Your favorite revolution leaders

[Noku]

It's been awhile since I last time posted on these forums. I got in music biz as an enterpreneur. I've been designing this Content, Promotion and Media Management System for bands and the service will start operating under the name "LoudRevolution.com". I am designing the graphical layout for my business at the moment and I thought that I could use some revolution elements from history.

Since you guys know much about history I thought this would be a good place to ask. Feel free to post stuff about any revolution but what I need is something that could work as a metaphor for freedom of music, digital era revolution in music business or rise of democracy in music distribution. Indie labels vs. majors kind of. Logo of loud revolution at the moment will be yellowish and somewhat lightning like (sharp edges) and the general layout will be sky blueish.

I'd also like to know some cool names of revolution leaders. The idea is to create a half-fictional charismatic leader as the "front-man" of the service.

Thank you!

[Volumnius Flush]

Hitler is always a good bet. He was one of the greatest influences on 20th century economics. Rumor has it he and John Maynard Keynes may have actually been bed buddies.

Also, the world was in a slump in the '30s. Hitler created jobs, capital, revenue, and taught the world what was truly worth fighting for. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

[Trojan Kahn]

Hitler is always a good bet. He was one of the greatest influences on 20th century economics. Rumor has it he and John Maynard Keynes may have actually been bed buddies.

Also, the world was in a slump in the '30s. Hitler created jobs, capital, revenue, and taught the world what was truly worth fighting for. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

yes...for the deaths for 10 million innocent people?

[Volumnius Flush]

Trotsky was pretty cool, too. Here's an idea I'll let you steal from me. You can design 'Shaolin Trotsky'. He can have a ponytail but instead of hair, it can be an icepick. Just be sure to make his eyes slightly slanted.

[Hababi]

Use the anti apartheid movement in South Africa--something most everyone can get behind :p

..Even though South Africa is worse off today than it was under the apartheid :(

[Volumnius Flush]

Use the anti apartheid movement in South Africa--something most everyone can get behind :p

..Even though South Africa is worse off today than it was under the apartheid :(

Nelson Mandela. "I am not a crook!" "Sic semper paratus!"

Originator of some of the greatest quotes of all time.

[drewhet]

Alex Jones...








lol, jk

[RicheyIs4Real]

Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara. Yeah I'm Red

[coheneran]

Leila Khaled.

[Amit]

nehru

[coheneran]

Nehru? Who's that?

[RicheyIs4Real]

mates with gahndi

[John Paul Harrison]

Gregoris Lambrakis.

The move "Z" rocked hard.

[coheneran]

Ah. What'd he do?

[RicheyIs4Real]

Helped liberate India mainly, I guess. Dont know that much about him to be honest

[JollyRoger24]

I think Noku was looking for leaders that didnt kill people try and Darth Vadar he comes with a cool theme song.

[coheneran]

Oh. Well, no revolution is non-violent.

[Mr. Ron]

Washington \m/

[JollyRoger24]

Oh. Well, no revolution is non-violent.

HAHA thats the truth

[Tyr]

..Even though South Africa is worse off today than it was under the apartheid :(

I imagine it would depend on who you'd be asking. The Afrikaners (Boers) are worse off, but I think everyone else like being free.

[RicheyIs4Real]

Oh. Well, no revolution is non-violent.

Not neceseraly, most revolutions happen after the workers grind the economy to the standstill through strikes etc. Then they put whoever they want in power. Of course the bourgeoise are always going to try and take power back by any means necessery, but in theory this could be done peacefully. Can't think of an example though:p

[Tyr]

Not neceseraly, most revolutions happen after the workers grind the economy to the standstill through strikes etc. Then they put whoever they want in power. Of course the bourgeoise are always going to try and take power back by any means necessery, but in theory this could be done peacefully. Can't think of an example though:p

Solidarity in Poland overthrew the Communist party peacefully, if I'm not mistaken.

[RicheyIs4Real]

The collapse of the USSR spelt the end for the eastern bloc, they just succeeded the communist party

[Tyr]

The USSR existed 'til 1991 and Lech Wałęsa was elected president in Poland in 1990, but, sure the USSR wasn't ultra stable then.

[RicheyIs4Real]

Yeah but the wall fell before that didn't it? I always see that as the end of the USSR to be honest, but more to the point no bloodshed

[Tyr]

Yeah, the Wall fell in 1989. I tend to look at the fall as some sort of ending too, for obvious reasons.

[-1up!-]

Not neceseraly, most revolutions happen after the workers grind the economy to the standstill through strikes etc. Then they put whoever they want in power. Of course the bourgeoise are always going to try and take power back by any means necessery, but in theory this could be done peacefully. Can't think of an example though:p

Violence doesn't imply blood or injuries; hell, a revolution can be violent without one fight even breaking out. It can still be violent in the sense that it damages institutions or relationships between groups or classes, symbols, etc. Symbolic violence should not be forgotten.

Take 9/11 for example. The way I view it, the most violent thing about those attacks were not the ~3k deaths but rather the fact that the world's current superpower got hit right at the heart, in its economic center, changing world relationships and American foreign policy in ways which will are still reflected today and will be for many years, maybe decades to come. 3000 deaths is a statistic, a rather insignificant number - but striking the US right at the heart? That's violence in its purest expression.

[Hababi]

I imagine it would depend on who you'd be asking. The Afrikaners (Boers) are worse off, but I think everyone else like being free.

The economy is spiraling downward, AIDS has skyrocketed, and Cape Town is the murder capital of the world; the country as a whole has become absurdly crime ridden.

[Tyr]

The economy is spiraling downward, AIDS has skyrocketed, and Cape Town is the murder capital of the world; the country as a whole has become absurdly crime ridden.

I don't deny this, I just think that non-Afrikaners like to be free.

[White Riot!]

Nelson Mandella

[Hababi]

I don't deny this, I just think that non-Afrikaners like to be free.

Oh I'm sure they do :p And I don't defend the Apartheid, but I don't see how one looking at the country, as a whole, could not say that South Africa was better off back then....

[coheneran]

Oh I'm sure they do :p And I don't defend the Apartheid, but I don't see how one looking at the country, as a whole, could not say that South Africa was better off back then....

The fact that there is no more apartheid is quite good in itself.

[griftadan]

Hitler is always a good bet. He was one of the greatest influences on 20th century economics. Rumor has it he and John Maynard Keynes may have actually been bed buddies.

i don't like keynes or anything but this is just stupid.

[Antifa]

Helped liberate India mainly, I guess. Dont know that much about him to be honest

Right, because India is liberated?

[Antifa]

Violence doesn't imply blood or injuries; hell, a revolution can be violent without one fight even breaking out. It can still be violent in the sense that it damages institutions or relationships between groups or classes, symbols, etc. Symbolic violence should not be forgotten.

Take 9/11 for example. The way I view it, the most violent thing about those attacks were not the ~3k deaths but rather the fact that the world's current superpower got hit right at the heart, in its economic center, changing world relationships and American foreign policy in ways which will are still reflected today and will be for many years, maybe decades to come. 3000 deaths is a statistic, a rather insignificant number - but striking the US right at the heart? That's violence in its purest expression.

That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. The symbol of a country is more valuable than, as you say, 3000 lives lost? What's so valuable about land in between borders?

[Eliminator]

ronald reagan our greatest president rip

[-1up!-]

That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. The symbol of a country is more valuable than, as you say, 3000 lives lost? What's so valuable about land in between borders?

I don't recall ever talking about value. I am talking about violence. Before labelling me as ignorant, at least be sure you can read properly.

I'm adressing the fact that the reason 9/11 will be remembered is not so much because of its death toll, but how it changed the world, or rather how the foreign policy of the United States was given a whole new main axis, i.e. the "War on Terror", and how that shift occurred changes in international relationships.

[Antifa]

I don't recall ever talking about value. I am talking about violence. Before labelling me as ignorant, at least be sure you can read properly.

I'm adressing the fact that the reason 9/11 will be remembered is not so much because of its death toll, but how it changed the world, or rather how the foreign policy of the United States was given a whole new main axis, i.e. the "War on Terror", and how that shift occurred changes in international relationships.

Maybe you should reread your own most.

"The way I view it, the most violent thing about those attacks were not the ~3k deaths but rather the fact that the world's current superpower got hit right at the heart"

[Danish]

It's been awhile since I last time posted on these forums. I got in music biz as an enterpreneur. I've been designing this Content, Promotion and Media Management System for bands and the service will start operating under the name "LoudRevolution.com". I am designing the graphical layout for my business at the moment and I thought that I could use some revolution elements from history.

Since you guys know much about history I thought this would be a good place to ask. Feel free to post stuff about any revolution but what I need is something that could work as a metaphor for freedom of music, digital era revolution in music business or rise of democracy in music distribution. Indie labels vs. majors kind of. Logo of loud revolution at the moment will be yellowish and somewhat lightning like (sharp edges) and the general layout will be sky blueish.

I'd also like to know some cool names of revolution leaders. The idea is to create a half-fictional charismatic leader as the "front-man" of the service.

Thank you!


I'm giving you no information that will assist in the creation of a business.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

lol danish fightin the evil of entrepreneurship

[-1up!-]

Maybe you should reread your own most.

"The way I view it, the most violent thing about those attacks were not the ~3k deaths but rather the fact that the world's current superpower got hit right at the heart"

Yes, that is what I wrote. I don't see any concept of value in there. People die everyday. Do you have an idea how much people die daily because of poverty, or hunger, or AIDS?

Now, how many times does it occur that the world's hegemonic superpower gets hit right in the chest, changing the face of international relationships? Do you even understand what I say when I mean that the most violent thing about 9/11 is not its death toll (which is concrete, "real" violence), but its consequences on Western societies, the rise of racism towards Islam, the changes in American foreign policy, the escalade of terrorism, the Patriot Act, all of which are "violent" in the sense that they considerably change society structures, cultural/religious relationships (Christianism-Islam conflict comes to mind) both on a national (The Patriot act directly affects American individuals) and international scale (Example. US go to Irak. The UK supports with military troops. Such an alliance will directly affect public opinion towards Blair, effectively affecting the British political scenery) stir up some antiamericanism, move the spotlight towards the Bush administration's tendency to lie to get its political agenda across, etc etc etc...

Get it? It's pretty darn obvious, and if you don't catch what I'm saying, the problem is yours.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

the rise of racism towards Islamwait that doesn't work

I hate islam like crazy and im not racist

[Danish]

Yes, that is what I wrote. I don't see any concept of value in there. People die everyday. Do you have an idea how much people die daily because of poverty, or hunger, or AIDS?

Now, how many times does it occur that the world's hegemonic superpower gets hit right in the chest, changing the face of international relationships? Do you even understand what I say when I mean that the most violent thing about 9/11 is not its death toll (which is concrete, "real" violence), but its consequences on Western societies, the rise of racism towards Islam, the changes in American foreign policy, the escalade of terrorism, the Patriot Act, all of which are "violent" in the sense that they considerably change society structures, cultural/religious relationships (Christianism-Islam conflict comes to mind) both on a national (The Patriot act directly affects American individuals) and international scale (Example. US go to Irak. The UK supports with military troops. Such an alliance will directly affect public opinion towards Blair, effectively affecting the British political scenery) stir up some antiamericanism, move the spotlight towards the Bush administration's tendency to lie to get its political agenda across, etc etc etc...

Get it? It's pretty darn obvious, and if you don't catch what I'm saying, the problem is yours.


Don't worry, dude. I understand and agree. In terms of politics and power, the significance of an attack on the American mainland is unprecidented.

[Surgicalgod]

Leila Khaled.

She's been to our house ^_^.

[StreetlightRock]

Joe Strummer.

What a man.

Though no quite a leader of a revolution.

Musical revolution?

http://static.flickr.com/25/62059791_0847a37452_m.jpg

[Iskandar]

Oh. Well, no revolution is non-violent.
What about a bloodless coup?

[-1up!-]

What about a bloodless coup?

See my post at top of page. Revolution implies violence, even if only symbolic.

Just to be sure you don't misunderstand like Antifa, I mean any revolution is necessarily a violent offense against the statu quo.

Though I really don't know if Coheneran meant what I'm trying to say here :o

Don't worry, dude. I understand and agree. In terms of politics and power, the significance of an attack on the American mainland is unprecidented.

:chug: I was hoping to be understood!

[Iskandar]

See my post at top of page. Revolution implies violence, even if only symbolic.

Just to be sure you don't misunderstand like Antifa, I mean any revolution is necessarily a violent offense against the statu quo.
I'd call it a sudden seizure of power by force, which usually implies violence, but doesn't have to.

[Volumnius Flush]

i don't like keynes or anything but this is just stupid.

Good some of you dolts finally noticed.

wait that doesn't work

I hate islam like crazy and im not racist

Me, too!

[Danish]

I'd call it a sudden seizure of power by force, which usually implies violence, but doesn't have to.

It depends on how we define violence.

[-1up!-]

I'd call it a sudden seizure of power by force, which usually implies violence, but doesn't have to.

Nah... you don't get it. I'm not talking about physical violence.

[Iskandar]

It depends on how we define violence.
Nah... you don't get it. I'm not talking about physical violence.
Well, let's define violence in this context then. Obviously physical violence is not necessary. What about violence towards property? I don't think that's strictly necessary either.

[Reaganista]

Do you even understand what I say when I mean that the most violent thing about 9/11 is not its death toll which is (concrete, "real" violence),

oh cool we're changing the meaning of words now

but its consequences on Western societies, the rise of racism towards Islam,
what
the changes in American foreign policy,
slight
and not an inevitable consequence
the escalade of terrorism,
wait what does cadillac have to do with terrorism
the Patriot Act, all of which are "violent" in the sense that they considerably change society structures, cultural/religious relationships
um
violent doesn't mean 'changes relationships'

(Christianism-Islam conflict comes to mind) both on a national (The Patriot act directly affects American individuals) and international scale (Example. US go to Irak. The UK supports with military troops. Such an alliance will directly affect public opinion towards Blair, effectively affecting the British political scenery) stir up some antiamericanism, move the spotlight towards the Bush administration's tendency to lie to get its political agenda across, etc etc etc...
oh i get it now wow that really is what violence means

[Give me Beer]

Subcomandante Marcos! Well, he's not really the leader, more the spokesperson, although I'm sure he has his say in the workings of the Zapatist party.

Anyway, the Zapatistas rule.

[-1up!-]

oh cool we're changing the meaning of words now


what

slight
and not an inevitable consequence

wait what does cadillac have to do with terrorism

um
violent doesn't mean 'changes relationships'


oh i get it now wow that really is what violence means

:lol: Poor attempts at humor to mask your ignorance. Synonyms of violence : might, power, impact, fury. Try denying that 9/11 had serious impact on international relationships. I'm speaking with terms of political science but hey, maybe it's out of your league.

[Reaganista]

none of those are synonyms of violence

escalade isn't a term of political science
it's a car
you asshat

and violence means violence in political science
not 'anything that changes something'
that's actually an action

but i guess it's ok cause you don't really speak english

[lfantwister]

the changes in American foreign policy,
slight
and not an inevitable consequence
care to explain that one

[spitfirejunky]

I don't think the concept of "preemptive war" is a slight change in foreign policy.

[Reaganista]

care to explain that one
well slight means not dramatic and not an inevitable consequence means it could've gone some other way

I don't think the concept of "preemptive war" is a slight change in foreign policy.
um have you heard about the domino theory

[lfantwister]

well slight means not dramatic and not an inevitable consequence means it could've gone some other way
Invading two countries isn't dramatic?
What other way could it have gone (realistically)

[Reaganista]

no, invading countries doesn't represent a dramatic shift in us foreign policy
we invaded a lot of countries before 9/11

and the reaction could've been either less aggressive, more aggressive or directed at different parties

[lfantwister]

no, invading countries doesn't represent a dramatic shift in us foreign policy
we invaded a lot of countries before 9/11

and the reaction could've been either less aggressive, more aggressive or directed at different parties
we started a war. that's kind of dramatic.

what, would al qaeda bomb the towers and bush decide to wage war against australia? who else would he hit?

[Antifa]

Yes, that is what I wrote. I don't see any concept of value in there. People die everyday. Do you have an idea how much people die daily because of poverty, or hunger, or AIDS?

Now, how many times does it occur that the world's hegemonic superpower gets hit right in the chest, changing the face of international relationships? Do you even understand what I say when I mean that the most violent thing about 9/11 is not its death toll (which is concrete, "real" violence), but its consequences on Western societies, the rise of racism towards Islam, the changes in American foreign policy, the escalade of terrorism, the Patriot Act, all of which are "violent" in the sense that they considerably change society structures, cultural/religious relationships (Christianism-Islam conflict comes to mind) both on a national (The Patriot act directly affects American individuals) and international scale (Example. US go to Irak. The UK supports with military troops. Such an alliance will directly affect public opinion towards Blair, effectively affecting the British political scenery) stir up some antiamericanism, move the spotlight towards the Bush administration's tendency to lie to get its political agenda across, etc etc etc...

Get it? It's pretty darn obvious, and if you don't catch what I'm saying, the problem is yours.

The current American foreign policy has been the same since the 80's.

Terrorism has increased since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. It did not increase because of 9/11.

The US has used the same economic system since its birth: an economic system that creates poverty and the accumulation of wealth.

People die daily because the notion of material possession is greater than our conscience.

[Antifa]

Well, let's define violence in this context then. Obviously physical violence is not necessary. What about violence towards property? I don't think that's strictly necessary either.

What?!?!

[Iskandar]

What?!?!
I might express a similar reaction: "What? Why are you so eager to advocate the violent overthrow of all existing social institutions when it's not necessary to achieve your aims or mine?"

[Antifa]

I might express a similar reaction: "What? Why are you so eager to advocate the violent overthrow of all existing social institutions when it's not necessary to achieve your aims or mine?"

It's impossible to salvage the "good and bad" of any two antagonistic economic institutions.

[spitfirejunky]

um have you heard about the domino theory

Touché.

[Iskandar]

It's impossible to salvage the "good and bad" of any two antagonistic economic institutions.
Wait, what are these institutions?

[Antifa]

Wait, what are these institutions?

Socialism and capitalism.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

we need more anarchy!!!!

*foams at mouth*

[-1up!-]

The current American foreign policy has been the same since the 80's.

I know, I have worded it wrong. Although, imagine 9/11 had never happened; was there a reason to invade Afghanistan?

Terrorism has increased since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. It did not increase because of 9/11.

I don't know if this is a reply to my post, but I think as you do. I never ever thought or said the increase of terrorism was directly related to 9/11.

The US has used the same economic system since its birth: an economic system that creates poverty and the accumulation of wealth.

People die daily because the notion of material possession is greater than our conscience.

I concur.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The US has used the same economic system since its birth: an economic system that creates poverty and the accumulation of wealth.
It can create and remove poverty, but I'd hardly expect you to grasp that subtlety

[The Stig]

I'm partial to Alexander Hamilton as my favorite revolutionary. He was probably the most intelligent of the US people leading the revolt at the time. Ben Franklin is ace, too.

[Surgicalgod]

It can create and remove poverty, but I'd hardly expect you to grasp that subtlety

I repped you for that post because I don't like red rep meters. :(

[Iskandar]

It can create and remove poverty, but I'd hardly expect you to grasp that subtlety
Some poverty is inescapable in the system because unemployment is inescapable. That's just one reason.
Socialism and capitalism.
What about mixed economies?

[thirdeyeblindislit]

we need more anarchy!!!!

*foams at mouth*

Um...

Well Che Guevara is always a safe bet.

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

I too am in the music industry, and that's who I would choose for such a product. Good luck and if you ever need help hit me up. We finally got on myspace so check us out:

www.myspace.com/syats

:chug:

[RicheyIs4Real]

mixed is bascially just capatilism in which the workers have had some success.

James Connelly, for leaders btw, if any of you americans think your Irish you should learn about him

[italic zero]

Get your commies out of here, Michael Collins would kick his SCOTTISH arse.

[Reaganista]

we started a war. that's kind of dramatic.

simply being belligerent doesn't represent any shift whatsoever in american foreign policy

what, would al qaeda bomb the towers and bush decide to wage war against australia? who else would he hit?
saudi arabia instead of or in addition to iraq is an obvious example of a more dramatic reaction that could've happened

[Antifa]

I know, I have worded it wrong. Although, imagine 9/11 had never happened; was there a reason to invade Afghanistan?



I don't know if this is a reply to my post, but I think as you do. I never ever thought or said the increase of terrorism was directly related to 9/11.



I concur.

The US government would have found a reason to extend the hand of imperialism had 9/11 not occurred.

[Antifa]

It can create and remove poverty, but I'd hardly expect you to grasp that subtlety

Yes, 10% of the population is bourgeois. The rest of us sell our labor power as commodities. So yes, technically, some people aren't poverty stricken.



What about mixed economies?

Oh, you mean like the US?

[Iskandar]

Yes, 10% of the population is bourgeois. The rest of us sell our labor power as commodities. So yes, technically, some people aren't poverty stricken.
If you define being a worker as being poverty-stricken (which is stupid because I believe I live quite comfortably).
Oh, you mean like the US?
More like Sweden.

[Amit]

how would you define being a worker dropper

[Antifa]

If you define being a worker as being poverty-stricken (which is stupid because I believe I live quite comfortably).

More like Sweden.

You live comfortably because of neo-liberalism. The same as me (well, relatively, compared to your Canadian arse). If you live so comfortably and there's nothing wrong with that, what's the point of being a communist? It gets lots of attention? You have to feel something, that's why we're communists.

There is still a government in Sweden, so workers don't have complete control of their lives. They still sell their labor power to a capitalist, and you know very well that that's not free. They may have socialized more aspects of society than Canada and the US (even though you said "Canada is the freeist nation on the planet"), but it accomplished the same goal as the US "Progressive Era" albeit a much larger scale.

[Zesty Mordant]

you seem to obsess on the fact that all workers are poverty-stricken, which is fallible and that the "standard worker" is the one that resides in the 3rd world.

[bleep_bloop]

I want to go to Sweden.

[shaqadelic]

Aung San Suu Kyi ftw. The revolution leader that should matter.

[-1up!-]

The US government would have found a reason to extend the hand of imperialism had 9/11 not occurred.

Maybe, maybe not. But "would've"s and common sense assumptions have no weight whatsoever.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Yes, 10% of the population is bourgeois. The rest of us sell our labor power as commodities. So yes, technically, some people aren't poverty stricken.
wait you're not making any sense

They still sell their labor power to a capitalist, and you know very well that that's not free.
no, it's completely free

[Iskandar]

how would you define being a worker dropper
Selling your labour-power to those who own the means of production. This is basically Kkomrhade Kkarl's definition.
You live comfortably because of neo-liberalism. The same as me (well, relatively, compared to your Canadian arse). If you live so comfortably and there's nothing wrong with that, what's the point of being a communist? It gets lots of attention? You have to feel something, that's why we're communists.
Well, for a variety of reasons:
1) I don't think capitalism is indefinitely sustainable.
2) I think a socialist society, if done properly, would be better.
3) I think a classless society is inevitable.

There is still a government in Sweden, so workers don't have complete control of their lives. They still sell their labor power to a capitalist, and you know very well that that's not free.
It's a modern, democratic government though. The relationship with the capitalists is not democratic. Therefore it's a far more important problem.
even though you said "Canada is the freeist nation on the planet"
One of the freeist.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

3) I think a classless society is inevitable.

but it isn't :-/

[Iskandar]

but it isn't :-/
Maybe not, but remember it's my opinion that capitalism (and I'm not denying it functions efficiently and generally benefits populations, albeit unequally) cannot possibly last forever. I simply don't think it's sustainable indefinitely. Something must take its place, and logically that would be a classless society.

[Smokey D]

No one has ever been able to show me why the dialectic suddenly reorders human nature after 13000 years of not being able to.

[Iskandar]

No one has ever been able to show me why the dialectic suddenly reorders human nature after 13000 years of not being able to.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to know. Are you asking how it functions; or what it does; or what?

[Antifa]

Well, for a variety of reasons:
1) I don't think capitalism is indefinitely sustainable.
2) I think a socialist society, if done properly, would be better.
3) I think a classless society is inevitable.
[QUOTE]

That's convenient.

[QUOTE=nowhesingsnowhesobs;13385890]wait you're not making any sense

I don't see how much clearer I could be.


no, it's completely free

Free in what sense?

If I sell my labor power to a capitalist who owns the means of production, am I free?

Most certainly not? Unless you mean I'm free to choose which capitalist I want to sell my labor power to.

[griftadan]

The US government would have found a reason to extend the hand of imperialism had 9/11 not occurred.

thats stupid theres no reason to go to afghanistan other than terrorism

Yes, 10% of the population is bourgeois. The rest of us sell our labor power as commodities. So yes, technically, some people aren't poverty stricken.

what defines bourgeois?

[Iskandar]

That's convenient.
What do you mean by that?
If I sell my labor power to a capitalist who owns the means of production, am I free?

Most certainly not? Unless you mean I'm free to choose which capitalist I want to sell my labor power to.
You can work for anyone who will take you, and some are better than others; but it's basically quite a crappy choice.
thats stupid theres no reason to go to afghanistan other than terrorism
Establishing a US-friendly government in the region (as opposed to terrorist-friendly, so yeah, they're related).
what defines bourgeois?
Ownership and control of the means of production.

[Antifa]

What do you mean by that?


If a classless society is inevitable, then there would be no reason to fight for it. I find this a slightly reactionary train of thought

You can work for anyone who will take you, and some are better than others; but it's basically quite a crappy choice.


My point exactly.

[Amit]

what is a better choice kkomrade dropperr

[Iskandar]

If a classless society is inevitable, then there would be no reason to fight for it. I find this a slightly reactionary train of thought
Ah, but there is.

And even when society has discovered the fundamental laws which govern its progress, it can neither overleap by wide bounds, nor sidestep the obstacles to its natural development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.
what is a better choice kkomrade dropperr
Find a situation in which you are in control of your own fate; if you can't find one, make one.

[griftadan]

Establishing a US-friendly government in the region (as opposed to terrorist-friendly, so yeah, they're related).

wait you forget that in this fantasy 911 never happened so we don't care about terrorists very much.

Ownership and control of the means of production.

alot of people own capital, antifa just seems to have pulled that number out of his ***.

[Iskandar]

a lot of people own capital, antifa just seems to have pulled that number out of his ***.
It's not just owning capital, I should have mentioned. You have to employ others who don't have a share in the capital for your economic benefit.

[griftadan]

ok its a commie word i suppose you can set the definition.

[Iskandar]

ok its a commie word i suppose you can set the definition.
It's just the word that's commie, not the definition. You'd just call them "capitalists," "entrepreneurs," " "management" or something.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I don't see how much clearer I could be.
you don't seem to understand what poverty is

If I sell my labor power to a capitalist who owns the means of production, am I free?

Most certainly not? Unless you mean I'm free to choose which capitalist I want to sell my labor power to.
you don't have to make the decision

[Antifa]

you don't seem to understand what poverty is

I think I have a better grasp of it than you do.


you don't have to make the decision

That's because there is no decision to make.

[Antifa]

Ah, but there is.

Could you elaborate?


Find a situation in which you are in control of your own fate; if you can't find one, make one.

I agree with this statement, but this is apparently where our opinions begin to differ.

[Iskandar]

you don't have to make the decision
In capitalist society, one has to either work for someone or have others work for onesself. Self-employment (and unemployment) are possible, but not viable for the vast majority of society. So yes, you do have to make the decision.
Could you elaborate?
The quote I posted (it's from Das Kapital) says it all. Even if we can't radically alter society to a new ideal overnight, we can always take steps in the right direction.
I agree with this statement, but this is apparently where our opinions begin to differ.
Our goals are not very different. The methods we endorse are.

[Antifa]

The quote I posted (it's from Das Kapital) says it all. Even if we can't radically alter society to a new ideal overnight, we can always take steps in the right direction.

I couldn't afford to buy the whole volume....

Our goals are not very different. The methods we endorse are.

I concur.

[Reaganista]

anti-flag are my favorite revolution leaders!!!111

**** POLICE BRUTALITY

[Iskandar]

I couldn't afford to buy the whole volume....
It's from the first volume. I got it from the public library.
I concur.
Upon further debate we may find out they're not as different as we think.

[Reaganista]

private libraries are better

[Antifa]

Seriously though, Alex Jones is so subversive!

[Antifa]

It's from the first volume. I got it from the public library.

Upon further debate we may find out they're not as different as we think.

I never have time to read books from the library.

Edit: I did however, have time to get my hands on a copy of The Poverty of Philosophy.

"He wished to be the synthesis; he is a composite error. He wished to soar as man of science above the bourgeoisie and proletarians; he is only the petty bourgeois, tossed about constantly between capital and labor, between political economy and communism."

Referring to J.P Proudhon, p. 173

[Iskandar]

private libraries are better
Mhmm I bet.
I never have time to read books from the library.
No? You've got to set some time aside for serious reading, man. It's essential.

[Antifa]

Mhmm I bet.

No? You've got to set some time aside for serious reading, man. It's essential.

I do, but a book as large as Das Kapital doesn't have enough room in my schedule without getting a bunch of late fees. I do read though.

[Iskandar]

I do, but a book as large as Das Kapital doesn't have enough room in my schedule without getting a bunch of late fees. I do read though.
Yeah, I agree. I've been at it for a week. I'll have to take it out several times.