have their own bosses, but they are still bourgeoisie.

[Reaganista]

I would say if you visit inhuman horrors upon other people so that you can live a little more 'comfortably', you're a bourgeois

[coheneran]

Do we define class by level of exploitation (from above) or by the ability to purchase consumer goods with earned capital?

[Hababi]

They never moved into communism though. ...

They still moved backwards on the dialectic model.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Hey, try and understand his point. It's quite simple; if they never moved forward they can't move backwards.

[dislocated214]

They still moved backwards on the dialectic model.
Did you not read my post? Trotsky tries to explain it in the History of the Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed.

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/index.htm

[Iskandar]

They still moved backwards on the dialectic model.
Eh, they branched off to the side for a bit. :p

Do we define class by level of exploitation (from above) or by the ability to purchase consumer goods with earned capital?
The ability to purchase (which is basically defined by wealth) isn't a good indicator of class. A proletarian could conceivably have more wealth than his or her boss.

I define class simply and in loosely Marxist terms: you either own the means of production, or you sell your labour to someone who does. No middle class.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I define class simply and in loosely Marxist terms: you either own the means of production, or you sell your labour to someone who does. No middle class.but then you have to stratify the lower class

[Hababi]

Hey, try and understand his point. It's quite simple; if they never moved forward they can't move backwards.


They moved toward the dictatorship of the prolitariate. And, also, what about Cambodia? El Salvador? Etc.

[peeted]

engles was part of the bougeasie :) any way it doesnt take a genious to realise that theres a class divide deffined by borders, why are our countrys hounded by imigrants? it doesnt mean that there isnt allso a class divide within our own clutures though.

allso, marx did recognise more than just working and upper class, he defined the lower upper class and stuff and went into more detail, class definitian has changed with society now though, in the time of industrialisation propertey had alot more to do with things, education, job and prestege etc are now usualy taken into acount wen stratifying class.

[coheneran]

I define class simply and in loosely Marxist terms: you either own the means of production, or you sell your labour to someone who does. No middle class.

Have you read I, Robot? If you haven't, read it. If you have and you still have it, read the last chapter, it's about half an hour's read, it's very relevant in this argument. Not practically, of course.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

And, also, what about Cambodia? El Salvador? Etc.No, again the point goes flying by. Cambodia is an example of a Marx inspired movement that didn't at all follow Marx's model.

[Iskandar]

but then you have to stratify the lower class
What do you mean?
They moved toward the dictatorship of the prolitariate. And, also, what about Cambodia? El Salvador? Etc.
You must really suck at communism. :p No "communist" nation has moved toward the dictatorship of the proletariat. They have all moved towards authoritarian governments, some of which are socialist and some aren't.
No, again the point goes flying by. Cambodia is an example of a Marx inspired movement that didn't at all follow Marx's model.
What this man says is true.
Have you read I, Robot? If you haven't, read it. If you have and you still have it, read the last chapter, it's about half an hour's read, it's very relevant in this argument. Not practically, of course.
No although I should since I'm a classics fan. I'll get on that. :)

[Hababi]

You must really suck at communism. No "communist" nation has moved toward the dictatorship of the proletariat. They have all moved towards authoritarian governments, some of which are socialist and some aren't.


Which shows that Marx is dead wrong, yet again. His model leads to authoritarianism, not utopianism.

[Reaganista]

The ability to purchase (which is basically defined by wealth) isn't a good indicator of class. A proletarian could conceivably have more wealth than his or her boss.

bull****
anybody who shares massively in the benefits of the bourgeois is just as guilty of exploitation and is a bourgeois.


I define class simply and in loosely Marxist terms: you either own the means of production, or you sell your labour to someone who does. No middle class.
easier definition - bourgeois: almost every single person in the first world
proletarian: almost everyone else

class war is world war

[Iskandar]

Which shows that Marx is dead wrong, yet again. His model leads to authoritarianism, not utopianism.
His model has never been attempted except perhaps by the original Bolsheviks; and even they weren't orthodox Marxists.

[Reaganista]

Which shows that Marx is dead wrong, yet again. His model leads to authoritarianism, not utopianism.
as I said earlier, Marx didn't even expect socialism to begin until capitalism had rendered national borders irrelevant. we've still got quite a few years of breaking down of nationalistic and racist hatreds before the proletarian will become conscious.

[griftadan]

hahaha

[Iskandar]

as I said earlier, Marx didn't even expect socialism to begin until capitalism had rendered national borders irrelevant. we've still got quite a few years of breaking down of nationalistic and racist hatreds before the proletarian will become conscious.
Товарйщ!*

*comrade

[Reaganista]

honestly both Tway personalities believe that

that's why neoliberal tway became such a neoliberal

we disagree about equality of results, though

[Britney Diva]

There's another Tway personality?!?

[italic zero]

there will be

[Reaganista]

communist tway and neoliberal tway have always been at war.