DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on April 14, 2010, 12:10:35 PM
-
http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html (http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html)
He draws parallels between the Obama administration and the Weimar Republic. The collusion between the Obama administration and the financial services industry, the obscene rewards of the wealthiest while unemployment hovers around 10% and real wages for the employed stagnate for about 30 years. The extreme rapidity in the growth of both the Nazi Party and the Tea Parties, both fueled by escalating disgust over the situation where a handful get rich at the expense of the masses.
Good article, and short too.
-
Good lord, what have I been saying, all this time?? Minus the nonsense and transparent deflection by injecting the Tea party folk, since their biggest concern is precisely the fascist policies being implimented by Obama & company, topped only by the egregious fiscal wrecklessness being perserverated by the left, that's precisely the issue I've been referencing for the last 6+months. Nice that such an "educated" bloke like Chomsky has finally caught on to this this lowly little serf's assessement. One can only wonder why & how it took so long
(And for those with the myopic template persona, non-support of additional taxation and ever expanding government is largely the polar opposite in support of fascism & increasing Government control of the Private sector)
-
So Chomsky has bought the nonsense that the Tea Party movement is fascist. When people who know better jump to such stupid conclusions, there is nothing to explain it but irrational fear.
-
Give that man a cigar 8)
But don't expect a response, irrational or otherwise. We apparently called Tee on 1 too many of his less-then-truthful romps. His apparent unstable psyche was apparently irreversibly traumatized to allow further responding. We'll have to wait for someone who hasn't called Tee to the floor on some of his whoppers, to make a posting, so that he can then follow-up with that all too familiar salivating wit
-
No analogy is perfect, he said,.......
Hahahahahahahahahahahhaa!
The simularity starts with cheering crouds and continues to inflationary policys.
Facism is prone to break out at every good football game or used car lot?
-
There we go, Tee can now believe himself to be unconstrained in his responding to Plane ;)
(I'm sure the rest of the saloon patrons, and the many more vistors we have, are getting a kick out of this faux tee outrage)
-
Actually, I don't really disagree with any of this. But I do question this statement:
Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. ?The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,? he said.
If Weimar type societies are the acme of civilization, why do people resort to such radical philosophies as fascism as a corrective? Apparently not everybody finds such societies as compelling as Chomsky does.
Let's also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was an industrial and economic powerhouse, rivaling or even surpassing the United States. Which certainly beats having the kind of economy where you needed a barrel of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. I think the question of which one was the peak of Western civilization is very much an arguable point...
-
<<Let's also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was an industrial and economic powerhouse, rivaling or even surpassing the United States. Which certainly beats having the kind of economy where you needed a barrel of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. I think the question of which one was the peak of Western civilization is very much an arguable point...>>
The real issue was how stable the Nazi German economy really was. While Hitler's economic advisers like Hjalmar Schacht were pressing him to ease off on military production and war-production loans, Hitler was driven to start the war sooner rather than later, since he realized that he would not be able to keep his labour force quiet forever as spending on war drove up the cost of money while wages were being held down under the lenders' pressures. Professor Overy has a good analysis of the German economic situation in the late Thirties in his book on the Origins of WWII, and what I gathered from that was that without a war, it would have collapsed.
-
The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. In both cases Christianity was also highly involved (despite the bullshit one sees on the History Channel).
This has nothing to do with the government controlling X% of the private sector. It has to do with just how angry the petty bourgeoisie has become.
By and by, capitalism did rather well with Fascism. Any capitalist worth his salt chose fascism over complete disorder and especially over communism. You may want to look and see who has patents on sarin gas, the work done by Ferdinand Porsche, Siemens, Merck, Fiat, and other major companies during the reign of Fascism. There's a reason communists and socialists were the first to be shown the concentration camps.
-
Your problem Js, is that your using the approach Tee and like minds used in trying to compare Bush to Hitler. Yea, they were both men, ergo, Bush = Hitler (a moronic form, of course). Yea, perhaps you have anger behind the tea party movement and whatever it was that was behind the rise of the Nazi party. How the hell one can then make the leap of illogic and try to equate the Tea Party folk with fascists, and by inferrence, racists, produces a level of such complete uncredibility, as to have the reader scratching his head. Fascists would be supportive of fascist policy. They'd be supportive of a want-to-be Fascist Government. I dare you to find ANYONE of credibility within either the Tea Party Movement, the GOP or high ranking Conservative pundit, advocating such. Because without it, you're just throwing the term out, just to throw it out, because it has such negative connotations connected to it. Much like just calling someone a racist or homophobe, based on nothing more than not being supportive of what you think should be. Can't possibly because they actually have serious disagreement in your thought process
It's one thing when Tee does it. You, on the other hand, should have a better grasp of reality. Or so you say, by claiming you're not a liberal. Then stop acting like one, and act like a free thinker, that I know you can be
-
The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.
Who are the lumpenproletariat in this country?
Frankly, I don't think that is why the comparison is made at all. I believe if the Tea Party movement was espousing a liberal and/or socialist ideology, none of the liberal talking heads, including Chomsky, would be trying to warn us about impending fascism. So I question the issue of class being the defining factor.
-
Your problem Js, is that your using the approach Tee and like minds used in trying to compare Bush to Hitler. It's one thing when Tee does it. You, on the other hand, should have a better grasp of reality. Or so you say, by claiming you're not a liberal. Then stop acting like one, and act like a free thinker, that I know you can be
Gads, where did I claim that Bush = Hitler? That has absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever.
Moreover, I am not a "liberal" because I am a Marxist.
-
Your problem Js, is that your using the approach Tee and like minds used in trying to compare Bush to Hitler. It's one thing when Tee does it. You, on the other hand, should have a better grasp of reality. Or so you say, by claiming you're not a liberal. Then stop acting like one, and act like a free thinker, that I know you can be
Gads, where did I claim that Bush = Hitler?
I never said you did. Your point of trying to lay hate as the foundation for tea party movement and fascism, and thus connecting the 2, is much like folks who used the warpest of mechanisms to equate Bush to Hitler.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever.
Good thing I never said you did then *whew*
-
The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.
Who are the lumpenproletariat in this country?
Frankly, I don't think that is why the comparison is made at all. I believe if the Tea Party movement was espousing a liberal and/or socialist ideology, none of the liberal talking heads, including Chomsky, would be trying to warn us about impending fascism. So I question the issue of class being the defining factor.
The lumpenproletariat are the "flotsam of society." Every country has such a class. Is Chomsky biased? Of course. Does the tea party have pseudo-fascist motivations? Of course. They are an angry petty-bourgeoisie. They have some feelings of independence from their masters, it is only natural.
Look, chances are the tea party anger will deflate over time. On the other hand, and I believe what Chomsky is saying, is what if someone comes along who can really harness a message that can tie Christianity, Nationalism, anger, and a sense of class for these petty bourgeoisie folks together? Therein lies your fascism. The chances of such a demagogue appearing are not great. Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is). Who knows though, maybe a Franco, Mussolini, or even Hitler is out there. I think that is what Chomsky is saying. It would take a great deal of historical variables meeting at one point - but the feasibility is there, even if improbable.
-
Your problem Js, is that your using the approach Tee and like minds used in trying to compare Bush to Hitler. It's one thing when Tee does it. You, on the other hand, should have a better grasp of reality. Or so you say, by claiming you're not a liberal. Then stop acting like one, and act like a free thinker, that I know you can be
Gads, where did I claim that Bush = Hitler?
I never said you did. Your point of trying to lay hate as the foundation for tea party movement and fascism, and thus connecting the 2, is much like folks who used the warpest of mechanisms to equate Bush to Hitler.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever.
Good thing I never said you did then *whew*
Where did I use the term "hate?"
-
The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. In both cases Christianity was also highly involved (despite the bullshit one sees on the History Channel). This has nothing to do with the government controlling X% of the private sector. It has to do with just how angry the petty bourgeoisie has become.
and since it's a "comparison" of the tea parties & Fascist states, and the the "petty bourgeoisie" are all up in arms in anger, then the inferrence is there's your connection to tea parties
No?
If not, pray tell, how do you connect Fascist states with the tea parties? Just because they're both angry? See, that's the point I'm making. You defend the connection, based on nothing more than some seething anger behind each movement. Is that all it takes to be considered fascist? Anger?? And what if someone were to help mobilize them into a bigger political power than they currently are?? Again, where the hell is this Fascist dren coming from
Because, if you're honest Js, you'll note that it's been Obama and Company that have been facilitating a greater fascist agenda then anything remotely you could hang onto Bush, or any other Presdient before. And since the Tea parties are up in arms at Obama's efforts, the only tact left in trying to apply the fascist label onto them, minus any evidence of such, is merely to smear them.
Is that the ploy in effect?
-
As far as i can tell, the difference between the lumpen-proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie is the latter has a job.
What i don't understand is why unifying the petty bourgeoisie is a bad thing yet unifying the lumpen-proletariat is a noble endeavor. Especially when membership in one class or the other is paycheck to paycheck.
-
I always thought lumpenproletariat included the unemployed and criminal classes, typically the kind of low-lifes portrayed in Brecht's Threepenny Opera and one of its better-known songs, Mack the Knife or Mackie Messer.
Here's what Wikipedia says about 'em:
<<Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat") is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The term was originally coined by Marx to describe that segment of the working class that would never achieve class consciousness, and was therefore worthless in the context of revolutionary struggle.
<<In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), Marx refers to the lumpenproletariat as the 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, beggars, and other flotsam of society.' In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx describes the lumpenproletariat as a 'class fraction' that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that Bonaparte was able to place himself above the two main classes, the proletariat and bourgeoisie, by resorting to the 'lumpenproletariat' as an apparently independent base of power, while in fact advancing the material interests of the bourgeoisie.>>
-
The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.
Who are the lumpenproletariat in this country?
Frankly, I don't think that is why the comparison is made at all. I believe if the Tea Party movement was espousing a liberal and/or socialist ideology, none of the liberal talking heads, including Chomsky, would be trying to warn us about impending fascism. So I question the issue of class being the defining factor.
The lumpenproletariat are the "flotsam of society." Every country has such a class. Is Chomsky biased? Of course. Does the tea party have pseudo-fascist motivations? Of course. They are an angry petty-bourgeoisie. They have some feelings of independence from their masters, it is only natural.
Look, chances are the tea party anger will deflate over time. On the other hand, and I believe what Chomsky is saying, is what if someone comes along who can really harness a message that can tie Christianity, Nationalism, anger, and a sense of class for these petty bourgeoisie folks together? Therein lies your fascism. The chances of such a demagogue appearing are not great. Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is). Who knows though, maybe a Franco, Mussolini, or even Hitler is out there. I think that is what Chomsky is saying. It would take a great deal of historical variables meeting at one point - but the feasibility is there, even if improbable.
An unthinking leaderless mob?
Just needs someone to throw a halter on it and harness the energy to his own purposes?
Were you thinking this when Obama was winning the hearts of his mob without promiseing much specific?
-
and since it's a "comparison" of the tea parties & Fascist states, and the the "petty bourgeoisie" are all up in arms in anger, then the inferrence[sic] is there's your connection to tea parties
No?
I know nothing of any ploys and haven't really followed the tea parties with any real vigor. I have no idea what Obama or anyone says about them, nor do I really care. The reason they are compared to the fascists is due to their class construction and the mass movement itself. The development is taken from the observations of Leon Trotsky made in a number of his writings (for example his letters to Max Schachtman). In his letters he describes the historical variables and class structures involved in the development of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany. These were the mass movements of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The development is a reaction to a severe crisis in capitalism.
What Chomsky is saying is that there is a parallel in what Trotsky saw in the 1920's and 1930's and what we see today. It has nothing to do with "hate" or "government control". Those are values you added post-fact.
As far as i can tell, the difference between the lumpen-proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie is the latter has a job.
What i don't understand is why unifying the petty bourgeoisie is a bad thing yet unifying the lumpen-proletariat is a noble endeavor. Especially when membership in one class or the other is paycheck to paycheck.
Unifying neither should be considered a noble endeavor. The lumpenproletariat are a non-revolutionary class by their very nature and contribute nothing to society. They are mobilized in a Fascist state to be nationalist thugs and given free reign to engage in brutality against those considered to be anti-patriotic. The petty-bourgeoisie are generally dominated by their religious, racial, national, or other typical bourgeoisie fears and notions. They have difficulty achieving any real class-consciousness and rarely throughout history become a class to itself let alone a class for itself. More often they are the tool of the bourgeoisie proper, who play on their irrational fears and use their motivations as a source of power in liberal democracies.
An unthinking leaderless mob?
Just needs someone to throw a halter on it and harness the energy to his own purposes?
Were you thinking this when Obama was winning the hearts of his mob without promiseing much specific?
Meh, Obama like his predecessor is a neoliberal. I have little enthusiasm for voting - it is a mostly pointless action.
-
The reason they are compared to the fascists is due to their class construction and the mass movement itself. The development is taken from the observations of Leon Trotsky made in a number of his writings (for example his letters to Max Schachtman). In his letters he describes the historical variables and class structures involved in the development of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany. These were the mass movements of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The development is a reaction to a severe crisis in capitalism.
How very quaint!
And yet you go on to state that these Americans have very little class consciousness.
It isn't possible that you are useing terminology and concepts with little (if any) relivance to the actuallity of people who are tired of high taxes and an overweening meddling government?
-
How very quaint!
And yet you go on to state that these Americans have very little class consciousness.
It isn't possible that you are useing terminology and concepts with little (if any) relivance to the actuallity of people who are tired of high taxes and an overweening meddling government?
That is not what I said. I said that the petty bourgeoisie "have difficulty achieving any real class-consciousness and rarely throughout history become a class to itself let alone a class for itself."
You cannot escape the forces of history. The description you give only makes this particular group fit the concept all the much better. Of course they feel that they've been wronged! High taxes and a meddling government are to blame!
What would you have them do? Blame the free market? That's as sacred to the petty bourgeoisie as Christ Himself! They can't blame America, that's a close second to Christ and the free market... ;)
-
The lumpenproletariat are the "flotsam of society."
That's rather vague. But okay; so, who are the flotsam of our society?
Of course. Does the tea party have pseudo-fascist motivations? Of course. They are an angry petty-bourgeoisie. They have some feelings of independence from their masters, it is only natural.
Look, chances are the tea party anger will deflate over time. On the other hand, and I believe what Chomsky is saying, is what if someone comes along who can really harness a message that can tie Christianity, Nationalism, anger, and a sense of class for these petty bourgeoisie folks together? Therein lies your fascism. The chances of such a demagogue appearing are not great. Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is). Who knows though, maybe a Franco, Mussolini, or even Hitler is out there. I think that is what Chomsky is saying. It would take a great deal of historical variables meeting at one point - but the feasibility is there, even if improbable.
Again, if the Tea Party movement were holding rallies for, say, government run universal health care, I doubt much you and Chomsky would trying to warn anyone about potential fascism. You'd more likely be cheering the proles for moving against the bourgeoisie. The objections and warnings are not about class. They are about ideology.
Sarah Palin is an imbecile (sorry if that's tough for some, but she is).
No, she is not. She is a woman with a simplified view of things, but that makes her like average, not stupid.
-
What would you blame on a free market?
(As if we really had a free market)
A free market is like water , mindlessly it distributes itself in its container to form a perfectly level surface on the top .
A government that manipulates the market is like someone offended by a diffrence in depth , pumps water from the deep end and deposits this water in the shallow end hopeing to acheive an equality of depth .
Market forces deserve study , much as do tides , it is easyer to cope with tides if they are understood better , but understanding them much or little it is useless to command them to stop.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Cnut_the_Great_Obverse.jpg/210px-Cnut_the_Great_Obverse.jpg)
Cnut, with the legend "CNUT REX DÆNOR[UM]" (Cnut, King of Danes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great)
-
You'd more likely be cheering the proles for moving against the bourgeoisie. The objections and warnings are not about class.
I cannot speak for Noam Chomsky, clearly.
Why would I cheer the proletariat at a rally of petty bourgeoisie? My warnings are certainly about class. I thought that was rather evident.
If you want to discuss Universal Healthcare, surely we can do so separately.
-
and since it's a "comparison" of the tea parties & Fascist states, and the the "petty bourgeoisie" are all up in arms in anger, then the inferrence[sic] is there's your connection to tea parties
No?
I know nothing of any ploys and haven't really followed the tea parties with any real vigor. I have no idea what Obama or anyone says about them, nor do I really care. The reason they are compared to the fascists is due to their class construction and the mass movement itself. The development is taken from the observations of Leon Trotsky made in a number of his writings (for example his letters to Max Schachtman). In his letters he describes the historical variables and class structures involved in the development of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany. These were the mass movements of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The development is a reaction to a severe crisis in capitalism.
What Chomsky is saying is that there is a parallel in what Trotsky saw in the 1920's and 1930's and what we see today. It has nothing to do with "hate" or "government control". Those are values you added post-fact.
And what is it that we're supposed to be "seeing"?? Or do you have some different definition of fascism that isn't related to ideolgy and policy? What I see is a growing grass roots movement, that strongly disagrees with the direction this country is being forced to take, and the level of exponentially growing Government doing the forcing, despite strong majority opposition from the electorate. At no time in this country's history has the Government madated that its citizens buy a commodity or else. At we won't even bring in the debt being saddled on this country's citizens, their children, and their children's children
And come Nov, you'll see precisely what I mean by all that
-
Class consciousness is a way to devide the people .
There is no virtue in it .
A meritocracy is a better idea , in which the divisions of class are not hardened by jelosy and conflict , but fuzzed and made vague by constant crossing.
Consciously fostering class consciousness can only be an evil act, but would anyone who was ingendering jelosy and fear in this way blame the resulting trouble on his own incitement or on the divisions he beleived were already already there fair game for his exploitation?
-
You'd more likely be cheering the proles for moving against the bourgeoisie. The objections and warnings are not about class.
I cannot speak for Noam Chomsky, clearly.
Why would I cheer the proletariat at a rally of petty bourgeoisie? My warnings are certainly about class. I thought that was rather evident.
If you want to discuss Universal Healthcare, surely we can do so separately.
Which class do you see in motion then?
-
<<Lumpenproletariat (a German word literally meaning "rag proletariat") is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Was this term an invention of Marx?
How did Napoleion use concepts that were conceived years later?
I wonder if Marx invented the whole class?
Earlyer there were the haves and the have nots and the criminals inhabited both camps.
Now there are haves and have nots and criminals living in both camps.
If Marxism is mainly good for honest have nots , then that would be a minority of the total in the present US that the thing is supposed to be good for and three factions against one hoping against it.
-
And what is it that we're supposed to be "seeing"?? Or do you have some different definition of fascism that isn't related to ideolgy and policy? What I see is a growing grass roots movement, that strongly disagrees with the direction this country is being forced to take, and the level of exponentially growing Government doing the forcing
A brilliant man once said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
I doubt the government has grown exponentially. In fact, I doubt it has changed much as a % of GDP from the previous administration. It is the same Goldman-Sachs cronies running the Treasury Department.
Are you suggesting that Fascism was never a grass roots movement? And what ideology separates these folks from fascists? I'm certain that Mauras could find common ground with the good Tea Party folk.
-
Class consciousness is a way to devide the people .
There is no virtue in it .
A meritocracy is a better idea , in which the divisions of class are not hardened by jelosy and conflict , but fuzzed and made vague by constant crossing.
Consciously fostering class consciousness can only be an evil act, but would anyone who was ingendering jelosy and fear in this way blame the resulting trouble on his own incitement or on the divisions he beleived were already already there fair game for his exploitation?
Meritocracy is a term invented by a socialist as a pejorative. It does not exist in reality. It is a joke, a sham, a con, a ploy of the elite to goad the masses into pretending that one day they too will have a house on the hill if they just buckle down and work harder! It is a spoon filled with shit, fed to blithering fools so that they will work even harder, raise productivity, with no more incentive than a mystical dream. They might as well have offered free unicorn rides with a side of Minotaur steak.
Class existed long before Marx and will exist long after. He simply understood the system, or as he put it, he understood historical materialism and that Hegel's dialectic made sense only when "turned on its head." It isn't some idealistic force that drives history, it is economics - the forces of production - materialism.
-
Very well said, _JS. And very true.
-
And what is it that we're supposed to be "seeing"?? Or do you have some different definition of fascism that isn't related to ideolgy and policy? What I see is a growing grass roots movement, that strongly disagrees with the direction this country is being forced to take, and the level of exponentially growing Government doing the forcing
A brilliant man once said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
I doubt the government has grown exponentially. In fact, I doubt it has changed much as a % of GDP from the previous administration. It is the same Goldman-Sachs cronies running the Treasury Department. Are you suggesting that Fascism was never a grass roots movement? And what ideology separates these folks from fascists? I'm certain that Mauras could find common ground with the good Tea Party folk.
Yes, and Bush = Hitler. Js, you're still in the same loop. Implying/defending this comparsion between Tea Parties & Fascist states with nothing more than anger behind both. Is that all it takes?? I didn't realize I was visiting such a Fascist household last year when the Angels lost to the Yankees in the ALCS
You have yet to produce any credible rhetoric, or even action, by tea party folk that demonstrate some underlying goal of a fascist state. I'm sure this man you refer to is brilliant. Perhaps he can shed some light on how Tea party folk are comparable to those that pushed for a fascist state, in Germany.
If you want to ignore the massive growth and reach of Government here in the U.S., over the last 2 decades in general, and with this Administration especially, you do so because it negates the facts of what Obama has been doing with his agenda, that of ever increasing Government control of more and more of the private sector, be it banks, student loan industry, automobiles, healthcare, etc. And last I checked, that's referred to as fascism
-
The government GIVING money to students would be Socialism.
The government guaranteeing loans and then allowing banks to profit off those loans, with all rish subsidized by the government, that sounds pretty much like Fascism.
The government cutting the banks out of the loop, in consideration of the fact that the banks took no risk and simply profited, simply makes sense.
The government bailing out GM and Chrysler makes sense, unless you want to destroy the US auto industry.
-
Makes sense in a Facsist or even Socialist state perhaps. But not here in America, where people have a greater freedom to reap the benefits of their well judged decision making, or suffer the repercussions of bad decision making. If a particular auto industry fails......it fails. If a particular bank fails... it fails. Another industry or bank will step in to take its place. Those that lose jobs from such failures will have ample opportunity to be re-employed as the next industry or bank takes its place. Perhaps not immediately for the gratification of many spoiled Americans, but there has always been successes, following failures
And they will succeed if allowed to make their own decisions, leading to better products at lower costs to the consumer. Let the Government stick to simply its function, that of oversight. It's NOT the Government's function to take OUR tax money and throw at failing big whatever, be it auto industry or banks, thus making it a functional arm of the Government. That again would be referred to as Fascism
-
Meritocracy is a term invented by a socialist as a pejorative. It does not exist in reality. It is a joke, a sham, a con, a ploy of the elite.........
You are quite wrong of course , the NBA is a meritocracy , every well run business is a meritocracy.
Meritocracy is an older idea than Socialism does the term really start with a Socialist?
.....And are you hereby admitting that socilism is not meritocritous? That doing ones job well is futile(in a socialist setting) because meritocricy exists nowhere in Socialists opinion ,must mean for sure that it doesn't exist in socialism.
-
Was this term an invention of Marx?
How did Napoleion use concepts that were conceived years later?
I wonder if Marx invented the whole class?
Seriously? I have encountered quite a few attacks, most of which were not based on anything remotely close to what I have said, but this one takes the cake for downright silliness!
So no one experienced a phobia before psychology was invented and psychologists classified phobias? No one had a sexual fetish before sexual fetishes were discovered and classified by those same psychologists? No one retold tales of gallant conquests before Herodotus appeared and began the study of history?
Napoleon III employed the concepts, Marx merely discusses the how and why. If you truly wish to know more then please read the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, it is truly a brilliant read and one of Marx's best essays.
every well run business is a meritocracy
The sad thing is, I am certain that you truly believe that. It is of course complete bullshit and having worked for a number of Fortune 400 companies, some near the very top, the inefficiencies and lack of meritocracy are astounding. As I said, meritocracy was originally a pejorative and is useful as such.
-
Implying/defending this comparsion between Tea Parties & Fascist states with nothing more than anger behind both. Is that all it takes?? I didn't realize I was visiting such a Fascist household last year when the Angels lost to the Yankees in the ALCS
Where did you get the idea that anger is the only variable involved? I don't recall saying that at all. I'm rather certain that is another false statement attributed to me.
And last I checked, that's referred to as fascism
No it is not. What the hell do you think the fasces stand for? A single stalk of wheat is easy to break, but tied together in a bundle the disparate parties and groups of the right stand strong together in a unified, unbreakable, indestructible union.
You all have soaked up so much History Channel nonsense and Indiana Jones Nazism that you've never bothered to learn anything about Fascism itself. Just like the liberal-left, you've overused it to refer to any form of governance or politics you dislike and any sort of all encompassing evil. Hitler becomes some bizarre monster that can only exist in your rival's image.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of people here liked, nay loved a series of movies based on books (which they may also have loved) that had a very naive fascist theme to them. Anyone willing to take the bet? You Sirs?
-
Implying/defending this comparsion between Tea Parties & Fascist states with nothing more than anger behind both. Is that all it takes?? I didn't realize I was visiting such a Fascist household last year when the Angels lost to the Yankees in the ALCS
Where did you get the idea that anger is the only variable involved? I don't recall saying that at all. I'm rather certain that is another false statement attributed to me.
Js, please, pay attention. I keep asking for examples of how you or Chomsky can possibly compare the Tea party movement with the rise of the fascist states in Germany, circa 1930's. You have yet to produce anything outside of this anger. I quote, as your initial lead in "The comparison is made because the same classes were involved in constructing both the tea parties and fascist states: the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat.... It has to do with just how angry the petty bourgeoisie has become." So, please, for the nth time, what else, BESIDES anger can you apply in trying to compare the tea party movement, with the rise of fascist states??...especially given how the tea party folk support the polar opposite of fascist policy, as currently being implimented by Obama & company
And last I checked, that's referred to as fascism
No it is not.
Yes it is. I'm keeping to the basics Js, and not getting muddled down in marxist semantics. A Fascist state is one in which the Government is primarly running the private sector. They limit profits, they dictate policy, they set both business guidelines, and in many cases how one is to be reimbursed. There's still a private industry, but it's largely managed by the Government. Not to be confused with a Communist regime, in which case the Government itself simply owns everything.
With both regimes being extremely detrimental to freedom, and when/if necessary, to be fought against. And in our current state of being, is precisely the direction, Obama is taking us
But I digress......please, demonstrate how the hell you can make the defense that the Tea party movement is similar to the rise of fascist states.....minus the anger of course
-
No it is not. You are not "keeping to the basics." You are defining something by using a definition that is simply (and completely) untrue.
A Fascist state is one in which the Government is primarly running the private sector.
Bullshit. The German, Italian, Spanish, Chilean, and Argentinean private sectors were not run by the state.
With both regimes being extremely detrimental to freedom, and when/if necessary, to be fought against. And in our current state of being, is precisely the direction, Obama is taking us
Really? Please explain the Obama fascist state beyond your peculiar understanding of Fascist economics.
So, please, for the nth time, what else, BESIDES anger can you apply in trying to compare the tea party movement, with the rise of fascist states?
I have explained Sirs. The reason they are compared to the fascists is due to their class construction and the mass movement itself. The development is taken from the observations of Leon Trotsky made in a number of his writings (for example his letters to Max Schachtman). In his letters he describes the historical variables and class structures involved in the development of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany. These were the mass movements of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. The development is a reaction to a severe crisis in capitalism.
What Chomsky is saying is that there is a parallel in what Trotsky saw in the 1920's and 1930's and what we see today. It has nothing to do with "hate" or "government control". Those are values you added post-fact.
The problem is that you want Fascists to be something they are not. You want them to have policies just like Obama. The problem is that you cannot will it to be so. That is a very postmodern reaction - that because you say Fascism is Y, then in reality it is Y. But it is not. You cannot change history with your will. Your definition is not simple or basic, it is completely wrong and false.
I'm sorry to say that Obama is just a neoliberal, much like Bush before him and Clinton before him. They are capitalists, the lot of them. You'll have to find a different way to channel your aggression towards the current prez.
-
The essence of Fascism is the denial of class struggle, not government ownership or control. The idea is that the workers are organized into state-affiliated syndicates, called corporations, and the government, the capitalists, and the workers are joined together in a common national purpose, which in Mussolini's Italy was colonialism abroad (in Libya, then in Ethiopia, and eventually Albania) and industrialization, electrification and education at home .
Obama has nothing to do with Fascism. The Socialism we have is what is called "lemon socialism" failing corporations like GM and Chrysler are taken over termporarily by the government to prevent their collapse.
-
The idea is that the workers are organized into state-affiliated syndicates, called corporations, and the government, the capitalists, and the workers are joined together in a common national purpose
And this is a bad system because?
-
The essence of Fascism is the denial of class struggle
You're kidding, right?
-
<<And this is a bad system because? >>
It's obviously bad because it completely ignores reality. Reality is the class war. Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest, so the idea of them working together for the common good is bullshit.
-
It's obviously bad because it completely ignores reality. Reality is the class war. Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest, so the idea of them working together for the common good is bullshit.
I know Michael Tee is ignoring me, but perhaps JS or Xavier can explain why what Michael Tee said is a reflection of reality. It seems to me utterly unconnected to any reality in this universe. "Workers and capitalists do not have a common interest"? Since when are workers and capitalists two mutually exclusive groups?
-
Was this term an invention of Marx?
How did Napoleion use concepts that were conceived years later?
I wonder if Marx invented the whole class?
Seriously? I have encountered quite a few attacks, most of which were not based on anything remotely close to what I have said, but this one takes the cake for downright silliness!
So no one experienced a phobia before psychology was invented and psychologists classified phobias? No one had a sexual fetish before sexual fetishes were discovered and classified by those same psychologists? No one retold tales of gallant conquests before Herodotus appeared and began the study of history?
Napoleon III employed the concepts, Marx merely discusses the how and why. If you truly wish to know more then please read the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, it is truly a brilliant read and one of Marx's best essays.
every well run business is a meritocracy
The sad thing is, I am certain that you truly believe that. It is of course complete bullshit and having worked for a number of Fortune 400 companies, some near the very top, the inefficiencies and lack of meritocracy are astounding. As I said, meritocracy was originally a pejorative and is useful as such.
I am sorry if you do not understand , but your failure to catch on is not proof of "sillyness".
If Marx can coin a word and define it as a term , does not prove that he understood anything.
I understand how Napolion betrayed the sans -coluats and why he was willing to release Lousiana and Hati for cash.
I understand Napolion as an emperor , not significantly diffrent than other successfull emperors except only a minority of emperors ever rose from the ranks of commoners.
This is a simularity that Napolion has with Mao , Stalin , Hitler and few others. Napolion betrayed the class he depended on for his initial rise , is this another simularity?
-
I think that Tee is separating the bourgeoisie from the proletariat, but I could possibly be wrong.
By the way, XO is not wrong. A major part of Fascism was denying any sort of class division and uniting the people, especially with patriotic pride and symbols of nationalism.
Plane, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. I would enjoy discussing the 18th Brumaire with you, which compares Napoleon and Napoleon III, but you'd have to read it first. It is available online.
-
Plane, I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
You seem reasonably intelligent , you will catch up.
-
OK, here is the deal with Fascism. I don't know why some here are so defensive with it.
Here is why some people here who have talked about fighting fascism are more likely to go right along with it, while others would likely fight it (or be consumed by it).
Fascism:
1. Primarily made up of the petty bourgeoisie with help from the lumpenproletariat.
2. Strongly Christian and uses religious symbolism.
3. Does not believe in laissez-faire economics, but does protect the small business owners (i.e. petty-bourgeoisie).
4. Exceptionally Nationalist. Uses every possible form of national symbolism and pride.
5. Fetishization of the Military. The military enjoys a near-religious sacred status.
6. No class divide is recognized, strikes and unions are discouraged (or completely illegal).
7. National security is at a premium.
8. Often uses a race, creed, religion, or another group as a scapegoat for national ills.
9. Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare. Mussolini famously stated, "I do not respect — I even hate — those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others"
10. Generally a union of conservative and traditionalist interests. Almost always this results in one, unifying, demagogic leader.
Fascists are generally opposed to capitalists, but of course worked with them in the cases of Germany and Italy. As a general rule though, capitalism in its truest form is not very compatible with Fascism. Fascists are extremely opposed to socialists and communists.
The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?
-
No class divide is recognized
That is not the same as denial of class struggle. Near as I can tell, the Nazis at least did not deny class struggle so much as they blamed it on Jews and Negros and socialists, et cetera.
Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare.
True enough, yet social programs to provide employment were major parts of domestic policy in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Each also held that protection and benefit, i.e. service, to the state/society was more important than protection of or benefit to any individual. Fascism is not characterized by individualism. It is a collectivist ideology. That, and not the denial of class struggle, is the essence of fascism.
-
<<I think that Tee is separating the bourgeoisie from the proletariat, but I could possibly be wrong.>>
I was actually responding to BT's response to a capsule description of fascism, the capsule description being:
<<The idea is that the workers are organized into state-affiliated syndicates, called corporations, and the government, the capitalists, and the workers are joined together in a common national purpose>>,
to which BT had responded: <<And this is a bad system because . . . ?>>
BT was in effect asking for (or challenging anyone to show) a reason why the system (fascism) being described was a bad system. While there are other major defects in the fascist system, I chose to limit my response to the elements of the capsule description, the most obviously "bad" being the idea that class enemies (capitalists and workers) could ever be joined together in a common "national purpose."
What usually happens is that the "common national purpose" is defined first by the ruling class, and obviously in its own class interest, with a few sold-out union "leaders" induced by various shady means, to lend their names to the "common national purpose" in betrayal of real class interests.
The other flaw in the description, of course, is the false portrayal of a supposedly tri-partite partnership of "government," capitalists and workers. The "government" is nothing more than a creature of the capitalists, serving their interests and heavily bribed and subsidized by them to do so. So the "tri-partite partnership" is really a partnership of only two. The fascist system is actually a dictatorship in both form and substance, with the workers getting nothing but a "partnership" in name only with their class enemy, which retains the fully dominant position within the "partnership."
-
The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?
Others may have read that into his books, but that's not by author's intent. Tolkien has denied many times that he used allegory in his books; as a matter of fact, he despised allegory as a tool.
Of course, people have read similar intent (again, not intended by the author) into CS Lewis' books, which would have also therefore been a correct answer to your initial question.
-
While there are other major defects in the fascist system, I chose to limit my response to the elements of the capsule description, the most obviously "bad" being the idea that class enemies (capitalists and workers) could ever be joined together in a common "national purpose."
Is home ownership considered to be a "national purpose" and a value to be promoted?
Is the financing of this national value a classic example of cooperation between workers and capitalists.
-
No class divide is recognized
That is not the same as denial of class struggle. Near as I can tell, the Nazis at least did not deny class struggle so much as they blamed it on Jews and Negros and socialists, et cetera.
Social Darwinist in nature and social welfare.
True enough, yet social programs to provide employment were major parts of domestic policy in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Each also held that protection and benefit, i.e. service, to the state/society was more important than protection of or benefit to any individual. Fascism is not characterized by individualism. It is a collectivist ideology. That, and not the denial of class struggle, is the essence of fascism.
Yes, and they blamed it on the Jews with very good reason. Many of the top Communist thinkers were Jews. In fact, Nazism considered communism to be something of a filthy Jewish conspiracy.
Not collectivist, corporatist and there is a difference. Moreover, the benefit of the state trumped everything. Therefore any dangers to the state were considered everyone's immediate concern, which is why preventive wars and Gestapo invasion of anyone's privacy were completely permissible. The Nation was sacred.
-
The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?
Others may have read that into his books, but that's not by author's intent. Tolkien has denied many times that he used allegory in his books; as a matter of fact, he despised allegory as a tool.
Of course, people have read similar intent (again, not intended by the author) into CS Lewis' books, which would have also therefore been a correct answer to your initial question.
True enough Ami. I've never really read this in Lewis' works, which seem more anti-Modernist than anything. Though Lewis certainly used allegory.
Tolkein's work seems to be a very naive fascism and notice that Peter Jackson leaves much of the evidence out of his movies. Where were the hordes of black men from the south? A very major character is completely missing. The Nazgul are not fully described and explained. When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.
Of course Jackson had major time restraints and no one wants to see a thirty-six hour trilogy except the most die-hard geek. Still, for me the evidence is rather overwhelming and not strange to Britain at that time. In fact, Britain and the US had a great many people who admired Fascism until (and even after) the war.
I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.
-
When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.
Well, in the movie they killed off Saruman before he could make his way back to the Shire and enslave it.
I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.
Nor was he writing a book about fascism. He was writing a creation myth for the Anglo-Saxons, something that they did not have. His profession and passion was Anglo-Saxon literature, after all.
-
<<Is home ownership considered to be a "national purpose" and a value to be promoted?>>
Perhaps you are confusing "housing" with "home ownership." Housing of course is a national purpose, or should be. It sure as hell is in Cuba where the government has made every effort to house the population adequately in cooperatively built housing. "Home ownership" is a particularly wasteful form of housing in which each individual is encouraged to get his own land and build a house on it, or buy the land with the home already built.
<<Is the financing of this national value a classic example of cooperation between workers and capitalists. >>
Of course not. What it is a classic example of is capitalist rip-off of the working class, most of whom spend a lifetime of labour paying banks and other financial institutions for the right to live in a home of one's own. I haven't looked at the comparative figures for years, but the average cost of housing as a percentage of worker income was at much higher in the U.S.A. than in socialist countries such as the U.S.S.R., where decent housing built and maintained to standard was considered a basic right.
Slum neighbourhoods which are all too common in the U.S.A. are or were relatively rare in Western Europe, where the governments are generally much more active than in the U.S. in providing housing, which is looked upon as "socialistic" and unhealthy in the U.S.A.
-
Perhaps you are confusing "housing" with "home ownership."
No I meant home ownership.
Do you rent or own?
-
When they return to the shires it has become an industrial wasteland.
Well, in the movie they killed off Saruman before he could make his way back to the Shire and enslave it.
I don't think Tolkein was some sort of horrible Nazi, and that was my point.
Nor was he writing a book about fascism. He was writing a creation myth for the Anglo-Saxons, something that they did not have. His profession and passion was Anglo-Saxon literature, after all.
It seems to me that rampant industrialization of the English countryside would have far more to do with the time of Tolkien's life than some Anglo-Saxon creation story. The fact that he also explicitly supported Franco and the clerico-fascism of that time may have influenced the work as well. There is no mutual exclusivity that prevents The Lord of the Rings from being a naive fascist work and a creation myth, along with a somewhat naturalist tale.
-
Overlooking the denials by Tolkien again...
-
Overlooking the denials by Tolkien again...
Overlooking the obvious again.
-
Overlooking the obvious again.
So, the books mean what you say they mean? The author just didn't know what he was writing?
Bit of a God complex there?
-
The slogan of Franco Spain was "España, una, grande y libre" , or Spain, One, large and free. By one, he meant that there should be one language (Gallego, Basque and Catalán were forbidden to be used in schools and churches); by big, he meant, no secessions of non-Castillian provinces disposal of the colonies in Africa, and free meant, no foreign influences, such as from France and Russia in particulr. Franco Spain was a monarchy without a king (there were two factions, the Carlistas and the Alfoncistas, and neither wanted to share power with Franco or his military), and elections were only among a couple of loyal Falangistas. The official party was the Falange, or Phalanx, a Roman military marching square, in which all soldiers had an assigned position and all were sworn to obedience. There was a youth group, the Pelayos, similar to Hitler Youth, with ties to Medieval knighthood and such. The military, the Church and the Falange were the three main elements.
It was illegal assembly to have even three people speaking Catalán, Basque or Gallego in any public place. Those who defied the orders were sent off, along with politicaL prisoners, to build the huge Cross and monument at the Valle de los Caidos (The Valley of the Fallen) outside Madrid, near the El Escorial Palace of Felipe II, where all Spanish kings are entombed.
-
<<No I meant home ownership.
<<Do you rent or own?>>
I own and my mortgages were paid off long ago. But for the first ten years of our marriage, my wife and I lived in a rented apartment, till the birth of our second child. I have no problem with apartment living, except that in capitalist countries like Canada, the rents are way too high because it is left to private industry and finance to finance, build and rent. The government should deal itself a hand, cut out the parasitic middlemen (speculators, builders, owners, bankers, managers) and give the people the kind of housing they deserve at a price they can afford without having to feed an entire horde of parasites, along with their lawyers, advertisers and tax accountants.
But if you meant home ownership, then I'm sure that there would be a lot of people who definitely do not think it should be a national purpose. It's a very inefficient use of land and housing resources. One of my favourite scenes from the film Dr. Zhivago was when the aristocrat returns to his mansion after the Revolution and finds that the Revolution has allotted him one unit of it, with the rest of the property divided into other units, each given over to a worker's family. They're cooking and doing their laundry in what used to be the foyer.
To the extent that there is any support for home ownership as a national purpose or goal, it's a construct that benefits the ruling class landowners, their banks and financiers at the expense of everyone else. The "labour leaders" - - if any - - who support that goal are either fucking idiots or paid off by their class enemies to go along.
-
You talk one way and live quite the other.
-
<<You talk one way and live quite the other. >>
I spent ten years living in a rented apartment, so I've actually lived both ways.
But I've never advocated for anyone to live a post-Revolutionary life in a pre-Revolutionary society. That's just plain crazy. If the Revolution would ever come, I'd gladly make do with less so that the vast majority of my fellow citizens would have more.
Instead of engaging in the substantive issues, you are just diverting attention to inconsequential ones like my own chosen lifestyle under capitalism. That tells me you are totally incapable of refuting me on the issues themselves.
-
It is always interesting to watch people backpedal when you divert them from the theoretical/ philosophical approaches to life towards the personal.
Home ownership is a horrible thing except that is exactly what you did, you bought a home.
When you bought that home did you buy to fit your needs at that time or did you look at it as an investment, a potential nest egg for your sunset years?
Do you have other investments? Did you invest in an education to improve the chances of earning a greater salary?
Do you own a vehicle, do you maintain it? Do you protect that investment?
I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite. I'm just wondering how you can advocate a lifestyle that is totally different from the one you live, and not make the necessary adjustments to bring that philosophy closer to your reality.
-
It's very nice of you to try to speak for me, but I think I'll just go on speaking for myself, if you don't mind.
I do not "advocate" any kind of post-Revolutionary lifestyle for anyone still living in a pre-Revolutionary society.
When or if the Revolution comes, sacrifices will be demanded of the privileged minority for the greater good of the non-privileged majority. I will have no problem making any sacrifice required by Revolutionary principles for the sake of the greater good. Making that same sacrifice at this point in time would be an extremely foolish act, since there is no "greater good" to be served by it.
To answer one of your questions, we bought a home that met our needs at that time; primarily, we were looking for the very best public school education available for our kids; although my wife clearly saw it as an investment and a nest egg that would necessarily increase in value, I did not know whether it would turn out as she predicted. Fortunately, she turned out to be correct, but at the time I did not see that as foreordained.
<<I'm just wondering how you can advocate a lifestyle that is totally different from the one you live, and not make the necessary adjustments to bring that philosophy closer to your reality.>>
Well, clearly you misunderstood what I was advocating. I'm not advocating a lifestyle. Period. I am advocating for its own sake a political restructuring that would necessarily involve new lifestyles for everyone. Since I happen to belong to a privileged class, the lifestyle change for me personally will probably involve less material possessions. This is OK with me, since most of my fellow-citizens will find that their lifestyle change improves their material situation. You should think of the lifestyle change in my case as one that I'm prepared to submit to as a minor sacrifice, in exchange for the benefit to the greater good. I don't really see this as anything that is all that difficult to understand.
-
Overlooking the obvious again.
So, the books mean what you say they mean? The author just didn't know what he was writing?
Bit of a God complex there?
Not at all. What I am saying is that Tolkien clearly wrote some of his beliefs into the books. He wrote the books from the late 30's through the late 40's. Yet, they were not published until the mid 1950's. It was not exactly a great time to tell the world, "look at my awesome books on pastoral fascism! See, aren't they epic?!?"
So, I have no doubt that he would never have publicly affirmed such a notion. And note that he did not support the Nazi take on Fascism, but the clerico-fascist views of Franco, which were different. And indeed, he did poke fun at his friend and fellow Inkling, Lewis, for making such use of such obvious allegory in the Narnia series (but then Tolkien was a bit of a douchebag like that).
So, do you honestly think that the rapid industrialization of the shire had absolutely nothing to do with the industrialization of the English countryside? There was no allegory used at all? No allegorical good and evil?
-
I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite. I'm just wondering how you can advocate a lifestyle that is totally different from the one you live, and not make the necessary adjustments to bring that philosophy closer to your reality.
So do you think Michael Tee and I would be less hypocritical if we took our collective capital and formed something akin to the Baader-Meinhof gang or the IRA and began kidnapping major capitalists and bombing those who advocate the bourgeoisie lifestyle?
-
So do you think Michael Tee and I would be less hypocritical if we took our collective capital and formed something akin to the Baader-Meinhof gang or the IRA and began kidnapping major capitalists and bombing those who advocate the bourgeoisie lifestyle?
Well, either that or join one of the many communes around. But if violence is your thing, I guess what you said would work out better for you.
-
Ami,
You beat me to the punch with that reply.
-
I rather like the idea of communes. Though I'm not sure why living in a commune and violent direct action would be mutually exclusive.
Violence does seem to be a more powerful tool than non-violence to make changes and it certainly seems to scare the hell out of bourgeoisie society far more than non-violent protest.
-
Violence does seem to be a more powerful tool than non-violence to make changes and it certainly seems to scare the hell out of bourgeoisie society far more than non-violent protest.
Let's see how that works out.
-
I rather like the idea of communes.
They're all over the place. The Benedictines run one near here. Let me know what part of the world you're interested in and I'll see about finding you one. I have plenty of friends involved with / living in communes.
-
No need, my Aunt lives in one in Berlin and I have a good friend who lives in one near London.
Of course there is nothing wrong with a Marxist having a normal job, house, wife, and children. As I've explained, you won't bother to understand historical materialism, so you cry foul when any Marxist or communist is actually successful in your capitalist society.
Knowing how capitalism works is part of being a good Marxist. It doesn't mean one has to like the machinations of your beloved bourgeoisie society or that there are not actions one can take to help the proletariat achieve class consciousness.
Mike, nor I really have to give a shit less what petty bourgeoisie sluggards have to say about lifestyle. Marxism is not a lifestyle. It is an historical movement towards the liberation of the worker and ultimate liberation of humanity from the class struggle. Mike may see the progression towards this goal differently than I, but I'm certain that we have the same ends in mind. To be honest, what the petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper, the elite, or the lumpenproletariat think of me, personally, is so far into the weeds of minutiae as to be irrelevant when compared to the massive weight of history.
If it takes being called a "hypocrite" or far worse, being jailed, being killed, tortured, or just dying of old age and knowing that I've done something to move a few workers a bit further towards that end of liberation - then I can die happy with a simple sign saying, "here lies a comrade."
-
And this whole conversation reminded me that because of my health complications over the last couple of months, I had not renewed by membership at the health food coop nor reserved my place at the CSA farm, and both deadlines were looming.
So, those are taken care of now...
-
Good luck with your efforts to change the world.
If i notice any liberated proletariat around here, i'll ask them to send you my regards.
-
<<If i notice any liberated proletariat around here, i'll ask them to send you my regards. >>
You're just not looking hard enough.
http://www.workers.org/2010/us/sodexo_0422/ (http://www.workers.org/2010/us/sodexo_0422/)
-
Changing exploiters does not liberate you.
-
A graduate student wrote this?
Ughh.
"although they have some of the most contact with students"
Bunch of other problems in there.
-
<<Changing exploiters does not liberate you. >>
Neither does meekly submitting to guys who get rich by fucking you in the ass.
Although you don't seem to have any problem with the U.S. charging off to fight the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians or anyone else who may have pissed off the imperial advisors, you are a rock of passivity and inertia when it comes to any effort at all, violent or non-violent, to fight the class enemy right here at home where some tangible benefit can reward the effort.
-
Although you don't seem to have any problem with the U.S. charging off to fight the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians or anyone else who may have pissed off the imperial advisors, you are a rock of passivity and inertia when it comes to any effort at all, violent or non-violent, to fight the class enemy right here at home where some tangible benefit can reward the effort.
I don't consider Emory a class enemy. They have an excellent record as a citizen of the Southeast.
And the food service company at the heart of the complaint?
Rankings and awards.
* Named One of World's Top 50 Green Outsourcing Suppliers
* Ranked number three in the world among outsourcing services companies
* Top 50 Companies for Diversity (#6) - DiversityInc
* Named One of the 2009 DiversityInc Top Ten Employers for LGBT Workers
* Ranks Second on the 2009 DiversityInc Top Ten Companies for Latinos
* Named a "Best Company" for Multicultural Women by Working Mother Magazine
* Named as One of "World's Most Ethical Companies"
Not too shabby.
Sounds like the union is trying to insert itself as the middleman.
and weren't you complaining about middlemen in the housing industry?
-
Not collectivist, corporatist and there is a difference. Moreover, the benefit of the state trumped everything. Therefore any dangers to the state were considered everyone's immediate concern, which is why preventive wars and Gestapo invasion of anyone's privacy were completely permissible. The Nation was sacred.
Yes, and the propaganda at least (kinda like people do here too frequently) conflated the people the with the nation/state. It was collectivist through and through.
-
<<I don't consider Emory a class enemy. They have an excellent record as a citizen of the Southeast.>>
Really? So why is this "excellent" citizen doing business with a union-busting company? Do you think they are hoping to (a) raise or (b) lower the wages and benefits paid to the workers who feed their students? Do you think that if Sodexo (the union-busting company) succeeds in maintaining its presence at Emory and in busting the union, that the bargaining position of other food-service workers who are citizens of the same "Southeast" that Emory is such an "excellent citizen" of, will be (a) strengthened or (b) eroded?
<<And the food service company at the heart of the complaint?
<<Rankings and awards. . . . >>
I am ROTFLMFAO at this. Who is it that passes out these indicia of "excellence?" The workers who make it all possible, who receive and store and process and serve and clean away the food? You should live so long. The awards are made by the same parasitic exploiters living off the sweat of the workers whose balls they are trying to bust - - there isn't ONE labour union ranking or awarding them anything except Scab of the Year medals. Just for the hell of it, I took a peek at the DiversityInc. website at http://www.diversityinc.com/article/7347/The-2010-DiversityInc-Top-50-List/ (http://www.diversityinc.com/article/7347/The-2010-DiversityInc-Top-50-List/) and it was hilarious - - down the left margin in a sidebar, are listed the site's sponsors, and if anyone needs a snap definition of "class enemy" in the future, I'm just gonna give 'em the URL and tell them to read the sponsor list. Included proudly among the site sponsors is Sodexo, the union-busting corporation fighting now for the Emory campus and - - miracle of miracles - - occupying top rank on the site for "diversity" is - - wait for it!! - - the very same Sodexo. Now is that some fucking coincidence or what?
So Sodexo busts unions but has a soft spot for Latinos and other visible minorities? Is there anyone in the room over the age of 12 who doesn't know what that means? Sodexo will fuck ANY worker in the ass, Latinos included. BFD. Sure they like new immigrants - - the newer the better. The less they know their way around, the longer Sodexo gets to fuck 'em before they wise up.
<<Not too shabby.>>
Are you shitting us? Every one of those self-awarded titles is a total crock. Smoke and mirrors from a clique of class enemies each awarding the other some fictitious title, something like the adult entertainment industry: Miss Nude Oahu 2006, Miss Hot Legs Las Vegas 2009. Or the Latin American military, "You're an Admiral if I'm a Generalissimo and he's a Field Marshall." You sure are a sucker for titles, BT. Sometimes you should look into who's handing them all out.
<<Sounds like the union is trying to insert itself as the middleman.>>
Well, I guess it would - - if the union weren't synonymous with the very workers who create the product that the corporation is selling.
<<and weren't you complaining about middlemen in the housing industry?>>
Yeah, but I meant the bankers and the lenders and the realtors and their lawyers and the accountants and advertising agencies, I was not referring to the excavators and the masons and the carpenters and the electricians and plumbers and HVAC guys and drywallers and painters and roofers. They aren't exactly "middlemen" are they?
-
The unions are middlemen in the sense that they take a cut from the members pay in order to finance whatever value added services they provide.
How is that different from an accountant, lawyer or banker?
-
The books I referred to were penned by JRR Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings. Can anyone figure out who represented the fascists, who represented the capitalists, and who represented the communists?
Others may have read that into his books, but that's not by author's intent. Tolkien has denied many times that he used allegory in his books; as a matter of fact, he despised allegory as a tool.
Of course, people have read similar intent (again, not intended by the author) into CS Lewis' books, which would have also therefore been a correct answer to your initial question.
Then they should have been reading Orwell.
-
<<I think that Tee is separating the bourgeoisie from the proletariat, but I could possibly be wrong.>>
I was actually responding to BT's response to a capsule description of fascism, the capsule description being:
<<The idea is that the workers are organized into state-affiliated syndicates, called corporations, and the government, the capitalists, and the workers are joined together in a common national purpose>>,
to which BT had responded: <<And this is a bad system because . . . ?>>
So what is the feature of Facism that makes it deplorable and has earned it the opprobrium of generations?
Things that are simular to Fascism in its "good"* features need not share blame with it for features not shared , right?
* Another interesting question might be " Did Fascism have good features?".
-
I rather like the idea of communes. Though I'm not sure why living in a commune and violent direct action would be mutually exclusive.
Because a commune makes you easy to find.
There are a few successfull communes around , is it important for them to get along well with their neighbors?
-
Collectivising isn't illeagal in the USA , farms are being collected and staffed with hired farmers all over the place.
Agribusiness thay call it.
I wish it were not so , it competes with family farms in an unfair way , especially since corporations never have to pay a death tax , as farm familys do once per generation.
-
<<The unions are middlemen in the sense that they take a cut from the members pay in order to finance whatever value added services they provide.>>
The unions are basically the bargaining agents of the workers. The workers unite with other workers on other jobs and hire people to be their bargaining agents. But at all times the union exists only as the representative of the workers. OTOH, if the workers choose not to join, the union still has an independent existence of its own, with or without them. They provide a service to the workers who choose to affiliate themselves with the union.
Is everyone who provides something to the workers a middleman? If the workers pay a cut out of their salary to the store that sells them the workboots that they have to wear on the job, is the storekeeper then a middleman?
I guess the workers are an integral part of housing production, and so anyone that is essential to their function (the union, for example) is also an integral part of production rather than a middleman.
OTOH, speculators are not an essential part of the production. Neither are their lawyers and accountants. Multiple owners of the housing inventory, each with their own pack of lawyers, accountants, advertising agencies, real estate salesmen and women and property managers are all parasites and middlemen because if all the land were owned and financed by one entity (the state) there would be no need for 99% of them. None are essential to housing production, as Fidel Castro, and before him, Joe Stalin, proved conclusively.
-
OTOH, speculators are not an essential part of the production.
Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.
On the other hand, work can be done without union bosses taking their cut of the workers wages.
-
Is everyone who provides something to the workers a middleman? If the workers pay a cut out of their salary to the store that sells them the workboots that they have to wear on the job, is the storekeeper then a middleman?
If they are mandated to purchase the boots at one particular store, then yes, the storekeeper is a middleman.
If, however, they can purchase the boots at any store they choose, then no.
-
<<Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.>>
The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class. Thus they are both middlemen and parasites because they have created a whole unnecessary niche which they themselves can fill in the production process, while actually contributing nothing of value to the end-product.
<<On the other hand, work can be done without union bosses taking their cut of the workers wages. >>
The workers wouldn't enjoy the wages they earn without the bargaining power provided by the union. Some of the extra wages is kicked back as union dues so that they can continue to enjoy the benefits of a union job: negotiated salaries, benefits and enhanced job safety.
-
<<Actually the financing portion of a project is just as important as the work being done, because without the former the latter often can't place. So in that sense, it is an integral portion of the equation.>>
The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class. Thus they are both middlemen and parasites because they have created a whole unnecessary niche which they themselves can fill in the production process, while actually contributing nothing of value to the end-product.
Without lenders , how does anyone build something that is going to pay for itself over time ?
-
The capitalist system that allows capital to be concentrated in private hands of course CREATES the position of mortgage lender; my point is that the banks and institutions that do the lending and profit mightily from it have suborned the government to prevent any change to a socialist economy, so that their parasitic activities can continue to bleed the working class.
OK. Suppose the government was the first recource for financing.
Where does the government get its money?
-
Issues notes, same as any government.
-
Issues notes, same as any government.
What is the collateral for these notes?
-
Collateral for the notes? You're drawing me out of my field here, but I would expect it's a combination of gold and other precious metals, plus the nation's reserves of foreign currencies. If you're about to suggest that the national currency might be under-collateralized, you've probably got me in over my head. I've heard the argument all my life applied to the U.S. dollar as well as many other currencies and I've always had to balance the fact that to my simple ears, the argument seemed to be making sense, but OTOH the sky never did seem to fall. I think one of the explanations given was credit - - that people seemed to put a lot more faith in under-collateralized currencies than was warranted, given the lack of collateral, and the currency floated on that faith. Then periodically, one currency or another would collapse (e.g., Argentina) and they'd make up a new currency, wiping out the life savings of a lot of people, which really wouldn't matter under socialism because the state would look after them anyway.
-
I think that I have more change in my pocket than the US dollar has colateral.
-
(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif)
-
<<I think that I have more change in my pocket than the US dollar has colateral.>>
WOW!!! Wanna share some a that change with your friends in 3DHS?
-
BT posts a simple chart in a matter of seconds (or minutes, depending on how long it took to find it) but capable of generating hours of debate. What is the overlap between corporate income tax and individual income tax? I mean one corporation is going to fund the income of quite a few individual taxpayers. What percentage of the real workforce is represented by those workers who paid the 36% slice with payroll taxes? How much corporate profit is expensed out to "subcontractors" who then find other ways of evading or avoiding tax on their "subcontractor" income?
I dunno what point BT was trying to make by posting the chart, so I think I'll just ask him.
-
Notes issued are collateralized by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. The major source of Federal revenue is derived from personal taxes. The point is that if the government is to be the lender of first recourse what it would be doing is loaning the people the very monies that it confiscated from them in the first place.
.
-
Bingo.....a subtlety I might add, that is all too often overlooked
-
<<Notes issued are collateralized by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. The major source of Federal revenue is derived from personal taxes. The point is that if the government is to be the lender of first recourse what it would be doing is loaning the people the very monies that it confiscated from them in the first place.>>
How on earth do you think a bank operates? It takes money from its depositors and loans it out to its borrowers, some or many of whom may also be its depositors. What is the BFD?
-
People give their monies to Banks, OPTIONALLY, and NOT confiscated. There's your BFD ::)
-
Oh, my apologies......Bt (or Ami, or Plane), can you say the same thing so Tee can crawl out of his mentally traumatized hole, to respond. I'm sure the saloon patrons would love to see the probable reinventing of the words confiscate vs save/invest
-
When you lend money to a bank you have a contractural relationship withthe bank abnd the money is still yours.
The contractural relationship with the US government is that you will relinquish money to them whether you are getting anything out of it or not ,.... or elese!
-
There, now he can respond. Thanks Plane. I'm confident Tee was itching to want to say something, but just can't get passed the mental trauma of responding to someone that can consistently put his feet to the fire 8)
-
There, now he can respond. Thanks Plane. I'm confident Tee was itching to want to say something, but just can't get passed the mental trauma of responding to someone that can consistently put his feet to the fire 8)
MT knows that I think he is wrong just as often as you do.
-
I don't doubt that, at all