Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157

Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157


The critique is a mostly fair one, but I question any underlying point unless you are just trying to induce liberal guilt

Are workers in the advanced country "bought off"? Is their 'prosperity stolen' from the "Third World"?

The answer to both of those questions is no..

Well, I think work is to be phased out and prosperity is theft (in an unequal society)...

But just thought some here might enjoy a skewing of some DUers. :)

A good rant, you ruffled some feathers for sure.

Well, I think work is to be phased out and prosperity is theft (in an unequal society)...

But just thought some here might enjoy a skewing of some DUers. :)


Thats cool but socialism ain't about egalitarianism or "overcoming" work (which, really, doesn't make any conceptual sense in the final analysis)

Good work shakin' em up over there ;)

Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157


The critique is a mostly fair one, but I question any underlying point unless you are just trying to induce liberal guilt

Are workers in the advanced country "bought off"? Is their 'prosperity stolen' from the "Third World"?

The answer to both of those questions is no..


Is complicated...

"I can always hire half the working class to kill the other half..."
-- Jay Gould

'Course it ain't true, but throw a little nationalism or race or colonialism into the mix and it sure seems true (perhaps only for a while).

Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157


The critique is a mostly fair one, but I question any underlying point unless you are just trying to induce liberal guilt

Are workers in the advanced country "bought off"? Is their 'prosperity stolen' from the "Third World"?

The answer to both of those questions is no..


Is complicated...

"I can always hire half the working class to kill the other half..."
-- Jay Gould

'Course it ain't true, but throw a little nationalism or race or colonialism into the mix and it sure seems true (perhaps only for a while).



It is complicated but at the same time apologizing for owning an IPod is height of liberal guilt. I don't think it can be a framed as a solidarity issue for several reasons:

1. no social movement is going to emerge based on people *giving up* their living standards except maybe as some crazy ass hippie BS
2. why stop with the IPod -- give up EVERYTHING you own or basically be a hypocrite to your own self-imposed standard. I get that you Fosterites ;) are actually close to this "ideal" but somewhere in there asceticism is also a sort of capitulation..kinda hard to be part of the class struggle and on a permanent hunger strike in solidarity at the same time (and thats not really hyperbole because some have done just that) -- disregarding the times when hunger strikes are an important statement etc etc
3. Not being able to stop the imperialism of your home country doesn't automatically equate with being "in league" with the capitalists. Once again its complicated by the fact that many libs DO express sympathies with US foreign policy but both of these components are measures of the relative strength of the class struggle not any kind of "bribery". What "opposition" are the libs going to gravitate towards when there isn't any..although I guess one has to be careful because you could easily lapse into apologetics based off this reasoning

It seems like the whole line of argument reduces to the absurd in a big hurry. Are liberals spoiled brats who don't even realize their own genuflecting (for the most part, some of it HAS to be self-conscious)? Well DUH! and theres no harm and some good in saying so. But I don't think you can extrapolate much from that fact alone.

locked thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5752157&mesg_id=5753436

I wrote this before the Kid's last post (11:00 AM). It's pretty redundant after his, but I'll post it anyway:

To add a bit to the Kid's and Anax's comments. The political issue is one of international class solidarity.

If your argument is that "As long as the vast majority of you (Republican OR Democrat) repeat brainwashed, indoctrinated propaganda practically verbatim, how in hell are we ever going to escape the control of the self-centered ruling class?", it is useful to point out to liberals their anti-working class agenda (as Mike/TA must have posted hundreds of times over there).

However the next sentence is problematic:

"Or, as I tend believe, maybe you middle-class SUV (and Prius) drivers ARE the real ruling class - and when it comes right down to it, you like the existing state of affairs just fine."

Some liberals are part of the ruling class and some aren't. For workers who have managed to hang on to some material gains, they are justified in enjoying a better quality of life than working people did prior to the labor movement's advances in the earlier part of the 20th century. That doesn't mean they like the state of affairs around the world just fine. Nor is it clear how union members making concession after concession in contract negotiations leads to a more equitable distribution of global wealth.

It may be possible to organize a challenge to power around issues of over consumption/privilege. But without a class solidarity component, it seems to be a stretch.

While we have an opportunity to organize around dozens of issues in the US, the immigrant workers movement is the most exciting to me, because international class solidarity is right up front. Working people who are US citizens don't need to live in poverty for the benefit of other workers. They need to support class struggles that are the only way to reduce poverty for all of us.

I wrote this before the Kid's last post (11:00 AM). It's pretty redundant after his, but I'll post it anyway:

To add a bit to the Kid's and Anax's comments. The political issue is one of international class solidarity.

If your argument is that "As long as the vast majority of you (Republican OR Democrat) repeat brainwashed, indoctrinated propaganda practically verbatim, how in hell are we ever going to escape the control of the self-centered ruling class?", it is useful to point out to liberals their anti-working class agenda (as Mike/TA must have posted hundreds of times over there).

However the next sentence is problematic:

"Or, as I tend believe, maybe you middle-class SUV (and Prius) drivers ARE the real ruling class - and when it comes right down to it, you like the existing state of affairs just fine."

Some liberals are part of the ruling class and some aren't. For workers who have managed to hang on to some material gains, they are justified in enjoying a better quality of life than working people did prior to the labor movement's advances in the earlier part of the 20th century. That doesn't mean they like the state of affairs around the world just fine. Nor is it clear how union members making concession after concession in contract negotiations leads to a more equitable distribution of global wealth.

It may be possible to organize a challenge to power around issues of over consumption/privilege. But without a class solidarity component, it seems to be a stretch.

While we have an opportunity to organize around dozens of issues in the US, the immigrant workers movement is the most exciting to me, because international class solidarity is right up front. Working people who are US citizens don't need to live in poverty for the benefit of other workers. They need to support class struggles that are the only way to reduce poverty for all of us.


Good post

Only thing I'd wonder is how many are actually *ruling* class. The math I can never get around is if you earn $100k for 30 years you earn 3 million dollars PRE-TAXES and preexpensives and ignores expensives that attend having a job that pays that well. Now, from the "ruling class" perspective thats not even a drop in the piss bucket and we've set up an *exceedingly* ambitious scenario to get there.

The moral being -- you literally CAN'T work your way into the ruling class. In terms of "ruling" I think its a question of who sets the agenda -- well, its mainly the suits who are the visible component, but behind that you also have the "investors" and shareholders who set the agenda for world capital (or well, the agenda pretty much forcibly sets itself -- ruthless competition chasing profit -- but they're the executors anyway)

Using that threshold, I don't see many members of the "ruling class" on DU at all

PS organize against over-consumption? I think thats a different issue because conflating "consumption" with "prosperity" is a thoroughly capitalist notion in the first place. But that doesn't mean it can supercede class as the driving motor of the struggle

Kid,
I agree with the suits v. investor analysis. While there is an element of the capitalist class that advances liberalism in their own self-interest, I have no idea if any of them read boards like DU. My point is that advancing a liberal agenda (which is really capital's agenda) doesn't make someone a ruling class member.

As far as organizing around over-consumption, I personally find the idea impossible. Was trying to suggest to the OP that if the issue was one s/he wanted to raise, it needed to be done from a real class analysis, not from some lower, middle and upper class designations. I was thinking about some decent work that's been done around branding, advertising, forced consumerism, predatory lending,etc.

As far as organizing around over-consumption, I personally find the idea impossible.

Well, Chlamor haunts these parts and I was mostly being diplomatic on the point..but also I mean to say that if society is organized on a different basis then it could readily produce a move to curb overconsumption. I think I used the term "organize" in a confusing (confused? lol) manner and that was why it didn't come across right

Although it probably wouldn't hurt to rile Mr C a bit truth to tell..he does some of his best work when his dander is up ;)

Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157


The critique is a mostly fair one, but I question any underlying point unless you are just trying to induce liberal guilt

Are workers in the advanced country "bought off"? Is their 'prosperity stolen' from the "Third World"?

The answer to both of those questions is no..


Is complicated...

"I can always hire half the working class to kill the other half..."
-- Jay Gould

'Course it ain't true, but throw a little nationalism or race or colonialism into the mix and it sure seems true (perhaps only for a while).



It is complicated but at the same time apologizing for owning an IPod is height of liberal guilt. I don't think it can be a framed as a solidarity issue for several reasons:

1. no social movement is going to emerge based on people *giving up* their living standards except maybe as some crazy ass hippie BS
2. why stop with the IPod -- give up EVERYTHING you own or basically be a hypocrite to your own self-imposed standard. I get that you Fosterites ;) are actually close to this "ideal" but somewhere in there asceticism is also a sort of capitulation..kinda hard to be part of the class struggle and on a permanent hunger strike in solidarity at the same time (and thats not really hyperbole because some have done just that) -- disregarding the times when hunger strikes are an important statement etc etc
3. Not being able to stop the imperialism of your home country doesn't automatically equate with being "in league" with the capitalists. Once again its complicated by the fact that many libs DO express sympathies with US foreign policy but both of these components are measures of the relative strength of the class struggle not any kind of "bribery". What "opposition" are the libs going to gravitate towards when there isn't any..although I guess one has to be careful because you could easily lapse into apologetics based off this reasoning

It seems like the whole line of argument reduces to the absurd in a big hurry. Are liberals spoiled brats who don't even realize their own genuflecting (for the most part, some of it HAS to be self-conscious)? Well DUH! and theres no harm and some good in saying so. But I don't think you can extrapolate much from that fact alone.


Of course. I was responding more to the "aristocracy of labor" thing. This entire argument, even when it borders on Malthus, ends up raising the middle-class question: "Do you really have an interest in the Empire?" It does cave into the personal pretty quickly, but the degree to which the middle-classers get all worked up is interesting.

Of course. I was responding more to the "aristocracy of labor" thing. This entire argument, even when it borders on Malthus, ends up raising the middle-class question: "Do you really have an interest in the Empire?" It does cave into the personal pretty quickly, but the degree to which the middle-classers get all worked up is interesting.

Hadn't thought of it like that -- just figured it was another quirk of liberal guilt.."Me part of the Empire?!"

Say Naturyl, you haven't been reading Ian M Banks , have you? The question of work, ie, is it a necessary component of human life, is good one for Marxist theorists to mutter into their cups late into the night about.

I have no idea who Banks is. I have been writing material which questions the "work ethic" for a number of years. It is kind of my "pet cause." I oppose wage slavery and the socio-economic coercion that leads to it.

As for the DU post, it went over so abysmally that I have decided to leave DU because of it. Some opposition would have been fine, but the contempt was universal, as far as I could tell. And, to be honest, I stated my views pretty mildly. I actually feel significantly more strongly than what I revealed there.

You created an event. There were a lot of responses. People fight this and then end up thinking about it on and off for a good while. I can't critique the rhetoric as the other posters have but events like this are positive - they rattle the cage and get people going.

The line about soccer moms is brilliant, kicks ass just standing alone. Wish I'd thought of it.

Show some love if you agree with what I'm getting at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5752157


Good work stirring things up.

While we have an opportunity to organize around dozens of issues in the US, the immigrant workers movement is the most exciting to me, because international class solidarity is right up front. Working people who are US citizens don't need to live in poverty for the benefit of other workers. They need to support class struggles that are the only way to reduce poverty for all of us.


Well said and I agree.

Nothing illustrated the uselessness and irrelevance of liberalism more clearly than the complete lack of interest, or even awareness by liberals of the immigrants rights movement. At the same time that workers were being organized in the packing plants (it was the shops where the union was most active that ICE targeted) and organizers were putting millions of people into the streets all over the country, everywhere I went I heard liberals saying "what oh what would it ever take to get people into the streets?" I would point out that the city of Los Angeles had just seen the largest political demonstration ever in history and get blank looks in response.

You said one very important thing here - "an opportunity to organize around dozens of issues..."

That is 180 degrees from the way liberals look at it. They first become true believers in an isolated cause (reflecting their personal prejudices and preferences and little else), and then organize solely for the purpose of reinforcing their personal beliefs. It is then a form of self-expression, not an opportunity to advance anything political. There are not "dozens of causes" available to them, because the way they approach an issue precludes using any other issues for any other purpose and they "don't have the time for everything," and so they need to "prioritize" and focus on "what is most important" to them personally. They do not rally around a cause, they "be" the cause - it is about lifestyle and personal choices and personal values, not about political goals. They seek to convert people to their beliefs, to become like them.