Glenn Beck Denounces Kasama’s Jed Brandt
Posted by onehundredflowers on March 2, 2010
Glenn Beck featured the following discussion from New York’s Brecht Forum — extracting key remarks by Jed Brandt.
Kasama has explored previous Glenn Beck hit-jobs, including his hysterical red-baiting of Van Jones.
Jed’s remarks are rather clear and self-explanatory. But it might be helpful to also see them without the Glenn Beck editing — i.e. in the context of the Brecht Forum debate that night on the “Van Jones Effect” (Sept 16, 2009).
See the complete remarks:
Here are the full files
http://blip.tv/file/2987782
http://blip.tv/file/3058036
full video of panel on the” Van Jones Effect” at the Brecht Forum Sept. 16,2009
Advertisement
Tell No Lies said
It probably doesn’t need to be said that Beck is a buffoon and a demagogue. Jed comes off pretty well in spite of the selective editing. Some clarification on whose farms he is is talking about seizing and a response to the stuff about dissent and incarcertaion would seem in order.
The fact is that corporate agriculture long ago seized control of the vast majority of productive farmland (and without a peep of protest from Beck I imagine) and it is this sector, and not the small remnant of genuine family farms that we should be talking about socializing.
Beck also seems ignorant of the fact that the US has far and away the highest fraction of its population behind bars on the whole planet and possibly in human history.
He talks of free-speech when he is given a national soapbox in a system in which ownership of media outlets is concentrated in the hands of a very tiny fraction of the population.
21st century communists need to face squarely the anti-democratic character of communist-led societies in teh 20th century. But we have nothing to fear from pompous conspiracy-theorist gasbags like Beck.
I’d love to see Jed debate Beck.
Gary said
This guy has a base. But he also got bounced from CNN because (I think) he became too widely exposed as a comedic airhead. In that context, the fact that he’s chosen Jed as a target isn’t a bad thing I figure.
I’m not big into quoting the classics but here goes (since it’s so appropriate):
“It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.”
MOVIE, REVIEWED said
I’ve never watched Beck’s show, but I do have to say, he did a good soundbite selection there. He picked a soundbite where Jed basically condemned the entire American working class for being bribed by imperialism, and essentially said that he (and by extension, his comrades at Kasama and elsewhere) had nothing to offer the American working class, other than the destruction of America.
If the intent was to make American communists look anti working class and anti American, it succeeded quite well (hell, that’s the take home message that I got out of the soundbite, and I’ve been a communist for almost 29 years!) plus Beck picked a long enough soundbite to make it look like Jed’s quote was not taken out of context.
Are all of Beck’s shows this well produced or is this episode an exception?
Gregory A. Butler
Joseph Ball said
If sufficient land and resources have been given back to Mexico and the native population I don’t think America would resemble what it is at the moment very much. Also, in a better world, the name would need to change too (as the country is named after one of the people that ultimately caused the genocide of the native inhabitants of the entire continent).
The existence of First World states like America just serves to hold back the social and economic progress of the rest of the world. If history moves in a progressive direction, I think all the First World countries will change a great deal.
MOVIE, REVIEWED said
Joseph,
Why would a communist America have to be dismembered and have a name change?
Why not just have a communist America that is run by African American, Latino and Native American workers, covers the same territory and has the same name?
Gregory A. Butler
observer said
It says above, “full video of Van Jones Talk, at the Brecht Forum Sept. 16,2010″.
Unless Kasama is claiming to have perfected its time travel apparatus, shouldn’t that read “Sept. 16, 2009″?
KurtFF8 said
I think this is a good opportunity for Jed to challenge Beck to have him on his show.
Joseph Ball said
To reply to Gregory’s comment.
Before nations can unite they must be liberated. The liberation of the native peoples of ‘America’ implies they must have a nation in the first place, so they will need land and resources. Mexico’s national liberation inevitably involves it regaining lost territory.
On the name change issue-after over 234 years of imperialism and genocide America needs rather more than just a name change, I agree. But the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
Mike E said
I think that what stands out here is Jed’s forthright and energetic call for reclaiming communism — undefensive, unapologetic, unrepentant.
The tone, the argument, the line here is (obviously) unusual — and (imho) a key argument that needs to be made.
It is argued here in the context of those who want to silence radicalism in the name of helping Obama. In the name of an alliance that (Jed argues) doesn’t really exist.
We can discuss many aspects of this (Glenn Beck, the Brecht Forum, etc. etc.) but I believe this issue of communism vs. Obama Democratic liberalism is central, not just to this controversy but to our future work.
Mike E said
NAC asks:
The short story is that Glenn Beck is lying — to confuse his audience.
His claim is that Democratic Party liberals are defacto communists. And they are not. If you listen to Jed’s talk it is a critique (actually a denunciation) of the Obama government for its capitalism and imperialism. And Beck ignores that, because it does not fit with his (false) thesis.
In addition he consciously confuses two things: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism (of the early 1900s) and the left liberals who call themselves “Progressives” in the 21st century. These two movements have nothing in common (historically) — in fact Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism was an outgrowth of big business republicanism (not left wing socialism). They are simply two different movements with a similar name — and Beck tries to act like they are the same thing.
It is simply an obvious attempt at confusion, that only works if audiences don’t bother to read or investigate. In fact, communists and ruling class liberals are not the same thing — and have fundamental differences of politics (as shown by the Obama refusal to consider removing insurance companies from healthcare, or the escalation of the U.S. war on Afghanistan and Pakistan and more….).
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Actually contrary to what Beck says, Jefferson did say “we” may have to exterminate whole Indians tribes.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffwest.html
Thomas Jefferson warned John Adams in this letter that despite the progress of some Indian Nations, such as the Cherokee, to adopt representative government, many Native Americans “will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be obliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest into the Stony mountains.” In a previous August 28, 1807 letter to his Secretary of War Henry Dearborn, Jefferson stated “if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Missisipi.”
Stanley W. Rogouski said
In addition he consciously confuses two things: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism (of the early 1900s) and the left liberals who call themselves “Progressives” in the 21st century. These two movements have nothing in common (historically) — in fact Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism was an outgrowth of big business republicanism (not left wing socialism). They are simply two different movements with a similar name — and Beck tries to act like they are the same thing.
Right wingers like Beck tend to get hung up on words. Thus, Hitler was a socialist because the Nazis were also called “the National Socialist Party”. Don’t ask them, however, if the German Democratic Republic was democratic or if the Peoples Republic of China is actually a peoples republic.
FWIW, the official name of the Canadian conservative party used to be the “Progressive Conservative Party”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada
That would make Brian Mulroney a Nazi.
Not a Communist said
Mike E.’s response to my question, “Is Glenn Beck right in his “Progressivism is basically Communism with a different name” lectures (if I can call them lectures, lol)?”
Not a Communist said
If you’re correct that Democrat Party Liberals aren’t defacto communists, they’re certainly “something” that ideologically falls under “the collective” umbrella. I listened to Jed’s talk, it sounds as if he is upset because the Obama government is not communist enough, maybe it’s “communist light”, but it’s certainly not capitalist. For example, government run (or Free) healthcare is what Obama wants… there is no doubt on that, Jed seems to be upset because Obama can’t make it happen (or if he can, he’s not willing to risk the political ramifications). This suggests only that Obama isn’t communist enough for Jed.
For Beck to say “Liberals are really Progressives, which are basically Communists” is skipping some analysis, but one hour (minus commercials) coupled with the task of keeping Americans attention allows for only so much “detail”. Whether it’s Stalin defined “communism” or not… it’s all “collectivism”.
Not a Communist said
Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism did not favor big business. Take a look at his speech “Who is a Progressive?”, and let me know if you think his definition of Progressivism is closer to Big Business Republicanism or Left Wing Socialism, my gut suggests the latter. You can find the text here: teachingamericanhistory. org/library/index.asp?document=1199
Not a Communist said
I would suggest the utopia of Progressivism & Communism would probably look very similar, the fundamental differences in politics are not dispositive of the ultimate goal. I will concede that Progressives are not Communists in that Communism doesn’t have the patience to wait for the ultimate goal that Progressivism has demonstrated over the 20th Century. Listening to Jed’s talk, it seems his reason for being upset is that he feels the Obama government is wasting away & not making progress. However does anyone doubt that, over time, slowly but surely, Government will take health care?
Progressivism is not swift, like Communism. Whether the means are similar or not, I still think the ends are the same. I also think Beck makes a strong case when you look at like this.
Also the “Van Jones” issue, perhaps the case was made to Van that Communism’s methods weren’t possible in America and utopia could only be achieved “progressively”. That still doesn’t make Jones a capitalist, whatever the “degrees” of communism (progressivism, socialism, maoism, etc) he hasn’t left the collectivist camp completely.
Jason
Timo said
“I listened to Jed’s talk, it sounds as if he is upset because the Obama government is not communist enough, maybe it’s “communist light”, but it’s certainly not capitalist.”
Obama’s government is most certainly capitalist and imperialist. Remember those bail outs? An atemt to save the capitalist economy. Oh yeah, remember the imperialist war in Afghanistan he is escalating? Capitalism-Imperialism is flexible, just because you may think some things The current regime is doing is “uncapitalist” that does not mean that it is in any way anti-capitalist, in fact all the evidence shows that Obama is pro capitalism and pro imperialism. Imperialist Chief Obama is in no way a communist.
nando said
NAC writes:
I can see how it might look like that, NAC. But I think you misread it, in some ways.
This Brecht event was a discussion among leftists of radical stripes about how to relate to the Obama government.
What Jed is speaking about (and what he gets heated about) is a section of the left that is so infatuated with Obama that they are actually willing to suppress various forms of necessary popular resistance (for example: to Israel’s brutality in Gaza or the Obama escalation in Afghanistan.)
Sections of the left (some of them self-described progressives, or social democrats, or democratic socialists etc.) see themselves in an alliance with the obama government — as a critical but supportive left pressure group. One example (among many) is Cornel West.
Jed is arguing for a position (as is Timo above) that says “This is not a sympathetic government, and we should not view ourselves as being in some kind of alliance with this government — it is capitalist and imperialist, and dedicated to the things that make capitalism and imperialism function in all its awful ways.”
And jed is polemicizing against a view that the radical left should hide its views, should lower its voice, should soften its tone — in order to nestle closer to the Obama government and (in the hopes of some) excert some influence.
In fact, such approaches don’t “move obama to the left” — it “moves the Left to the right.”
Finally, the point is not that “Obama government is not communist enough”–the Obama government is not communist AT ALL. And jed is calling out (criticizing sharply) those left forces who are promoting illusions about the Democratic Party — even to the extent that they are preventing antiwar mobilization from seats high in nominally antiwar coalitions.
nando said
NAC writes:
I think there is truth and some subtlety to your remarks here.
I’m confident that the “case was made to Van” that communist revolution is impossible in the U.S. That case is made to every communist — repeatedly. And part of the argument is (as you say) that real change can only be made incrementally — and that (supposedly because of U.S. institutions) can, potentially and successfully, be made that way.
And Van then made that “case” himself — as he voted with his feet — leaving the radical left for the Huffington California Democrats.
The communist answer (to liberals and to Van) is that it is the reform-believers who are impractical and unrealistic. Basic change will not be made (in capitalism and imperialism) incrementally — and this political system is CLOSED to even a discussoin of tampering with capitalism or imperialism. (That was Jed’s point about “what is ruled out” before you even start.) There isn’t even a discussion about abolishing the parasitic insurance companies who profit from medicine without contributing a single thing. That discussion is simply “off the table.”
So the communist argument is that “revolution is a long shot, but it is our best shot.” While reform strategies are an illusion — unless the reform is rooted in redirecting the spoils of empire (i.e. if you accept a world empire, then you can pressure the system to hand you crumbs). Once you decide to oppose empire itself (i.e. the U.S. domination and exploitation of world markets) then clearly social improvement requires radical social changes.
Some changes happen incrementally under capitalism, and some radical changes even happen under capitalism — but the key changes we need will not ever happen within the existing framework of this economic and political system.
I believe that communist revolution is far far MORE practical than fantasies of incremental change. (Slavery was not abolished incrementally, it required a civil war.)
This is a complex question. I don’t know what Van Jones is? A careerist? Sincerely “pro-entrepreneur” (as he now says)? A secret reform-socialist?
There is no “sincero-meter” in politics. And it is often not clear what someone’s core beliefs are. (Many ruling class Republicans, for example, are personally secular — including Reagan, McCain, Nixon, Goldwater — but shamelessly cater to fundamentalist madness for political advantage.)
So it is not my business to guess what is in the heart of a Van Jones.
But I do think he has crossed important dividing lines. He is a former communist. A former radical. His politics have clearly changes — not just his rhetoric.
I don’t agree with his new politics, and I don’t share them. But it is a fact of life that people change over time — and we should expect to do so ourselves (as we learn and sum up our political experiences.)
And it is also a fact that Glenn Beck is lying when he treates a former communist as proof that the Obama government is riddled with secret communists. It is a lie, a deception.
And it is also an argument that is politically chilling: it implies that if you sit in a room with someone (like Bill Ayers), or if you hire a former radical (like Van Jones) — that you should be publicly red-baited and denounced. It is McCarthyism in the most clear sense: where the mere presence of a communist is treated as a crime, and a taint. And as if the only reasonable and responsible path in life is never to engage or contact any communist ever.
Jed’s point about using such methods (which have elements of fear and threat) as a way of defining the very narrow official political arena are quite relevant. McCarthyism is a way of literally criminalizing a huge swath of modern politics.
nando said
NAC writes:
This is a discussion worth having.
And the notion is that there is something called “the collective umbrella.”
Actually, here is the basic fact: we live in a society — where life and production are objectively socialized. In other words, they are carried out in complex, intertwined and increasingly global networks. The collectivity of our lives is objective and historically developed.
And the idea that we run aorund as “individuals” — in any dominant sense — is an illusion. And has never (in fact) been true. Human society has always been social — with the family grouping and tribe being the first social collectivities.
The question is not whether our society will be collective — but who it will serve.
When we go to work in factories and offices (in America or elsewhere) — what could be more conformist? What could be less democratic? I don’t need to give details, everyone knows it is true.
Conservatives like the word “totalitarian” (and I don’t) — but let’s accept that word for a second: What could be more “totalitarian” than the U.S. Army, or working for Wallmart (with pep rallies and mutual spying)?
The idea that capitalism is non-collectivist is a joke. And it flows from the position of those (within capitalism) who are infatuated with their very small, very limited degree of wiggle room (because they are “self-employed” or because they have skills that allow them to be mobile in the labor force). Even “self-employed” people are (obviously) dominated by corporate capitalism — by its markets, pricing and law making.
And the solution to the domination of corporate capitalism is not some fantasy “non-collectivist” utopia (of unrestrained selfish individualism and indifference to others) — but a transformation.
Communists say that capitalist society has social production and private appropriation. In other words the work and creativity of large networks of people is taken and directed by expropriators (the capitalists) who use our work for their own private benefit. This has devastating effects on society and the environment. It is the root problem of the world today — the contradiction between socialised production and private appropriation.
And the answer is to build on the great power of socialized production (which we will never abandon) — and make the appropriaton of social wealth something that the people control (and that is used for their intersts — in distribution but also in development policy.)
Liberatrianism is an illusion because capitalism always produces globe-dominating corporations that crush small farmers and busnesses, and always produces big military and economic powers that exploit weaker countries. It is inherent in capitalism. And the main destruction of the “freedom” of small property owners has not been “socialism” it has precisely been modern capitalism (which ruined family farmers and created mega-business agriculture, and turned small farmers and artisans into wage workers.)
ONly communist revolution pushes through that contradiction — and enables the social appropriation of socialized production — and only that enables us to solve the fundamental problems of human society.
zelig said
i just noticed that this has entered into the “Top in all topics” list on Digg.com(right side on the main page):
http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_claims_progressivism_leads_to_Nazism_Oh_really
unfortunately the clip they link to doesn’t include jed, but it’s interesting to see this talked about so much now outside of this converstation.
here’s the story that digg links to with video:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-claims-progressivism-lead
might be worth diving into their comments too.
Radical-Eyes said
Hey, where did the two clips of Jed’s full Brecht Forum talk go?
I would like to be able to refer people to them easily.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
“I listened to Jed’s talk, it sounds as if he is upset because the Obama government is not communist enough, maybe it’s “communist light”, but it’s certainly not capitalist.”
Do you remember when Jed said “if capitalists don’t have to apologize for slavery why should communists have to apologize for Stalin?”
What Jed is saying here is that communists can’t take the easy way out. They can’t reject “actually existing communism” in favor of some idealized Marxist utopia that never was. “Actually existing communism” includes a history full of atrocities, bloody suppression of freedom, tyranny, failure.
But note that he also says that capitalists can’t run away from “actually existing capitalism” in favor of some idealized “libetarian” utopia that never was. “Actually existing capitalism” includes a history of full of atrocities, bloody suppression of freedom, tyranny, failure.”
Obama is not a “communist light”. He’s the current head of state of the largest “actually existing capitalist” government.
That means he’ll use the full power of that state to defend the interests of capitalism. The fact that some of his methods may include government health care (or in his case, using the government to force us to buy private health care), social security, and public schools only means that he’s willing to use a few methods invented, not by communists, but by old line European Conservatives/Tories (ie Bismarck and Disraeli) to maintain the capitalist order.
Mike E said
Uh, aren’t they just above, RE?
Stanley W. Rogouski said
here’s the story that digg links to with video:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-claims-progressivism-lead
That David Neiwert piece is precisely what Glenn Beck wants.
He wants “progressives” (who are a tiny, weak fringe inside the Democratic party) to distance themselves from people further to their left (who are a weaker, smaller fringe yet). He wants to create a climate of fear that will drive “progressives” and “liberals” into a more passive acceptance of the right wing corporate mainstream of the Democratic party.
But mainstream corporate Democrats also feed off of people like Beck. I’ve actually seen Neiwert compare Beck, Limbaugh, Palin et al to Radio Rwanda, as if progressives were in imminent danger of being hacked apart by machetes by rampaging teabaggers. That way the mainstream corporate Democrats can use Beck exactly the way Beck is using Van Jones, as a bogeyman.
I think Jed is “misoverestimating” (to use Bush’s term) the danger from Glenn Beck and his “fascist hordes”. In a relatively stable society like the US currently is (as opposed to postwar Germany or 1990s Rwanda) extremist rhetoric like Becks will at most lead to isolated terrorist attacks like Joe Stack driving his plane into the IRS building. That will happen. We will get more Tim McVeighs (as well as more attacks from Islamic terrorists) but let’s not limit our options because there are so many convenient bogeymen in the air.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Uh, aren’t they just above, RE?
I can see them in IE 8, Safari, and Firefox. No problem in any browser.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism did not favor big business. Take a look at his speech “Who is a Progressive?”, and let me know if you think his definition of Progressivism is closer to Big Business Republicanism or Left Wing Socialism, my gut suggests the latter. You can find the text here: teachingamericanhistory. org/library/index.asp?document=1199
The welfare state (as opposed to socialism) was an invention of European conservatives like Benjamin Disraeli and Otto Von Bismarck. The Roosevelts were a family of landed aristocats who shared a lot of the ideals of classic European Toryism (ie the rich should make some effort to take care of the poor).
I’ll quote the Roosevelt essay.
Every man is to that extent a Progressive if he stands for any form of social justice, whether it securing proper protection for factory girls against dangerous machinery, for securing a proper limitation of hours of labor for women and children in industry, for securing proper living conditions for those who dwell in the thickly crowded regions
There’s an important distinction here.
Note how Roosevelt says “a progressive is a man who stands for social justice,” that is, to be more specific, a member of the upper classes who’s willing to go out of his way to help factory girls.
A socialist is someone who thinks the factory girls should organize and take power themselves.
Mike E said
Youtube comment on Jed’s talk from Tea Party activist:
Stanley W. Rogouski said
I like what that guy has to say about the “Coffee Party”. My reaction is similar. Huh?
The right is using the term “Tea Party” to coopt an image from the American Revolution for the Republican Party. Obama is King George and white people are being unfairly taxed to pay for undeserving “illegals” and blacks.
So what do liberals do? Create something called “the Coffee Party”?
If the right can coopt the American Revolution, why can’t the left use imagry from the French Revolution?
How about “Knitting Parties,” where we all come dressed as Madame Defarge and knit out the fate of our favorite aristo bankers? How about “Bread Riots”, where we all dress as Sans Culottes and protest in front of the Goldman Sachs Building? How about “Guillotine Parties” (where we set up a paper mache guillotine, chop off the heads of effigies of our favorite capitalists, and stand around eating cake, looking menacing).
As for his question about “is there a socialist country that works,” I’ll answer a question with a question. Has there ever been a capitalist country that “works” without some state intervention into the economy and without taxing people to pay for a military?
Radical-Eyes said
I like the guillotine effigy idea!
Though the scene needs to be properly set for such a spectacle.
MOVIE, REVIEWED said
“I think it would be interesting to explore why the right can so easily coopt the imagery of the American Revolution but not the French Revolution. Can anybody imagine a right wing group named, not “The Minutemen” but “The San Culottes”?”
Stanley,
I think the answer to that question is quite simple – the American Revolution is AMERICAN while the French Revolution is FOREIGN
Also, in a country where the vast majority of the White population are monolingual English speakers, an English language slogan like “Minutemen” is going to have a hell of a lot more traction than a non English language slogan like “San Culottes”
I myself do not speak French (the only foreign language I know is Spanish – and I’m not really fluent in that language) so I’m pretty fuzzy on what a San Culotte is [does that mean "shoeless person" or something]?
Gregory A. Butler
Selucha said
Mike, I may record a video response to that one you posted in the coming days. I look pretty good on camera, watchaleeeee!
Would anybody else be interested in participating in this project?
MOVIE, REVIEWED said
“(ie part of why you can’t simply replace the current imperialist state with a socialist one and call it “the United States of America”).”
Actually, Stanley, you could have a revolutionary United States of America and have it with the same borders as the USA of today.
Considering the probable reality that an American revolution would be a race war [with White America on the side of the bourgeoisie and Blacks and Latinos on the revolutionary side] you could come out of a successful revolution with a Black and Latino run revolutionary USA.
In other words, any successful American revolution would be built on the ashes of the destruction of American White supremacy and, consequently, the old White American nationalism.
Yes, White America does outnumber us – for the moment – but the Latinos are disproportionately employed in the nation’s productive industries (agriculture, manufacturing, construction, trucking and warehousing) and Blacks and Latinos are heavily concentrated in the nation’s principle cities, while Whites are increasingly dispersed in industryless bedroom communities in the outer ring suburbs and the exurbs.
In other words, a future revolution/race war would involve Latino workers seizing the factories, warehouses and industrial farms while Black and Latino workers together seize the major cities and the inner suburbs and (to be blunt about it) starve White suburbia into submission.
So yeah, it could very well still be the USA – it just wouldn’t be a White run country anymore.
Which, considering the last 400 years of history, would be a good thing
Gregory A. Butler
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Greg. Here’s what Glenn Beck thinks of the idea of Spanish being spoken in the United States.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/13522/
The FBI reports that half of all gang members and if you are in Philadelphia, sorry to confuse you, that’s the same as a loose group. Half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal. Let me say that one again. Your federal dollars at work. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal. 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are now all Spanish speaking. In LA County, 5.1 million people speak English. Listen to this. LA County, 5.1 million speak English. 3.9 speak Spanish. Wait a minute. There’s 10.2 million people in the county. Hmmm. I wonder what the rest of them speak. I’m sure that no one of this is anything to worry about. I’m sure because you know what happens? Can you imagine all the, you know, illegal aliens come here and, you know, they just whatever. Life is going to be living at a Chi Chi’s. No, it will be. We’ll have great food. Nobody will be able to understand what you’re asking for, and you’ll hear this music all the time. Yi yi yi. I mean, who doesn’t want that. Can anybody tell I’m in a mood today? 888 727 BECK, it’s 888 727 BECK.
Timo said
“Considering the probable reality that an American revolution would be a race war [with White America on the side of the bourgeoisie and Blacks and Latinos on the revolutionary side] you could come out of a successful revolution with a Black and Latino run revolutionary USA.”
could you please elaborate on why you think this? Also we need to take into account “whiteness” has always been changing, race and ethnicity is complex. Also we need to look at racism from “non white” people which there is plenty of. I understand white supremacy is woven into the superstructure but why would people unite primarily on racial oppression and not the fundamental exploitation of the working class broadly in capitalism? Do you think a communist revolution will really be based primarily on race instead of class interests?
Stanley W. Rogouski said
You already know my answer to that – and to all the White racists, from far right to far left – just reread comment # 37!
Well, I actually don’t consider Glenn Beck’s white working class followers to be “my enemy”. Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch are my enemy. But the scare unemployed white guy who lost his job and who has been tricked into blaming blacks and Mexicans is a misguided potential ally I need to try to educate about who his real enemies are.
Quick. Try to name me an example of class conflict during the American revolution? You can’t. Oh, Shays Rebellion maybe.
I bet every American knows what the expression “let them eat cake” means or what a guillotine is.
The American revolution was about an elite of Anglo Saxon slave owners freeing themselves from the British. It’s a nationalist revolution. You can debate how much relevance it has to black people (or native Americans). The British ended slavery before America did. The American revolution helped George Washington steal millions of dollars worth of land from the Indians. So if you were black or Indian, you might have been better off with the British.
On the other hand, the French Revolution, from 1791 onwards, was at least partly about class warfare. The Aristocrats want to starve you and your children. Off with their heads.
Above you cast the idea of class war in a purely racial language.
In other words, a future revolution/race war would involve Latino workers seizing the factories, warehouses and industrial farms while Black and Latino workers together seize the major cities and the inner suburbs and (to be blunt about it) starve White suburbia into submission.
But race and class are different, related but not identical and your recasting class as race is going to be ultimately reactionary. It’s the first step on the road to selling bean pies for Louis Farrakhan.
MOVIE, REVIEWED said
Timo,
To quote early 1970′s revolutionary communist Detroit auto workers leader General Baker, “White workers don’t act like proletariat, they don’t act like workers – they act like racists”
Considering the history of America, and the thousands of betrayals big and small of Black and Latino workers by White workers, and the enormous White skin privileges that virtually the entire White population of all classes benefits from, and the shameful history of racism by White labor unions and the White-led far left, it is a reasonable conclusion to assume that, in a crisis, the great bulk of White workers will fight to defend capitalism and the capitalist class, and any serious social revolution in this country would be, more or less by default, a Black and Latino revolution.
That’s the short version, but, basically, my study of American political and social conditions, and my 20+ years of communist political activism, my decade of labor activism and my half decade as a labor writer had led me to, basically, write off the great bulk of White American workers as hopelessly reactionary and counterrevolutionary.
So yeah, that’s why the only way I could see a revolution coming to America is through a race war – and, I hate to say it, I’d bet money that you and I would be on different sides (and the bulk of the White left would be with you, on the White counterrevolutionary side).
I haven’t seen any evidence to contradict this conclusion of mine, so I’m sticking with it.
Nothing personal, and I’m not trying to hurt your feelings here – I’m just keeping it real.
Gregory A. Butler
Timo said
First I think it should be made clear since you are talking in terms of race war, Latino is not a race but rather a ethnic/cultural group.
Also you have failed to address the very real racism of that like Latino on Black or Black on Latino racism. I have come in contact with this many times, it is very real. Other “races” can be and are buying into racist ideas that stem from white supremacy. Racist ideas that come from the superstructure are not only expressed in white privilege and white/non-white racism but in various other ways. My point is racism historically in the U.S. as a tool to divide the working class does just that. It however does not only divide in terms of white and nonwhite. It divides amongst all groups within the working class.
G said
While there’s no doubt that the US has always been and remains a very racist country, esp. when we consider the continuation of institutional racism, perpetuating the legacy and effects of racism, which is easy to see all around us, looking at the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society, and the ideological not to hidden racist assumptions that go with ‘normalizing’ all this, a ‘race war” is playing into this system’s divisions, and goes against finding the unity of all forms of oppression, with have a common class unity that with proper education, transcends these divisions. Isn’t that the job of communists, instead of tailing nationalism, aka, “race war”?
Also, I think we need to be clear that race is a social construct, imposed on the social fabric by oppressors to justify and maintain control–its not a real biological thing. The far right that calls for a “race war” perpetuates the false belief in the disproved concept of biological “race”. As we should all know, “race’ does not really exist in a scientific sense. For more info on this see: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
To quote:
“DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.”
Just wanted to add that in since this talk of “race’ is a backward idea that needs be properly contextualized, and debunk the notion of it being a fixed, static, real entity that defines us no matter the social/political landscape, and the latter we can chance, hence the need for revolution.
About the majority of White Americans being racists, I’m not so sure this is true. The people I’ve heard make this claim also predicted that it would be impossible to elect a black man as president. I’d probably guess half are racists, but there is nothing wrong with them that a good revolution and revolutionary political atmosphere wouldn’t fix. The real enemies are few, and even conservative backward elements can be won over or neutralized. We need to be more open to struggle for changing the backward sentiments among people (no accident how it got there), instead of looking at how things are now, and then throwing up our hands and essentially giving up (which is the same thing as saying they are all enemies and it will be a race war, etc).
Nathan R. Jessup said
All the ideas put forth here are not American. When I say “American” I’m referring to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Baseball and apple pie. I suppose when people wish to kill freedom, personal rights and everything we’ve worked so hard to achieve, it’s not really a surprise Communism and Socialism are being chucked around like a football. If you don’t like freedom, there are many other options available to you…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
G said
Nathan, can you expand on your notion of “freedom”? It means different things to different people, of course, in particular economic classes.
I wonder, does this include freedom from want, as well? Freedom from hunger, cold, ignorance, and lack of health care as a right? Freedom from being subjected to poverty and exploitation as a result of the accident of being born in a lower economic class, and thus denied the same opportunities as someone, due to no fault of their own, happens to be born to a more well-off family? The freedom to be free from exploitation, to be used as a means to an end, for the profit of someone else, to make the rich richer? The freedom to not be part of an upside down world, caught in the web of international plunder that is American Imperialism? Freedom to not be a wage slave to capital? Freedom for women to be able to have full equality with men? Freedom for oppressed nationality to be free from racism? Freedom for ordinary people to actually run society in their own interests, using the surplus to break down inequality and divisions among people? Because those are real freedoms I’ve love to see come about, hence my being a communist. So if you support this system, can we conclude that you wish to “kill” all these freedoms?
Perhaps you mean by freedom, the ‘right” to invest venture capital and divest wage labor at whatever manner best serves the rate of return? The “freedom” to plunder the planet? The freedom for the top 1% of this country to own as much as the bottom 95%, as is the case now?
Your other point is an old anti-communist slander, about communism being “foreign,” not really “American,’ part of the myth of “American exceptionalism.’ But this has always been a lie. It’s easily refuted, by just looking at American history, a history that is full of class struggle, with an active role of many American Communists, who have “worked hard” and don’t want to kill “everything we have achieved” but rather have fought to secure these rights, and expand them beyond the scopes of what is possible under this de-humanizing system, and fundamentally make political and economic rights and liberties have actual meaning and reality, not just empty words contradicted by reality. There is a large history here, and I’ll touch on some examples, but why do you wish to deny this as being just as much part of the American experience as Baseball and Apple pie? On the other hand there are many ugly thing about ‘America’ that needs to be ‘killed.” Many ugly things such as racism that is as American as Apple Pie.
Now, on for some historical examples. There is a recent book by Professor ROBIN KELLEY (professor of American studies and history at the University of Southern California, and the Harmsworth Professor of American History at Oxford): “Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression.” It documents how the Communist Party worked to secure racial, economic and political justice, who says, “the infrastructure that was laid forward becomes the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama, was laid in many ways, not entirely, by the Communist Party.” You can hear an interview at NPR radio here: “How ‘Communism’ Brought Racial Equality To The Sout hhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194
Lets not forget May Day, International Workers Day was started in the United States, in Chicago? A Haymarket Massacre when Chicago police fired on workers during a general strike for the eight hour day, killing several people. This led to international demonstrations on the anniversary of the Chicago protests. Would you say the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, the weekend, and other labor rights, which were class demands of the proletariat, are something you prefer to do without? Is this part of ‘killing freedom?! hehe
And do wish to erase from history Eugene Victor Debs, an American union leader, one of the founding members of the International Labor Union and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), as well as candidate for President of the United States (5 times), a member of the Socialist Party of America who become one of the best-known socialists in the United States? Imprisioned during the First Red Scare for speaking against US involvement in World War I? While in prison, in protest of his jailing, Charles Ruthenberg led a parade of unionists, socialists, anarchists and communists to march on May 1 (May Day) 1919, which broke into the violent May Day Riots of 1919. Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while in prison in Atlanta, Georgia, at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary and received 913,664 write-in votes (3.4%), slightly less than he had won in 1912, when he received 6%.
When Debs was released the other prisoners sent him off with “a roar of cheers” and a crowd of 50,000 greeted his return. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40812F7345E1B7A93C3AB178BD95F428285F9
In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that “Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I, mainly because he considered the war to be in the interest of capitalism.” http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid=1347
And I suppose wish to ignore as ‘not American” the Pure Food, and the Meat Inspection Act, that came about as a result the public uproar from the muckraking work, The Jungle, having exposed conditions that the “free market’ produced in the U.S. meat packing industry, causing a public uproar that forced the passage a few months later of these regulations? Of course, the conditions of the workers was one of his main focuses, and that was left ignored. I suppose the capitalists do like to eat healthy foods, capitalism notwithstanding.
Upton Sinclair was also involved in electoral politics and interestingly remarked in 1951: “The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie.”
So the question is, are you going to be fooled by the Big Lie, because saying that Communism is someone not part of the American experience is certainly a lie.
Nathan R. Jessup said
Dearest G,
First let me say, thank you for bringing Communism out from the shadows. America needs more people like you to speak up and let the world know what Socialism and Communism are all about; your comment gets right to the heart of the matter.
Freedom. Well, let’s start with the definition: “1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another”-Unfortunately for Socialist advocates, along with freedom comes responsibility.
“I wonder, does this include freedom from want, as well? Freedom from hunger, cold, ignorance, and lack of health care as a right? Freedom from being subjected to poverty and exploitation as a result of the accident of being born in a lower economic class, and thus denied the same opportunities as someone, due to no fault of their own, happens to be born to a more well-off family?”—–Are you arguing that being born into a wealthy family should be a right, or that being born into a poor one should have no economic consequences on one’s life? The beauty of American freedom is that anything is possible (provided you are willing to work, and work hard). The reality you struggle with is the cost of prosperity. For some, the road to prosperity is long and difficult-but not impossible (siting countless rags-to-riches stories, not needed).
Furthermore, you seem to struggle with the difference between a “right” and a “good or commodity”. If I help a friend in need it is not his or her “right” to receive my help. In addition, health care is not a right. If it truly is a right, then shouldn’t it be completely free? Perhaps you are arguing that is should be free? Additionally, freedom from poverty is not a right. There will always be homeless who live in poverty. You suggested I wish to kill all the “freedoms” you mentioned; I wish to solve them, not through mandates but rather, cooperation. The American people are far more resourceful than you might believe. America’s problems rest more with society than lack of governance. If patience, perseverance, discipline and personal accountability are not utilized, sadly, goals will not be achieved.
To quote a (liberal) friend of mine: “Debs was a traitor and a lunatic (not my words, those of Prez Wilson and the physicians that locked him up until his death). Sinclair was a tabloid journalist. These are the men on whose backs we’re supposed to build a nation from?”
Finally, with so many people standing in your way (myself included), wouldn’t it make more sense for you to move to a Communist country [rather than transforming this one]? Your “utopia” exists; China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea…the list continues. I suggest you make some travel plans…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
celticfire said
No worries. Our communism will liberate you from your white supremacist ways. By any means necessary.
Nathan R. Jessup said
I’m not accustomed to seeing the words Communism and liberate together. Kudos. I am a white supremacist? I had no idea-I need to alert all my minority friends to the fact ASAP. I doubt they will want to be friends any longer (even though many have known me the better part of my life). And finally, “by any means necessary”—sounds like you want to make me do something I would rather not do; your idea of freedom? Were I drunk, you might have something here. (great logo by the way–I like the whole thing you have going on. It works)
Good luck with your “any means necessary”, you are going to need it…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
onehundredflowers said
[Moderator's note]: Generally we do not debate with those who express pro-capitalist viewpoints. On the possibility there might be a fruitful exchange of ideas, we let this one proceed, but at this point it’s becoming a counter-productive diversion from the purpose of this website.
Any future comments that follow from Nathan R. Jessup’s comments will be put on moderation.
Otto said
I’d just like to know where Glen get’s his information and the quotes he uses from Che’s “The Motorcycle Dairies,” which I’ve read in part. He claims Che said blacks were lazy and shiftless and European whites are superior. He finds things in that book I never found. Does he just take things out of context? Does he just lie?
He obviously lies and exaggerates about Cuba being more Stalinist than Stalin.
How do they make these claims? Or do they just lie?
G said
You give a dictionary definition of freedom but doesn’t help explain your stance, i.e. how does that definition fit into any of your arguments, i.e. that capitalism/imperialism gives more ‘freedom” than socialism does? There are all kinds of “coercion, or constraints in choice or action” that are involved in any system. Yes, I want to constrain/ subordinate capital to labor, while capitalism does the opposite: it subordinates labor; the worker is constrained by the dictates of capitalism. “liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another”?! I want to end wage slavery, which is inherently exploitative. “restraint from the power of another?” Ever heard of the police, the US military? How about the boss at work? They uphold an empire that does a lot of “restraining the power of others.” The denial of basic needs of life, is quite a strong from of restraint and exercise of power over others, no? You get my point. The question is really a question of class: Whose power and for what ends? Right now power is concentrated into the hands of a ruling class that defends a system. Health care is a perfect example: People are rather left to DIE just so that someone can make more money. That is the definition of evil.
You ask, “Are you arguing that being born into a wealthy family should be a right, or that being born into a poor one should have no economic consequences on one’s life?”
Close, but not quite. I simply stated that what class we happen to be born into is not of our own doing, its winning a genetic lottery, so the privileges that attach to that is completely morally arbitrary–yet we as a society peg everything on the results of this as if it were “moral desert.’ This is false. We have no moral basis for claiming a privileged, and those without it being denied the same access to the resources and opportunities of society. The same goes for where a human being on a line in a map happens to be born in. In short, a class society is unjust; the treatment of human beings the way this system treats people is wrong. “Making’ it within this dog-eat-dog system, is also besides the point. When access to basic life necessities depends on having money (say if you get sick) how is this system morally justified?
You state, “you seem to struggle with the difference between a “right” and a “good or commodity”.” Its interesting you should call health care or other basic necessities of life commodities. That is exactly right, how this society treats these things. It turns everything into a commodity, which by definition means it needs to make someone a profit in order for it to be utilized. If you don’t make someone a profit you are not worth anything. I want to get rid of commodity exchange (capitalism) completely. This is not confusion, that is the whole point!
You write,”…health care is not a right. If it truly is a right, then shouldn’t it be completely free? Perhaps you are arguing that is should be free?” Yes, obviously, the US doesn’t treat health-care as a right, or we would not have so many people dying because they can’t afford it. But, it should be a basic human right, and is one under the moral values of socialism. For us it is a justice due to every human being by virtue of her humanity. It is a question of respect for the human dignity of every individual. Under the present system, thousands of people are ruined, and declare bankruptcy each year because of medical expenses close to 45,000 people in the US die from treatable illnesses as a result. See, when it becomes a ‘commodity,” profit is in command, and the health care industry maximizes its profits by denying care, i.e. causes these preventable deaths. We have a system that discriminates against those who need it most. For example, there is less than one doctor for every one thousand residents in Appalachia, and black women are more than three times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth as white women. And, even if you have insurance coverage, studies show that we may be just a medical crisis away from financial ruin.
This is not a radical demand, btw. The US is the only industrialized country that makes this a privilege, instead of a right. So the privileged can easily access health care because they have more money, and the rest can simply die, or beg? I think I prefer morality that says this is a basic human right, along with ideals of equality and fairness. But with capitalism with its singular pursuit of profit, it blinds us of the reality of the social suffering. Its this inhumanity of the system that is so ugly. But you call it freedom? A day will come, when the millions of sufferers wake up from this nightmare in order to assert that no socio-economic system can strip them of their humanity.
Like I said, this is not even a very radical stance, per se. According to the most widely accepted international human rights treaties, healthcare is a human right. Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) reads:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” Likewise, Article 12 of the U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) asserts similar rights.
Official US politics ignores these rights, and wants us to focus on very narrow, conservative conceptions, in so far as it maintains artificial divisions of some people as being more worthy of moral consideration than others, and so much so that we eschew anyone outside with utter indifference, i.e. nationalism, or its extreme individualist variant ‘me first, nothing else matters but me” type of thinking. Putting profit ahead of human needs. Socialist values reject all this.
In reality, of course, we are all in the same bubble together, the space bubble called Earth, a tiny blue dot, to borrow a phrase from Carl Segan. We really do live in a ‘global village,” highly interconnected, with only few places more than just hours away. Yet, there is a strong conservative ideology, esp. in this country, usually manifested as a “rugged individualism’ that acts to disconnect us from each other, and perpetuate the illusion that we are all “on our own,” and we should only really be looking out “for own own, or ourselves,” coupled with the capitalist dog-eat dog ethic that to get ahead we have to step on others. This is a type of morality, but severs systems of oppression and will eventually come back to bite those who practice it, as all artificial bubbles to burst eventually. :)
And not to neglect rest of my brothers and sisters around the world, who are in every way equal to any US citizen (we are internationalists) take a look at these statistics of world hunger, and starvation: http://www.aasd.k12.wi.us/staff/hermansenjoel/apmuseum/vogt/starvation.htm Every year 15 million children die of hunger. Some 800 million people in the world suffer form hunger and malnutrition..etc.. And this is not due to lack of food. We throw away tons of food, while people starve. Welcome to capitalism and imperialism.
Btw, polls show that the majority of Americans actually share these socialist values, i.e. the majority think of health care as a human right instead of a privilege. When people become aware of the truth instead of being brainwashed by the likes of Glenn Beck, they want to do the right thing, such as not to be part of a system of international plunder of the world’s poor, the stealing of resources, and denial of basic democratic rights of the people of the world.
I noticed you maybe in the miltary, so I’ll end with a quote from Smedly Bulter, whose life experiences are educational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Andre C said
G, your method of struggle is much needed and appreciated. I know one prevelant myth that reinforces these dog eat dog social relations, and lowers our sights to what is possible, is that there is a inherent shortcoming humans, from religion or genetics, that prevent them from producing for the social good, so we might as well give in this narrow framework of profit and plunder. But history has shown otherwise, that humanity, when “free” of constraints put by capital, are capable of truely liberating things.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
You give a dictionary definition of freedom but doesn’t help explain your stance, i.e. how does that definition fit into any of your arguments, i.e. that capitalism/imperialism gives more ‘freedom” than socialism does? There are all kinds of “coercion, or constraints in choice or action” that are involved in any system. Yes, I want to constrain/ subordinate capital to labor, while capitalism does the opposite: it subordinates labor; the worker is constrained by the dictates of capitalism. “liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another”?!
Yeah. I think the leftists that hated George Bush and the right wingers who hate Obama talk past one another because they don’t define their terms first.
The problem that a lot of us had with Bush is that he repealed habeus corpus, jailed people without trial, spied on American citizens. Bush gave the government more repressive power over the typical American in the name of protecting them from terrorists.
As far as I can see, the typical conservative hates Obama because (just before he was elected and continuing into his administration) the banking system and the auto industry became more emeshed with the federal government. Conservatives see Obama’s token gestures at limiting CEO salaries or putting conditions on the banks for taking Tarp money as “limiting freedom.” They also seem to have a highly racialized conspiracy theory about how Barney Frank and the Democrats succumbed to pressure from Acorn and black politicians to force banks to give loans to “undeserving” people of color.
Conservatives don’t particularly care about civil liberties, habeus corpus, the right to a fair trial, or the right not to be tortured. Liberals, by contrast, aren’t particularly worried about the federal government putting restrictions on big corporations.
But here’s the issue. Socialism isn’t “big government”. It’s not “restrictions on big business by the federal apparatus in Washington”.
Socialism is “the seizure of political power by the working class”. What if the working class seized genuine political power? Isn’t it possible that they just might call the bluff of the free market idealogues and say “OK. No more government involvement in the economy.” Since (and I’m pretty confident of this) government benefits big capitalism more than it benefits the working class, this just may free us up to practice some of the classic anarcist agenda of “mutual aid.” Nothing says that “socialized medicine” has to be a big, centralized government agency dispensing top down medical care. It can be any number of things.
Nathan R. Jessup said
“[Moderator's note]: Generally we do not debate with those who express pro-capitalist viewpoints.”
So this is a censored site? My site (http://the-raw-deal.com) is moderated, not censored. I have never refused to publish a comment, never controlled those who wish to present counter arguments, and never refused to debate anyone based on ideology. If you are afraid what might be uncovered, just come out and say that. Furthermore, moderation is generally reserved for those who wish to make personal attacks or say hurtful things (clearly, I have done neither). While this type of control is indicative of Communism, it’s rarely successful in the pursuit of truth. As this comment will most likely not be published due to censorship (but you never know), I would like to thank you for the brief discourse…
God Bless America, and our freedom…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
Adrienne said
Nathan R. Jessup:
I don’t know if this will make it through moderation, but I do think this sort of mindset needs to be labeled for the things which it is — namely: thoroughly illogical, immoral, callous and inhumane.
They are the kind of comments that reflect views that most leftists are unfortunately familiar with, yet ones we will never be able to relate to — seeing as we do not lack basic ability when it comes to critical and ethical thinking, or fall short when it comes to the most basic of human emotions, such as an ability to feel empathy.
No. That makes no sense, and we’re not going anywhere. I suggest that people who share this sort of mindset simply get used to that fact. We understand that statements such as: “All the ideas put forth here are not American” are said with an intention to offend, yet this is not something communists are at all troubled by. That is because we know far more about the history of this nation than those who have been brainwashed by the carefully crafted mythical history of America, and have been inundated by the mindless nationalistic jingoism that is sold to the population daily. We also know a great deal about our own (communist, socialist and anarchist) history within this nation — and realize that those that buy into the great American myths know little if anything, about that longstanding history.
Unlike the writer of the above quotes or those who share his views, leftists attach no special or magical connotation to this word, American. We fully understand that it is a word that has stood for imperialism, conquest, mass murder, pillage, inhuman torture, rape, horrible barbarity, inequality and injustice — just as it has stood for a longstanding history of oppressed and overworked communities, groups and individuals (both domestic and foreign) rising up in waves of intense struggle against all of these things. Struggles that will continue, and ones that we American communists (and socialists and anarchists) gladly and fiercely joined in in years past, still do today, and will continue to do tomorrow.
We fight not for a utopia, we fight to defeat capitalist-imperialist distopia as we have always fought against it. Moreover, our fight for a better world: for the elimination of class, and the promotion of equality, justice and peace has no borders. It always was, and will always be, international in scope.
Luis V. said
Nathan, let me clarify our moderation policy and the reasons behind it.
This site is dedicated to productive discussion among communists and socialists over how we plan to move forward. Because the discussions are only among people that agree with a particular goal, we are able to engage in much more high-level and advanced conversation than in a regular forum. When pro-capitalist people come on the site, it drags down our level of discussion to a constant defense of our position instead of constructive dialogue amongst ourselves.
This is not to say that we don’t need to engage with people that espouse pro-capitalist views (because we absolutely do), but generally this is not the place for it. Imagine, for example, that you are in a church group or something. Now, everybody there agrees on certain premises: God exists, Jesus is the son of God, et cetera. So that space exists to allow for constructive dialogue among people that agree on particular things already, just like here. Now, what if I went to this meeting and just talked about atheism and how God doesn’t exist the whole time? Wouldn’t that be disruptive and defeat the purpose of that space? Instead of getting into a deeper discussion about the topic at hand, people will end up spending the whole time defending their views.
Anyway, you wrote:
“Finally, with so many people standing in your way (myself included), wouldn’t it make more sense for you to move to a Communist country [rather than transforming this one]? Your “utopia” exists; China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea…the list continues. I suggest you make some travel plans…”
This just shows a blatant ignorance of who communists are and what we believe.
China: For anybody that’s taken the time to look or study, it’s quite obvious that China has transitioned to almost full-blown capitalism since the late 70s and is today nowhere even near being a “Communist country” (which is, in fact, an oxymoron that you might have noticed if you took the time to read) despite the name of the ruling party, Iran is a CAPITALIST Islamic Republic (whose leaders liquidated and massacred almost the entire Iranian secular left in the 80s), Venezuela is still capitalist yet with a self-declared socialist president, and North Korea follows a hyper-nationalist ideology called Juche that is quite distinct from Marxism in every way that matters.
Now, if you’d take the time to read anything about these countries from outside the right-wing (or even American “left-wing”) press, you would notice that it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to assume that ‘the enemies of America’ all agree with each other and follow the same ideology. Simply because communists defend Iran against American intervention does not mean that communists support the Iranian regime, and for the most part we don’t. Simply because we don’t want the US to launch a war against North Korea does not mean that we have any loyalty or respect for the North Korean state. Simply because China is run by the Communist Party does not mean that China is ‘communist’. The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and I think we can all agree that it is neither democratic, a republic, or run by the people. Names don’t mean shit, we have to actually analyze the workings of that particular society, which is a lot more work.
So let’s not pretend to know what other people believe. I am a communist and a staunch defender of freedom of speech and association, and I see absolutely no contradiction between the two. I think people should have the right to bear arms. I don’t want some hegemonic party to run every detail of my life, but neither has that even been the case in most socialist experiences.
I think that, as Jed said, it’s very hypocritical for the right-wing to expect us to claim and apologize for Stalin while you all don’t feel inclined to claim and apologize for the genocide of Native Americans, colonialism, imperialism, slavery, apartheid in South Africa, Zionism, the continual rape of Africa, the stranglehold over Haiti, sweatshops, the Rwandan Genocide, the continued oppression of indigenous people, the exploitation of women, forced labor, the drug trade, Jim Crow, World War 1, Nazi collaboration leading up to WW2, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 4+ million people killed in the Vietnam War, the American invasions of more countries than I can count on my 10 fingers, the Tlatelolco massacre, the REGULAR murder of Black, Latino and Asian youth by police in my community, the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala, the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, the overthrow of Bishop in Grenada, the overthrow of Lumumba in the Congo, the massacres of trade unionists in Colombia…. I’m gonna stop before I put myself in a bad mood for the rest of the day.
This of course is all without mentioning that 16 million people die every year of preventable illness, malnutrition and starvation in CAPITALIST countries. So even using the most ridiculous estimates of deaths due to communism (100 million), there are more deaths due to capitalism in 7 years than the entire 160+ history of communism.
onehundredflowers said
[Moderator's note]: Thanks for the explanation Luis. As I had said, in the comment that Nathan selectively quoted, comments are being moderated. They are not being deleted, and are being reviewed for substance within the parameters Luis mentioned above.
Also, this site is not the appropriate place to discuss moderation policy. For that, please go here.
Nathan R. Jessup said
I have a question: If Communism eliminates class structure and all people receive equal land, pay, health care etc., do they all expected to work equally as hard and have equal needs? In addition, if I am accustomed to working twice as hard as my neighbor to have twice as much, would I be expected to work less under a Communist regime? And lastly, if 100% of the taxes in our Country are paid by the top 50% of working Americans, how will their share of tax revenue be made up from people who claim they can’t pay anything? (If I have a nice house because I have worked hard for it, will I have to move to a smaller house that is equal to my neighbor’s? Just trying to understand how the whole Communist structure might work? I know I am far below the level of thinking so often found on this site, but if someone could explain (in simple terms) how this would work, I would be eternally grateful. Thanks to everyone for having patience with this brainwashed patriot…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
G said
Hi Nathan,
I’m going to take a stab at answering some of your big questions, (“how the whole communist structure works” etc)and I hope others share some of their views, too. Also, how one answers depends on what stage of socialism you speak of, and the conditions that exist. Communism is the goal, of course, and yes, a communist society has eliminated all class distinctions, but more than just that, up to and including the State, itself. Commonly communists will talk of the “Four All’s, by which it refers to:
1) the abolition of class distinctions generally,
2) the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest,
3) the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and
4) the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
To understand this I’d recommend taking a look at Marx’s “historical materialism,” which will help to makes sense of these terms and how they relate each other, i.e the economic base, productive forces such as technology, skills, and education of the people, productions relations that correspond to it (how people come together to carry out production and reproduction of the necessities of life), the resulting social relations that this engenders, and ideas in the superstructure, culture being a reflection of politics and politics a concentration of economics. This Wikipedia entry is not bad, and a good first read will help to get you started on the key ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
But the point is that some of your questions may not make sense under Communism. For example, it assumes that people will want to have twice as much as their neighbor. But why would you want to? Think about an ideal family situation where you are all working to your abilities and contributing based on abilities and providing based on needs, but without a hierarchy of one “lording’ it over another, and with equality? Are you still trying to get twice as much as your other family member, when you are all sharing to help each other as needed for the common good? Each member contributes income purely by altruism. Property is commonly owned, and the family has no internal price system. Well now translate these values to larger family of humanity.
Marx explains in the Communist Manifesto:
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all…”
A famous formulation by Marx was, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” which summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs, regardless of how much he or she has actually contributed. This arrangement will be made possible by the common abundance of goods and services that will be possible with rational and equitable system not restricted by capitalism, market forces, and concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. With the socialization of all wealth, there will be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs. There are two things to be shared out among the population of a nation: the wealth, or produce for the consumption of the entire populace, and the labour required to produce it. That would be a fair, equitable solution.
The complete paragraph is found in the ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ as follows:
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
Marx also spoke of the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable – a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where “labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want.” Marx explained that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. The “from each according to his ability” does not mean that each person should work as hard as they can, per se, but that each person should best develop their particular talents, and fully realize their potential and individuals, given an abundance of free time to develop them, thus removing the alienation that today we associate with work, since our work is actually to make someone else richer (private appropriation).
With technology and using the wealth for human development instead of destruction (the majority of the US economy, for example of spend for WAR, the Pentagon, killing, making weapons, etc) Capitalism requires a reserve army of the unemployed, people willing and able to work but kept idle. Well the surplus of human energy will be fully used under socialism. If there is a surplus of workers it follows logically it is possible for us to reduce the individual’s working day of us, or we increase production. Production then outstrips consumption, so everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve without fear of depletion.
But, let me say that communism is not a blueprint for a future society. It is, rather, a set of principles to be applied for taking over and running the economic base of society so as to refashion it in accordance with social justice, and having these as the end goals, the fullest possible scope to individual needs and aspirations. How to get there is a major question that we are still figuring out. But, in reality the communist movement is really on its baby steps. Think about how many hundreds of years it too capitalism to remake world from the previous class system, feudalism, and before that the slave system? Many centuries. The working classes fight for building an emancipatory socialist society and communist world is one that doesn’t start from zero, but builds on learning the lessons of what went wrong from attempts to do so in the past. Its not ‘dead” but still embryonic, and a goal worth struggling to find out how to move forward as a human species on a planet trying to create a system that is rational, free of oppression and exploitation.
Capitalism views human nature as fixed, and in negative terms, i.e. humans are evil, greed is inherent, etc. We disagree. Every ill that we deplore in society today is rooted in the institution of power, that is, in the state and the institution of private ownership and accumulation of which produces capital. This affliction encourages us to be petty, stingy and lacking solidarity, or cruelly insensitive to human suffering. These are the social relations it encourages. Poverty degrades, wealth perverts. Obedience and authority deform our sensibilities. Nothing has ever been the cause of greater tears or bloodshed than capital, with its relentless drive and appetite for ever more profit. Its whole of history is crammed with the crimes and torture.
Accumulation of wealth, like accumulation of power by the few, is only achieved at the cost of depriving others. Why take more than you need, just to horde it to accumulate as much as you can? That is the logic and ethos of this system, but under socialism, it will make no sense.
By our very nature we need to meet our economic needs (such as food, clothing, housing, education, medical assistance and means of communication, etc,)–these should all be human rights. But, also freedom, or control over our own actions and the kind of society we can create, the kind of culture we want, and to widen the scope of freedom by taking control of society for that very purpose, increasing freedoms against the external limitations of material reality, of nature, which we are a part of, yet, also as a human culture and society, carving out a sustainable co-existence with the rest of life on the planet. Take the profit out of it, and this can be done rationally.
But in capitalist society the wealth goes to one sector, a sector which does not labor, while the work is heaped upon another whose needs, in matters of consumption, are not met. Those who actually work the hardest, get the least, and those who work the least, get the most. I learned this when I worked myself through college, as a waiter, and later got more and more cushy jobs, that actually requires less and less work. This is completely backwards. Look at the vast sums accumulated by CEO’s of giant corporations, the executive bonuses they give out to reward criminals for wrecking havoc on millions, aka. banking industry, for example. There was this study by the progressive British think tank The New Economics Foundation (they came up with the happy people index) which shows that bankers take away seven British pounds for every one pound they earn, and by contrast, hospital cleaners create ten pounds of economic value for every pound they earn. So pay structures do not reward jobs that create societal benefit.
When we have a classless society, there will be no need for a State, at least not as we know it. It will be a relic of the barbaric past, along with private property, in favor of common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. It is this class division of society which gives rise to the state because the minority need a special force to maintain their rule over the majority, which has evolved over thousands of years into the complicated structures we see today. In a classless society, the actual tasks of governance and production would be accomplished directly through a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers’ councils, a gift economy from which everyone would partake solely to satisfy his or her real needs.
In today’s society we juxtapose the individual vs the collective. However, consider how the interests of all the individuals can be coordinated successfully without the individual having to sacrifice any of his individual desire for the sake of the common good? The public good will no longer be a higher good to which the individual must subordinate his or her interests, because ‘the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
This means egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, as well as the abolition of private property and money (or the withering away, as is the case with the State). In their stead would be collective production and distribution of wealth via voluntary associations. The state and private property would no longer exist. All individuals and groups would be free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution would be managed by their participants. The abolition of wage labor, and commodity relations and exchange is complete. If distribution of wealth is based on self-determined needs, people would be free to engage in whatever activities they found most fulfilling and would no longer have to do work for which they have neither the temperament nor the aptitude. We wont’ even need to measuring the value of any one person’s economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations. For instance, one could not measure the value of a factory worker’s daily production without taking into account how transportation, food, water, shelter, relaxation, machine efficiency, emotional mood, and other contributions to their production. To give a valid numerical economic value to anything, an overwhelming amount of external factors would need to be taken into account—especially current or past labor contributing to the ability to utilize future labor. That is why the ‘free market’ is not a rational system. How do you place a value on clean air?
Since we no longer have an economic system based on wage labor and private property, there is no need for the coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintain unequal economic relationships that inevitably arise from such a system. Consumption and distribution can be self-determined by each individual without arbitrary value assigned to labor, goods and services by others. In place of a market, there could be currency-less gift economy in which goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatever he or she wants or needs as “payment” for producing.
A gift economy does not necessarily involve an immediate return, either. And no more limits on production and distribution determined by capitalist owners, investors, banks or other artificial market pressures. Land and housing, being socially owned, would no longer be subject to rent or property taxes, no more evictions or homelessness. Occupants would instead be subject simply to their own collective desires, manifested on an egalitarian basis. Thus,in a multi-unit apartment building, no one person would determine management issues. All who live there would be involved in decision making. This would be a democratic society on a level not possible before.
Well, I hoped I was able to sketch out a few ideas that will help you to understand better that answers you were looking for. I know some of this sounds utopian, and for much of human history such a world was simply not possible, given the level of the development of the forces of production, and prior to Marxism, it was not scientific–people did not really understand history. We still don’t know how to bring about a communist work in any definite sense, but we understand enough to know what is possible, and what are some of the major obstacles in our way. Also, keep in mind that it’s hard to think beyond the type of society we live in now. It always is. During the thousand of years that humans lived in an economic and social system based on slavery, the very idea that we could do without slavery was seen as completely pie in the sky, utopian. The ruling ideas of each epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, so they seem only ‘natural.’ But, if we dare to question and challenge, we can break out of the brainwashing and see that a whole new world is not only possible, its necessary.
Nathan R. Jessup said
G,
First off, let me commend you for your thorough response. Clearly, you put a lot of thought into your answer. Forgive me for still failing to understand some of your basic principles (remember, I am a simple guy).
In my life I have found that an idea, if sound, can and should be, explained in the simplest of terms. With simplicity in mind, here is what I still don’t understand:
1)Human nature (people are motivated by incentive-thus, if the society you are suggesting is of lower quality than the one I enjoy through my current level of hard work, why would I want it?)
2)Freedom/Capitalism allows me to get what I want (depending on how badly I want it)
3)People in America who are poor, are not oppressed (disadvantaged is not oppressed)-for this reason, there can never be a ‘blueprint’ for success. Further, the percentage of successful people in a truly “free” society is equal to the number of people who practice discipline, hard work and perseverance.
4)Altruistic acts cease to be altruistic if forced. If you make a lot of money and want to ‘redistribute’ your money to those less fortunate (or those who have worked less) then do it. Personally, I have used a successful real estate company (which I personally built from the ground up) to redevelop lower-class neighborhoods for the purpose of offering low-to-moderate income housing. BUT, and it’s a big but; individuals need to work hard for this housing opportunity (it is not given away). We have found that those who work hard and achieve their goal, are most likely to preserve, and eventually improve their way of life.
5)As we currently live in a free society (as much as you might disagree) why not begin practicing Communism within your own community of believers? Meaning, start a small town, commune, village etc. and share everything. Let your ideas be put to the test and hopefully be an example for everyone to follow (with Capitalism, you have that option).
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
Timo said
Nathan R. Jessup,
You raised the point about why wanting less then you have in current capitalist society? well what do you the amount of commodities you have accumulated or more freedom and always having what you need to live. Lets say some one is white and part of the more well off working class, or is petty bourgeoisie (small business owners and the like). Well they would have less comodities then they have now. But I would say its a fair trade off for more freedom and a getting what they need to live. It is in our interests to act collectively and work to help each other. People need people to survive, its that simple. Some one could only be out for themselves but helping others is in their benefit. We already socially produce everything in society, only now the surplus we create is controlled by a non laboring minority who use it to make themselves wealthy.
“2)Freedom/Capitalism allows me to get what I want (depending on how badly I want it)”
well that is not the case for everyone, people run into very real limitations. I would argue that by having every one have the same opportunities to what they need to live, you would also benefit. Also I am sure you can think of something you might want but cant obtain it, even if its something you can live without.
“3)People in America who are poor, are not oppressed (disadvantaged is not oppressed)-for this reason, there can never be a ‘blueprint’ for success. Further, the percentage of successful people in a truly “free” society is equal to the number of people who practice discipline, hard work and perseverance.”
You don’t think the segregation of communities, the constant and blatant racism, the police murders of Black and Latino youth, all the sexism, the lack of justice for those with less, etc is oppression? we could go on all day about oppression and yes even systematic oppression.
Timo said
Sory I almost forgot to adrees this,
“5)As we currently live in a free society (as much as you might disagree) why not begin practicing Communism within your own community of believers? Meaning, start a small town, commune, village etc. and share everything. Let your ideas be put to the test and hopefully be an example for everyone to follow (with Capitalism, you have that option).”
I wish it was that simple, people actually do start communes but too what end? The government actually tries to shut those down. You cant say oh we are autonomous and do our own thing, the U.S. will still want to tax you and all that. The US has used violence to undermine our comrades all over the world, whether it be all the coups and massacres in Latin America or the war in Vietnam, etc. If there was an island out in the ocean some where we could build socialism, the US or some other western power would try to undermine us.
Also when we try to change the way things are now we have gotten killed. I am not saying the government is out to shoot all of us now, but historically when people work to fundamentally change society undermining capital, the US has jailed and even murdered leftist, a famous example being Fred Hampton.
A major point I think should be raised, we want to change the world not escape it. Would doing things like making our own cloths, leaving to somewhere else, escaping or washing our hands of capitalism actually stop all the exploitation and oppression, sadly it wont. Also the material basis to change the world the way we want to actually stems from capitalism and how things are produced socially within capitalism.
Nathan R. Jessup said
I wish I had the time [right now] to address what you said, but I don’t. I do however promise to respond sometime soon. Until then, agree to disagree…
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
Troy said
Haven’t read this thread but wanted to point out something:
Jed condemns the American working class as living off the rest of the world’s poor and says that he’s not interested in helping meet the needs of the American working class.
Then he says that America should have health care reform and that this is possible and will better the lives of Americans.
Are these two things contradictory?
Adrienne said
I have to commend G and Timo for trying to intelligently and politely explain communist views to Nathan.
I personally think that his responses are overflowing piles of bourgeois horseshit. Indeed, they’re an almost perfect example of American flag waving, privileged, right wing caucasians — who often take a lot of pride in themselves despite of an appalling level of ignorance, often take enormous enjoyment in selectively judging and condemning all kinds of people for various reasons, and who are frequently so xenophobic they never once (at least voluntarily) step outside of their own narrow little bubbles.
Maybe this will now be deleted for rudeness (perhaps rightfully so), but I just feel that sometimes it seems very fitting to follow up such patient and polite comments as G’s and Timo’s were with a comment representing the polar opposite.
Luis V. said
Hey Troy,
Good question, and I want to state that I appreciate your respectful tone. What Jed is saying is not that he does not want to meet the needs of the American working class, he’s saying that he does not want to help this system meet the needs of the American working class. He states at the end of the second video that our one great strength as communists is our ability to meet the needs of the people in ways this system cannot. In order for the American ruling class to run a society where most people’s needs are met and still maintain their margin of profits, they exploit even more severely other workers around the world, and Jed (as well as the rest of us) would argue that it is wrong for us to help continue that system of oppression. For regular Americans to live comfortably under capitalism, imperialism (exploitation and neo-colonialism of the ‘Third World’) has to continue. What we’re saying is that this is not the only, or even the best way for people to live comfortably. The best way, the most efficient way, the least oppressive way is for us to overthrow the existing socio-economic system of capitalism and replace it with a socialist state in which the economy is run collectively for the benefit of everybody.
One mistake a lot of people on the Right make is that they think that we, as communists, just want to overthrow the current government, take control of the existing state, and then nationalize everything. What we actually want to do is inspire the people to rise up against the current STATE and overthrow it, create a new state with new institutions, and democratize the economy. So it’s not like all of a sudden we will have these massive, government owned financial institutions; we will do away with financial institutions, as their use will become completely unnecessary. I don’t want a Senate and a House of Representatives that is completely bought off by the corporate world (BOTH parties!), I want to do away with the corporate world and have systems of representation that actually reflect the will of the people. I don’t want some punk boss breathing down my neck everyday at work, I want management that is elected from among the workers and directly accountable to them. I don’t want people to produce $10,000 worth of shit in a week and only get a paycheck for $400 while the boss pockets the rest.
What Jed pointed out, which I agree with, is that American imperialism is slowly losing its exclusive power on the world stage, and this has repercussions for the American working class. As the American economy self-destructs*, not everybody as a whole is made to pay for it, but rather the working class (the vast majority) is. The rich and ruling class don’t care about us, they care only about maintaining and increasing their profit margin, so in times of crisis like the one we are still in, banks and corporations are given absurd amounts of money to recover from THEIR mistakes while the average Joe and Joanna are made to suffer from structural problems they had no hand in causing.
So we could, on the one hand, try to make people’s day to day lives a little easier by working to strengthen American capitalism and imperialism, but all that does is help the ruling class, devastate the underdeveloped world even further, and pacify the working class here as they continue to get the short end of the stick. What we as communists need to do is to be an independent force that does nothing to strengthen the system. We need to proclaim our ability to create a new type of state where people as a whole are empowered and are masters of their own destiny, not slaves to the fluctuations of the market and to the mercy of their employers.
Hopefully that made sense, I can clarify if you need, I’m just running late to be somewhere now!!!!
*They claim the economy is recovering, which it very well might be in the short term, but none of the actual issues have been solved and I think we can expect an even more severe economic collapse within the next 5 or 6 years.
Troy said
Luis, thanks for the clarity.
I expected such a response. I am not sure whether it is contradictory or not. I can concede the points you make, for instance, but look at other parts of the speech and I become worried about the contradictions again: for example, Jed says that we don’t have to increase the oppression felt by American workers because forces are doing it for us–that implies that this was our goal; that is not a goal consistent with fighting for health care for the working class, is it?
I think the confusion lies in talk of ’systems’. For example, if the health care companies were nationalized and we used the wealth which the current health care system consumes through inefficiency, waste, and high executive salaries to provide health care for everyone, would we be out of the ‘capitalist system’? If so, then our all the countries around the world with nationalized health care systems ‘non-capitalist’? If not, then aren’t we fighting for the working class within the capitalist system?
I don’t think we should really debate “yes” or “no” positions on these questions because I don’t think it matters, theoretically, what we label these social systems. (It might matter propagandistically.) I think we simply have to state that we are for better conditions for all impoverished and oppressed people–and not, of course, by squeezing those at the bottom to give a little more to those at the middle; but by targeting the top.
When we start talking about being for working-class people under this ’system’ but not for them under a different ’system’, we open ourselves up to all sorts of counterproductive ambiguity. If we are trying to organize the masses for social change, we need to be clearly on their side. We can point out that a particular nation’s masses should take care to not improve its conditions by exploiting others. But we must first say that we are firmly for The People.
What do you think? (Perhaps you don’t view the task of American revolutionaries to be organizing the majority of the American people for progressive social change; maybe you think the American people are irredeemably bought off, or something.)
Nathan R. Jessup said
Well, not much to say really. I never came to this thread to insult, ridicule, embarrass or demean anyone rather, I came to satisfy my unquenchable desire for understanding. Adrienne, you seem quite angry and I am not sure why:
“I personally think that his responses are overflowing piles of bourgeois horseshit. Indeed, they’re an almost perfect example of American flag waving, privileged, right wing caucasians — who often take a lot of pride in themselves despite of an appalling level of ignorance, often take enormous enjoyment in selectively judging and condemning all kinds of people for various reasons, and who are frequently so xenophobic they never once (at least voluntarily) step outside of their own narrow little bubbles.”
I don’t ever recall ‘selectively judging’ or ‘condemning all kinds of people’. Further, I don’t remember discussing all that much about my past with you. I can tell you I’ve been all around the world and have seen how 3rd world countries live and additionally how they compare to the poorest states in the US. I have spent time in Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana and Florida building homes for underprivileged Americans. What stuck with me the most was how much these people did not want a hand out, they wanted an opportunity to succeed for themselves (which they eventually did). I believe we are called to help others in need. The responsibility to aid others comes not from a government that enforces such decisions but rather from the goodness within each of us, as humans.
Taking more from each individual, even if for the ‘collective good’ is not the answer. Ultimately by doing this, an individual is accepting the fact that someone other than themselves would be best qualified to decide where their money should go. Forcing a free people to do anything is wrong; even if it were to be more productive, get a better education, have better health care etc. In any society, there will be over-achievers, under-achievers and simply achievers. Preventing the over-achievers from pulling ahead, simply to prevent divisions in class, will ultimately result in over-achievers no longer wishing to succeed. Furthermore, those who traditionally under-achieve (those who do just enough to get by) will actually do less knowing they no longer need to work to maintain their basic way of life.
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my years, it is that rarely will we ever truly change someone’s mind when it’s already been made up; I never came here to change anyone’s mind. Again, it was an attempt to find common ground in any way to help me better understand.
In closing, I will leave you with my perfect America…
A land where an American can sit in a chair for their entire life if they choose or become a self-made millionaire (again, if they choose). A land where Americans can wake up each day and feel safe, and protected from physical harm. A land where handouts don’t exist (working, as a means to an end is healthy and necessary). A land where anything is possible if I am willing to work hard. Last I checked, nobody was being held in America against their will (provided they have not committed a crime). I hear the word “oppression” used here quite often. Oppressed people cannot advance their position. Is anyone in this forum oppressed? Does anyone in this forum even know someone who is oppressed? I don’t mean challenged, or they have a difficult road ahead, I mean oppressed. I can only speak for myself; I have never in my life met an American who is oppressed (and I have met the poorest of the poor-which mind you, is nothing compared to many third-world countries I have visited). If anyone has ever been to Chad or Rwanda and seen the oppression of the people, they might think twice before using the term in reference to ANY American.
God Bless America.
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
onehundredflowers said
[Moderator's note]: I just wanted to clarify that this thread is not under moderation. In order to head off a potential flame war, I overreacted, and I apologize to those who misunderstood my intent.
That said, our standard moderation policies are still in effect. Please stick to matters of substance and refrain from personal attacks.
Adrienne said
Nathan R. Jessup:
I’m not buying this crap for a moment. You didn’t come here for “understanding” or to find “common ground”, Nathan. You came here to pee on all our legs and tell us it’s merely raining. Furthermore, it seems pretty likely that your support for the transparent dishonesty and idiocy of Glenn Beck (modern day Father Coughlin) is what first brought you to this website — hence, your initial comments that we all make travel plans because communists simply don’t belong in your God-Blessed America.
Oh yes, indeed. Extremely angry, disgusted, and repulsed, to be precise.
Because I personally have zero respect for anyone who claims that “there will always be homeless who live in poverty” and that “health care is not a right” and “freedom from poverty is not a right” because after all “capitalism allows me to get what I want (depending on how badly I want it)” and “people in America who are poor, are not oppressed” because their only problem is that they don’t “practice discipline, hard work and perseverance.”
As I said before: nothing but overflowing piles of bourgeois horseshit.
And all of these things said by someone who claims to own “a successful real estate company” who defends and sings the praises of the rotting carcass of the capitalist system during a time when so many people in this nation have been and are currently being thrown out of their homes. During a time when getting sick often means that people lose everything, including their homes. During a time when so many have lost their jobs. During a time when there have never been so many homeless and hungry people wandering the streets of America.
onehundredflowers said
[Moderator's note]: Please stick to the arguments presented and not on personal motives. Any future ad hominem comments will be put on moderation.
Nathan R. Jessup said
I guess this would be a fitting place for me to duck out. Thank you to all who were respectful and courteous. Disagreement is healthy and necessary for drawing our own conclusions based on our own thinking; it is HOW we treat each other through such a process that explains who each of us really are.
[Onehundredflowers] I do understand the policy and would only ask that I might address one last thing publicly as the previous comment has already been posted. In advance, I thank you.
(In response to the angry and assuming commenter)
And all of these things said by someone who claims to own “a successful real estate company” who defends and sings the praises of the rotting carcass of the capitalist system during a time when so many people in this nation have been and are currently being thrown out of their homes. During a time when getting sick often means that people lose everything, including their homes. During a time when so many have lost their jobs. During a time when there have never been so many homeless and hungry people wandering the streets of America.
I am getting personal about myself (attack me if you like) to address this comment…
Several years back, I lost everything. With the initial market collapse I lost several investment properties to foreclosure, laid off 32 people and closed the doors to our company. I then lost my personal house (where my family lived) and had only a little in savings. My emotional pain was plentiful along with my self-pity. Due to a previous injury, I was taking pain killers at the time. I increased my daily intake. Then increased some more. Until finally, I was no longer feeling pain from anything (physical, emotional or otherwise). While I had no money or self-respect, I WAS pain-free (or so I thought). One night while at home with my fiance, my body shut down from all the pain killers in my system. I collapsed to the bathroom floor in a seizure that lasted nearly 5 minutes (she was screaming). I was then rushed to the hospital and treated (without any health insurance). The tab came to nearly $16K (of which I had none). I was forced to declare bankruptcy from the event. Talk about lows. I wanted nothing more than to just forget it all and disappear…but I didn’t.
I chose to rebuild (because I had that ‘difficult’ option), and rebuild I would. While I am still picking up the pieces from my financial past, things are going well. Our new company is growing, I love my family, and have a wonderful dog. America isn’t perfect, but it is as close as I have ever seen and wouldn’t trade it for anything. I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, believe me, or like me-just believe in yourself (that’s what made Americans strong in the first place). Thanks again to everyone who treated me with respect, feel free to stop by the Raw Deal anytime…
God Bless America
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
Matt said
Adrienne wrote: “I personally have zero respect for anyone who claims that “there will always be homeless who live in poverty” and that “health care is not a right” and “freedom from poverty is not a right” because after all “capitalism allows me to get what I want (depending on how badly I want it)” and “people in America who are poor, are not oppressed” because their only problem is that they don’t “practice discipline, hard work and perseverance.”
I, too, disagree deeply with each and every one of these claims, but I also freely admit that these are not the isolated opinions of one conservative individual: tens of millions of people — honest people, from all social-economic backgrounds — hold such views, to one degree or another.
The comrades who patiently argued with Nathan Jessup took exactly the right approach. What good does it do anyone to insist that people expressing such opinions are fundamentally dishonest, or to dismiss them out of hand, saying their arguments deserve “zero respect”?
I can get angry and call people names (and I have done that), but all I’ve ever proved is that I have a tendency to be self-righteous and hot-tempered and, perhaps, that I feel insecure about my ability to argue my case. None of these are helpful qualities if we are serious about winning mass support and building a revolutionary movement (and a society) founded on continuous, vigorous debate.
We need the ability to talk with people who disagree fiercely with the tenets of communism (or what they think are the tenets of communism). We need to get better at these discussions, and we need to have more of them, not dismiss people and cut them off.
We should also bear in mind that a great many people will be watching HOW we conduct ourselves in these discussions, and they will be judging us accordingly — which is exactly what they should do.
G said
Hello Nathan.
I will try to answer your questions. I am sorry about the longer, rather dry, response above. I’ll try to be clearer, and use less Marxist jargon.
1). You write: “Human nature (people are motivated by incentive-thus, if the society you are suggesting is of lower quality than the one I enjoy through my current level of hard work, why would I want it?)”
Ah but there are different kinds of incentives, no? Greed is the incentive of capitalism. It’s a system based on selfishness. We are to look out for number 1. Hence, the dog eat dog, predatory, and rebuking values of solidarity, sharing, humanism. But, human nature, is not fixed. The system we live under shapes how we behave and think. We become what we do. You would not agree that humans are also motivated by altruistic and moral incentives to do the right thing because it is right (not because we are getting something out of it)? There are many examples of voluntarism where we humans thrive in giving and doing good for the betterment of others, and this is fulfilling for us in a much more meaningful way than making money. If you disagree with this point, I can come up with examples.
As far as lowering the quality of your life, I doubt socialism will do that for you. Yes, it might lower how much “stuff” you can possibly accumulate, and you might be materially affected if you are one of the big capitalists, but your quality of life, I think, will be enhanced in more meaningful ways, as it will be a life that is contributing to greater social justice for your fellow man, here and around the world. That to me, is far more important than trying to be a Bill Gates. hehe
2)Freedom/Capitalism allows me to get what I want (depending on how badly I want it)
I don’t know if that is true or not for you, but it certainly is not true for millions, and world-wide, billions of people who are ravished by capitalism, and the various political systems that enforce capitalist relations. Lets look at the US, one of the most riches countries in the world (but with a very extreme wealth gap, always increasing). Lets look at hunger. A recent study came out by the USDA. See http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/usda-hunger-numbers.aspx
1 in 6 Americans is food insecure. 1 in 4 children lives in a food-insecure household. In 2008, 49.1 million (16.4%) Americans lived in food insecure households compared to 36.2 million (12.2%) in 2007. In 2008, 17.2 million (14.6%) American households are food insecure compared to 13 million (11.1%) in 2007. In 2008, 8.3 million (21%) households with children are living in food insecure households compared to 6.2 million (15.8%) in 2007. In 2008, 16.7 million (22.5%) children are living in food insecure households compared to 12.4 million (16.9%) in 2007.
# In 2008, 2.3 million (8.1%) households with seniors were living in food insecure households compared to 1.8 million (6.5%) in 2007. The number of individuals who are food insecure increased 36% over 2007 and the number of children increased 35% over 2007.
“”Food insecurity” means that the people don’t have dependable access to enough food to sustain a healthy life. It means they go to bed hungry. Take this hunger quiz about the US that is based on this study: http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/quiz.aspx
Now, I don’t think you will doubt that hungry people “want” food, right? So we can logically deduce that for millions of people in this country, they DON’T get want they want? Also, the study shows that working harder does not change this realty for millions of people, who still have to choose between eating, paying rent, or getting medical care. They are working hard but still stay poor, the working poor. Most are in rural areas, and not urban cities, either. So, its good and lucky that you are doing well enough to meet your basic needs, but a lot of people were not able to, despite wanting to, and despite working hard.
But, as I said in my first message to you, your ability to “make it’ is really besides the point. Communism and socialism is about social justice, first and foremost. Getting more by depriving others, doesn’t qualify as acceptable. Controlling and owning privately the means of subsistence (the means of production) into the hands of a small group of people, when it should rightful belong to everyone in society, is wrong. Wealth is socially produced, and should be socially appropriated.
I’d like to use an analogy. Think of a meat grinder. What if you can find many intact pieces that got through and missed the blades? Is it not a silly argument to point to these whole pieces that made it past the grinding blades to argue that you can make it after all? Yes, many do, but many don’t. Most born into modern day slavery end up dying that way, while working their whole life, in poverty, while those born into lives of privilege, pass on that wealth to their children, whose opportunties are further enhanced in many ways. Again, not absolutely determinative, but that is not the point. The point is there is a system, which is a meat-grinder for most, with people due to not fault of their own, end up with the bones crushing reality. Likewise, rich people, or those lucky enough to acend to class privledge, have no speical moral claim or right to be where they are, per se. Its how society is structured.
3)You wrote: “People in America who are poor, are not oppressed (disadvantaged is not oppressed)-for this reason, there can never be a ‘blueprint’ for success. Further, the percentage of successful people in a truly “free” society is equal to the number of people who practice discipline, hard work and perseverance.”
Well, I guess it depends on how you define oppressed. Poverty is a form of violence, and it deprives people of essential human rights, and dignity. Capitalism always needs an underclass, a reserve army of the unemployed. But there can be and there is a blue print for “success,” if by success we mean an end to poverty, hunger, disempowerment, etc. It’s socialism. Take away the robber class, the vampires, feeding on the blood of the world’s poor. Stopping this sytem of organized crime, of international plunder called capitalism, and it’s monopoly stage, known as Imperialism.
4)”Altruistic acts cease to be altruistic if forced. If you make a lot of money and want to ‘redistribute’ your money to those less fortunate (or those who have worked less) then do it. Personally, I have used a successful real estate company…BUT, and it’s a big but; individuals need to work hard for this housing opportunity (it is not given away). We have found that those who work hard and achieve their goal, are most likely to preserve, and eventually improve their way of life.”
Some work hard acheive their goals, most don’t. See meat grinder analogy, but its beside the point. In my first message, I attacked the very moral basis of the class system, and asked you how you would defend the fact that some people are born into riches and others poverty? Or a rich country vs a poor one? What makes the wealth/money you are able to make, rightfully yours? Not legally mind you, but from a moral perspective? I’m speaking of the privileged claim to the benefits that come from the exercise of talents and/or class position within market economic relations, in amassing fortunes?
Consider that such class positions, and our ability for the accumulation of wealth is largely not even of our own doing, but result family circumstances, social and cultural contingencies for which we as individuals can claim no credit in the first place. Even our effort, our striving work ethic, etc are largely products of a privileged state we are born into, as studies show. And, even if our wealth is the result of genuine natural talents, we are still rewarding something that we had no choice in the matter either: winning the genetic lottery, being born gifted, etc. Is that really a fair and just way to command the flow of societies resources? Any good principal of freedom and justice must begin with a repudiation, of such a society, and challenge the philosophical assumptions of its system of wealth distribution. In it the rich get richer (the law of the accumulation of capital),and those that work the hardest make the least.
You’ve mentioned that society shouldn’t force people, etc. But everythign about this society is based on force and violence. You may have heard the slogan, PROPERTY IS THEFT. Think about it. Almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. So if private property over natural resources is based on the initiation of force, by extension, private property over all goods derives from it are dervived from violence, since natural resources are required in the production of all goods. The very basis for capitalist accumulation orginally rests on coercion and is defended by the organized violence of the State.
So I’ve made an argument of not having any good reason for accepting morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family we’re born into, the genetic lottery, having talents that the market places happens to reward, etc) as determinative our life chances or opportunities, i.e. we do not especially deserve what we have, much less have a moral right to it, per se, ie. we are not entitled to all the benefits we could possibly receive from them, or do get from them in a capitalis sytem. Its not a very radical notion, per the social contract theory, that society can with good moral cause legitimately regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society under terms of fairness, not to mention justice, which then rightly includes the suppression of the “right” to exploit and oppress others (which is no right as exploitation is itself rooted in violence), and allow people basic guarantees of political and economic rights, without which there is very little liberty to speak of in a meaningful sense. And among these basic economic rights are rights to control the resources that are essential for the public’s well being, and not allow it to be concentrated into the hands of the few, who end up turning us into wage slaves for them.
5)As we currently live in a free society (as much as you might disagree) why not begin practicing Communism within your own community of believers? Meaning, start a small town, commune, village etc. and share everything. Let your ideas be put to the test and hopefully be an example for everyone to follow (with Capitalism, you have that option).
Someone already answered this pretty well but I’ll add that communism only exists on a world scale. Yes, we can have communes, but and communist-like living arrangments, and people do so this, and there are many famous examples. The ones that pose a political threat to the capitalist way of doing things are crushed, destoryed. In fact we do that against whole countries for fear of the “good example.” But, communism is about social justice, not a lifestyle. So we want to fight oppression and exploitation wherever it exists, in all it’s forms. Workers of the world unite!
Nathan R. Jessup said
G,
Great response, as always. However, I disagree on nearly every principle (and that’s ok).
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
G said
Thanks. I know you would disagree. However, I think that if you explored the answers to the questions I put to you–answer those questions–and we discussed that some more based on that, we would probably come closer to seeing things eye to eye.
It may be a matter of knowing more about the various facts on the ground today and of history, which we as Americans are largely kept ignorant of. And then there is a matter of ethical principals which I think we, and most, people actually share.
Then, lastly, there is a question of an argument about what is possible, i.e. human nature, etc.
Otto said
To answer Nathan R. Jessup’s question “are you oppressed?” I can answer that I know of many people who were and are, in my opinion oppressed by the system. Mumia Abu-Jama remains falsely sentenced to death with a sham trial; former members of the SLA are put on trial almost 30 years after an alleged crime simply because the political climate allows for right-wing prosecutors to do it. The political group known as the Ohio 8 had their sentences tripled because of the RICO act. Even though a small bomb was used by the Ohio 8, the trail was really more about politics than justice.
Some of our drug laws are extremely oppressive. Young kids spend years of their lives in jail for selling or using tiny amounts of drugs.
I was fired for refusing to cross a picket line. People are being fired for what they write in their own time on Facebook. Smokers are fired for having nicotine in their blood. So the capitalist system allows the private sector to enforce laws that violate our constitution. Your boss is like an absolute dictator. He/she can do what ever they want with you (outside of racial discrimination and sexual harassment), at least they can in Kansas.
There are different types of oppression. Our government also patronizes us. We may not have badly needed health care, but out kids are forced in the public schools to pledge to the flag. As Elvis Costello said in “Tramp The Dirt Down;”
“When they flaunt it in your face as you line up for punishment
And then expect you to say “Thank you” straighten up, look proud and pleased”
Trucker the Anti-Communist said
I hope a communist would try and appropriate my property “for the people”. [snip threats]
Glenn Beck is pointing out theTRUTH and you idiots talk about communism like its all good. Do any of you idiots remember the USSR? Or Cuba? Or China? None of it works….We need to let the free market system work itself out!
G said
Trucker, simply saying that ‘none of it works,’ and “let the free market work itself out,’ are only proclamations, not actual arguments. Likewise with the assertion that “Beck is pointing out the TRUTH.”
If you have a reasoned argument you can make with facts to support your claims, then you might be able to say something substantial or meaningful. However, when simply proclaims ‘none of it works” its not useful. For example, “what works” depends on what it is you intended it to do, in the first place. For example, capitalism works very well at concentrating wealth into the hand of a few while producing great misery for the many, keeping the world enslaved and brutalized to make a few people very very rich. I could go on but you see my point. Your argument needs to have context, and allegations you make need concrete examples so as to leave room for an actual rebuttal.
You ask if we remember the USSR, Cuba, etc. Yes, but what about it are you referencing? That its ‘not all good?” Is that your argument? Its unclear.
You say to let the “free market” (capitalism) work itself out? Do you mean as with the coups, mass murder, napalm campaigns that this economic system and ideology has wrought all over the world in the last century to work itself out? hehe
Understanding a moment in history requires placing it in historical context and looking at how the different forces at play interacted to produce a particular result. This way, multiple lines of interpretation can be explored and those with insufficient explanatory power can be exposed and discarded. Otherwise, the conversation will occur without anything really being said and without any chance for transformation in the participants views—after all, that is the point of political discourse, to debate, explore, and deepen our understanding of the world and how to change it for the better. Making assertions without substance and following them with insults just isn’t helpful to anyone.
About what makes communism a worthy goal, instead of just getting rid of the anti-human greed is good system of capitalism is that, to quote this site, when people are freed from the constant stress over securing the basic necessities of life, humanity can cultivate its more intellectual and spiritual potentialities. The compulsive need to consume ever more worthless products will be replaced by the desire to create art, music, literature, science, and philosophy, in addition to engaging in recreation. Rather than evaluating individuals on the basis of their monetary income, they will be appreciated on the basis of the content of their character. Instead of turning our backs on people in need, we will extend a helping hand.
We believe this kind of society is worth fighting for. Do you? If not, why not?
You really think the ‘free market’ can solve problems it is itself creating? Such as problems that plague the working class, problems such as unemployment, a falling standard of living, imperialist wars, racial and sexual discrimination, the destruction of the environment, and a pervasive feeling of powerlessness in the face of corrupt, capitalist political institutions? What it does these things it is in fact “working” the way its supposed to. Its working to make people richer. Recent study shows that in 2009, unemployment rose to historic levels, and people are being driven into more desperation, there was an increase of 16% MORE millionaires in the US? So unless you are already very rich, you are in trouble, and that includes being middle class. So capitalism is working as Marx predicated and described.
And, at various times throughout modern history, workers and their allies, because of endemic suffering, have mobilized their ranks, risen up, and in a powerful gesture have fundamentally altered the capitalist terrain, winning, for example, the 8-hour day, trade union rights, civil rights, unemployment benefits, etc, but this was not “the free market working itself out!” This was people fighting against capitalism!
However, as long as capitalist system itself survives, these gains enjoy only a tenuous existence as they gradually fall prey to the inexorable laws of capitalism. Because each capitalist must compete with other capitalists, all are compelled to maximize their profits simply in order to survive since those with the higher profits, for example, can undersell their competitors and push them out of business. But maximizing profits in turn demands that labor costs are held to a minimum, and for this reason capitalism imposes a relentless downward pressure on the standard of living of the working class so that all hard won gains are unmercifully under attack. Only a socialist revolution offers hope for the working class.
G said
In honor of our right-wing visitors here recently, I thought to throw out a treat, even though they have not yet actually made any good arguments to really earn it, still I’m generous. So, get your popcorn out, this famous passage should make you very happy, because no where else can one find a more complementary singing of praise for the world-historical system of capitalism as can be found than this one written Karl Marx and Engels, in this passage of the Communist Manifesto, one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. I’m still amazed every time I read it, where so much is condensed into so few pages, and yet, it’s not abstrusely written, but very clear, and remains very relevant 160 years later, although part two would be Lenin Imperialism, capitalism’s last stage, where competition gives way to monopoly, and we see feudal relations once again enforced. Part three is Mao’s theory of a New Democratic revolution. But, one thing at a time…
—————————
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007