NationStates Jolt Archive

well, today is May Day, known to Socialists (like me) & immigrants as Worker's Day

what are your opinions about this?h

well, today is May Day, known to Socialists (like me) & immigrants as Worker's Day

what are your opinions about this?h

Damn the Reds!!

J/K!;)

its pushing 1AM on the 2nd of May I would have you know :p

We have a sculpture on campus that casts a shadow of the hammer and sickle at 12 noon on May Day. I went and saw that take place.

Depends on my people. My people respect those working hard and hold others in suspicion. Therefore, a worker day would be reasonable. However, everyday lost in work is a day lost to gains on all fronts, most importantly economically. I'm sure our government can find alternative means to keep our populace happy or to our minimum, content.

If poultry farmers get poultry farmer's day, then I think workers should also get a day.

Maybe if we're luck we can have a CEO day, then everyone can be happy. :)

I do not believe our working population have given us enough economical benefits for us to set up this..."worker's day". We will thereby oppose this until our economy becomes one of a "cornucopia of wonders and riches".

Until then, our people will have to work. To any who would protest our decision within our state...

:sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper:

We have a sculpture on campus that casts a shadow of the hammer and sickle at 12 noon on May Day. I went and saw that take place.

what school?

what school?
Moscow University back in the 70's?

its pushing 1AM on the 2nd of May I would have you know :p

i'm in the USA so here the time is 7:36 PM

Long live the proletariat!
Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live the proletariat!

Shouldn't that be "Abolish the proletariat"?

we have labor day that is enough.

It should be capitalists' day. We won the Cold War, after all.:gundge:

ZOMGZ!! RED MENACE!!!!11!!

When do we celebrate bourgeois elitist day?

what school?

Oddly enough, the University of Chicago, which is known for having one of the nation's best business schools. :p

we have labor day that is enough.

May 1st is Labor Day. The real one, anyway.

ZOMGZ!! RED MENACE!!!!11!!

When do we celebrate bourgeois elitist day?

We will celebrate the bourgeois when we line them up against the wall.

We will celebrate the bourgeois when we line them up against the wall.

*Bribes firing squad and turns them against Andaras*

May 1st is Labor Day. The real one, anyway.

Labor traces its origins to 1882 workers day traces its origins to 1886.

therefore workers day is a cheap commie copy of labor day.

Labor traces its origins to 1882 workers day traces its origins to 1886.

And which one has worldwide recognition?

Stupid commies, wantin' to steal our... Um... Democracy. Yeah, they want to steal our democracy!:p

I still hate communism...

And which one has worldwide recognition?

to a certain extent, both. however, in more-or-less capitalist countries like Great Britan and the United States, labor day is the "Approved, officialy recognized" version. Worker's Day is a major holiday in Socialist countries and quote-unquote "Communist" countires. and in the USA it seems to be cracked down on by the Authorities, especially in LA (the 2007 Worker's Day March, mainly made up of immigrant laborers in Los Angeles, California, Namely)

the WA category of my nation is "Left-Leaning College State", but I consider myself to be anywhere between Market Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism (in real life)

Stupid commies, wantin' to steal our... Um... Democracy. Yeah, they want to steal our democracy!:p

I still hate communism...

I hate countries that are fucking fascist but call themselves Communist (hint hint... NORTH KOREA)

however, in more-or-less capitalist countries like Great Britan and the United States, labor day is the "Approved, officialy recognized" version.

United States, yes. Great Britain... I don't think so.

And which one has worldwide recognition?

Labor day. the US is the only country that counts.

It should be capitalists' day. We won the Cold War, after all.:gundge:

capitalism as in what a bunch of Rednecks mistake for Democracy or CEOs making money off of their Stupidity?

capitalism as in what a bunch of Rednecks mistake for Democracy or CEOs making money off of their Stupidity?

the one where we make the Soviet Union asplode

also it is just not fitting to have a holiday that commemorates a riot where idiots killed police officers.

And which one has worldwide recognition?
How many fake Rolexes are there in the world compared to the number of real ones?

Labor traces its origins to 1882 workers day traces its origins to 1886.

therefore workers day is a cheap commie copy of labor day.

ha, I knew it!

capitalism as in what a bunch of Rednecks mistake for Democracy or CEOs making money off of their Stupidity?

Hey, it's how the system works.

How many fake Rolexes are there in the world compared to the number of real ones?

Oh snap! I'd say pwned, but I don't want to make this post a total cliche.

well, today is May Day, known to Socialists (like me) & immigrants as Worker's Day

what are your opinions about this?h

I don't get it... what's workers day?

I don't get it... what's workers day?
Its like April Fool's day, only a month later, and instead of playing pranks on people you're supposed to overthrow the institutions of capitalistic oppression. Also they're referred to by different names.
The main similarity is that both days involve regularly unscrewing the tops of salt shakers.

Its like April Fool's day, only a month later, and instead of playing pranks on people you're supposed to overthrow the institutions of capitalistic oppression. Also they're referred to by different names.
The main similarity is that both days involve regularly unscrewing the tops of salt shakers.

"I bet that's far more salt than you intended to put on your food isn't it, Pigs? I've ruined your lunch, haven't I?"

Click Stand;13660449']If poultry farmers get poultry farmer's day, then I think workers should also get a day.

Maybe if we're luck we can have a CEO day, then everyone can be happy. :)

Well in the states we have a labor day. Also CEO day is everyday because of all the damn money they seem to make.

to a certain extent, both. however, in more-or-less capitalist countries like Great Britan and the United States, labor day is the "Approved, officialy recognized" version. Worker's Day is a major holiday in Socialist countries and quote-unquote "Communist" countires. and in the USA it seems to be cracked down on by the Authorities, especially in LA (the 2007 Worker's Day March, mainly made up of immigrant laborers in Los Angeles, California, Namely)

the WA category of my nation is "Left-Leaning College State", but I consider myself to be anywhere between Market Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism (in real life)

They had it comin. :D

In this country it's called "Labor Day", and it's on the other side of the summer from "Memorial Day."

May Day is when you pretend to care about the traditions and ancestry of those from Northern Europe and dance around a silly pole, and have a picnic. I had a picnic.

I have no use for a day that celebrates the collective asshattery of labor and management in fin de siecle America.

Also, take a look at the comic status of the once dignified memorial that was put in place at the site. Some teenage wannabe-revolutionary coated it in lame circle-A anarchy symbols, including one Anarchy/Heart thingamabob. Whatever the hell that is.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Riot_Monument.JPG

Also, take a look at the comic status of the once dignified memorial that was put in place at the site. Some teenage wannabe-revolutionary coated it in lame circle-A anarchy symbols, including one Anarchy/Heart thingamabob. Whatever the hell that is.

that aint the memorial. that's the plaque next to the memorial in the cemetery out in the burbs.

http://img235.echo.cx/img235/6457/cemetary0rc.jpg

and what do you suggest anarchists do when the state puts plaques on their shit?

btw, this is the memorial at the site:
http://img235.echo.cx/img235/7918/haymarket2jb.jpg

Down with the State! Down with Capital!

that aint the memorial. that's the plaque next to the memorial in the cemetery out in the burbs. and what do you suggest anarchists do when the state puts plaques on their shit?

this is the memorial at the site:
http://img235.echo.cx/img235/7918/haymarket2jb.jpg

Perhaps they might show a decent amount of respect for something commemorating what happened? It's a moment of significant importance to the people of the United States, and if our government spends a couple of thousand dollars on a plaque for that purpose, then why deface it, especially with something so retarded as that Anarchy/Heart thing.

capitalism as in what a bunch of Rednecks mistake for Democracy or CEOs making money off of their Stupidity?

And socialism is where you take the CEO make him the head of the country too and college kids call it progress.

Lol. I hate the International Socialists.

And socialism is where you take the CEO make him the head of the country too and college kids call it progress.

No, that's Marxism-Leninism. :cool:

No, that's Marxism-Leninism. :cool:
This may explain why Lenin called socialism "state capitalism made to benefit the people."

Also, can I become a WITCH too?

Here's a picture from yesterday. http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g163/Osakadave/where/who.jpg

We started at Governor Hashimoto's office, where we demanded the Prefectual Board of Ed. stop illegal dispatch hiring. Then we joined up with our federation and marched to city hall. Right at the end, the anarchists even managed to get in a bit of a punch up with the cops.

May 1st is Labor Day. The real one, anyway.

Indeed.

I don't get it... what's workers day?

International Workers' Day (a name used interchangeably with May Day) is a celebration of the social and economic achievements of the international labour movement. May Day commonly sees organized street demonstrations by millions of working people and their labour unions throughout most of the countries of the world — though, as noted below, rarely in the United States and Canada. Communist and anarchist organizations and their affiliated unions universally conduct street marches on this day.

International Workers' Day is the commemoration of the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago in 1886, when Chicago police fired on workers during a general strike for the eight hour day, killing a dozen demonstrators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day

MAYDAY! This thread is full of commies determined to bring society down. Damn the goaste, we're going plaid!

How many fake Rolexes are there in the world compared to the number of real ones?

That's a brand, not a convention.

I have no use for a day that celebrates the collective asshattery of labor and management in fin de siecle America.

"Collective asshattery" like the eight-hour day?

and if our government spends a couple of thousand dollars on a plaque for that purpose, then why deface it,

I think the person who did it was quite clear about why.

happy international solidarity with labour, environment and anti-comodification of everything day.

and marxism doesn't own it. even the celts had maypoles. it was only macathiest idiological fanatacism that coerced and propigandised americans into discrediting it.

and the number of people conned into opposing it, inspite of what's right in their own faces only reinfoces just how gullible people can be. although a corporate media, when the coporations have usurped the government, being defacto a state media, i would just imagine, has rather a great deal to do with that.

a state media of a state that wants to brainwash everyone, keep everyone brainwashed, into screwing themselves and everyone else, by making everything have to be about money, whether there's any logical need or reason for it to be or not.

people need to wake up. right wing loonies have turned america into a tyranical one party system. one that is being run of, by and for, little green pieces of paper, to the detriment of every real person, place and thing, and the bennifit of none.

=^^=
.../\...

"Collective asshattery" like the eight-hour day?



I think the person who did it was quite clear about why.

In the US the 8 hour day was mostly done by the knights of labor and they preferred labor day in September over may 1st (seeing as how remembering a bunch of commies attacking the police is rather poor form)

In the US the 8 hour day was mostly done by the knights of labor

No, it wasn't.

they preferred labor day in September over may 1st

May 1st was the day internationally chosen to campaign for the eight-hour day. That's what the Haymarket demonstrations were about, as well as the May 1st demonstrations in the early years afterward.

(seeing as how remembering a bunch of commies attacking the police is rather poor form)

You mean some random fool throwing a bomb at the police?

No, it wasn't.



May 1st was the day internationally chosen to campaign for the eight-hour day. That's what the Haymarket demonstrations were about, as well as the May 1st demonstrations in the early years afterward.



You mean some random fool throwing a bomb at the police?

that and others shooting at the police after the bomb was thrown.
and in the Us you will find the knights of labor to be the more effective organization because they were willing to work with in the system.

that and others shooting at the police after the bomb was thrown.
and in the Us you will find the knights of labor to be the more effective organization because they were willing to work with in the system.

Those who 'work within the system' are just the same an arm of the bourgeois state. The interests of capital and labor, the working class and the bourgeois - are IRRECONCILABLE. Only one class can be on top because the State exists because of this irreconcilable class relationship. The worker's cannot hope for liberation from capitalist rule except through violent overthrow of the bourgeois state and liquidation of all class enemies.

that and others shooting at the police after the bomb was thrown.

You mean "after the police opened fire"?

and in the Us you will find the knights of labor to be the more effective organization

What exactly was "effective" about the Knights of Labor, at least in the long term? They came and went precisely because their tactics were ultimately not suited for the labor movement.

ZOMGZ!! RED MENACE!!!!11!!

When do we celebrate bourgeois elitist day?

Every other day of the year :)

There Is Power In A Union

Billy Bragg

There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hand of the worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses way, sir

The Union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters from many far-off lands
There is power in a Union

Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws cannot defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackeys out to cheat us?

Money speaks for money, the Devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?
What a comfort for the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a Union

The Union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters together we will stand
There is power in a Union

There Is Power In A Union

Billy Bragg

snip
I prefer his version of The Internationale.

Stand up, all victims of oppression,
For the tyrants fear your might!
Don't cling so hard to your possessions,
For you have nothing if you have no rights!
Let racist ignorance be ended,
For respect makes the empires fall!
Freedom is merely privilege extended,
Unless enjoyed by one and all.
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

Let no one build walls to divide us,
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone.
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us,
We'll live together or we'll die alone.
In our world poisoned by exploitation,
Those who have taken, now they must give!
And end the vanity of nations,
We've but one Earth on which to live.
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

And so begins the final drama,
In the streets and in the fields.
We stand unbowed before their armour,
We defy their guns and shields!
When we fight, provoked by their aggression,
Let us be inspired by life and love.
For though they offer us concessions,
Change will not come from above!
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4N_07o0PJU

And socialism is where you take the CEO make him the head of the country too and college kids call it progress.

no, that would be replacing the united states of america with the Giant Fucking Conglomerate of the Bill Gate's Empire (an official subsudary of the Microsoft Corporation)

anyway thats pretty much making a FULLY capitalist state, only with one company. if that ever actualy happens, we're pretty much fucked (have you seen the movie Idiocracy? the people would be so dumbed down by advertising and lack of education that the country becomes like that)

ZOMGZ!! RED MENACE!!!!11!!

When do we celebrate bourgeois elitist day?

I agree.

Why should Johnny Pleb get a day all to himself and the other unwashed, huddled masses, when those of us in suits, nice shirts and briefcases must stand by, again, and be made to feel thoroughly guilty?

I agree.

Why should Johnny Pleb get a day all to himself and the other unwashed, huddled masses, when those of us in suits, nice shirts and briefcases must stand by, again, and be made to feel thoroughly guilty?

Every other day of the year :)

:)

:)

But I want a specific day celebrating the infinitely more cerebreal, civilised accomplishments of the bourgeoisie. In fact, I demand Bourgeoisie day!

Too few riots here, methinks.

But I want a specific day celebrating the infinitely more cerebreal, civilised accomplishments of the bourgeoisie. In fact, I demand Bourgeoisie day!

Give it a try. Though you'll probably just look like a huge asshole.

Ya! How about Robber Baron day???

Ya! How about Robber Baron day???

That's January 20th. :p

aww i missed the communist day. I'm just going to have to celebrate it today okay?
aw damn it, i hate May, i've got to deal with it for 31 days.

Click Stand;13660449']If poultry farmers get poultry farmer's day, then I think workers should also get a day.

Maybe if we're luck we can have a CEO day, then everyone can be happy. :)

I would think that Labor Day covers everything.

May 1 is Beltane, dammit, a celebration of fertility and hope. It's been celebrated for millenia.

You mean "after the police opened fire"?

partially on each other.

That's January 20th. :p
I'm sorry. I didn't get the joke.

Also, did you add me to the WITCHes?

Get back to work you godless Commies ;)

Get back to work you godless Commies ;)
I'm trying to get work right now, actually. :p

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z136/TehPevis/anarchocommunism.jpg

my political beliefs are anyhere between this and market socialism

I hate countries that are fucking fascist but call themselves Communist (hint hint... NORTH KOREA)

Not really that huge of a difference.

Those who 'work within the system' are just the same an arm of the bourgeois state. The interests of capital and labor, the working class and the bourgeois - are IRRECONCILABLE. Only one class can be on top because the State exists because of this irreconcilable class relationship. The worker's cannot hope for liberation from capitalist rule except through violent overthrow of the bourgeois state and liquidation of all class enemies.

Hate to burst your bubble, but most workers are capitalists too.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z136/TehPevis/anarchocommunism.jpg

overly busy hammer and sickle @ is overly busy

Hate to burst your bubble, but most workers are capitalists too.

no, they aren't. at all, in the slightest. your definition would have to be pretty severely fucked for that to be even remotely true.

Hate to burst your bubble, but most workers are capitalists too.

:rolleyes:

Are you people really incapable of making basic quantitative distinctions, or are you just out to annoy us?

and marxism doesn't own it. even the celts had maypoles. it was only macathiest idiological fanatacism that coerced and propigandised americans into discrediting it.


people need to wake up. right wing loonies have turned america into a tyranical one party system. one that is being run of, by and for, little green pieces of paper, to the detriment of every real person, place and thing, and the bennifit of none.

=^^=
.../\...
Actually, we just realized running in circles around a pole was kind of really fucking stupid. And how is it a 1 party system? Democrats control the house, unfortunately. And macathiest isn't a word. I looked it up.

Hate to burst your bubble, but most workers are capitalists too.

Source?

No, they aren't. Not at all, in the slightest. Your definition would have to be pretty severely fucked for that to be even remotely true.

Are you trying to say that th terms are mutually exclusive?

Also fixed grammar.

Are you trying to say that th terms are mutually exclusive?

not necessarily, if we are talking about 'workers' per se. yes, if we are talking about classes.

Are you trying to say that th terms are mutually exclusive?

Also fixed grammar.

Yes. A worker is someone who's primary source of income is wages. A capitalist is a person whose primary source of income is the ownership of property.

not necessarily, if we are talking about 'workers' per se. yes, if we are talking about classes.
Fair enough
Yes. A worker is someone who's primary source of income is wages. A capitalist is a person whose primary source of income is the ownership of property.
really?
1 a: one that works especially at manual or industrial labor or with a particular material <a factory worker> —often used in combination b: a member of the working class

1: a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
2: a person who favors capitalism

Yes. A worker is someone who's primary source of income is wages. A capitalist is a person whose primary source of income is the ownership of property.

cap·i·tal·ist Audio Help /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

work·er Audio Help /ˈwɜrkər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person or thing that works.
2. a laborer or employee: steel workers.
3. a person engaged in a particular field, activity, or cause: a worker in psychological research; a worker for the Republican party.
4. Entomology.
a. a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped, nonreproductive bees, specialized to collect food and maintain the hive.
b. a similar member of a specialized caste of ants, termites, or wasps.
5. Printing. one of a set of electrotyped plates used to print from (contrasted with molder).
6. any of several rollers covered with card clothing that work in combination with the stripper rollers and the cylinder in the carding of fibers.

They don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

cap·i·tal·ist Audio Help /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

work·er Audio Help /ˈwɜrkər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wur-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person or thing that works.
2. a laborer or employee: steel workers.
3. a person engaged in a particular field, activity, or cause: a worker in psychological research; a worker for the Republican party.
4. Entomology.
a. a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped, nonreproductive bees, specialized to collect food and maintain the hive.
b. a similar member of a specialized caste of ants, termites, or wasps.
5. Printing. one of a set of electrotyped plates used to print from (contrasted with molder).
6. any of several rollers covered with card clothing that work in combination with the stripper rollers and the cylinder in the carding of fibers.

They don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

*points up*

I beat you to it...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13663353&postcount=85

*points up*

I beat you to it...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13663353&postcount=85

Mine was more thorough >.>

Mine was more thorough >.>

True :(

Yes. A worker is someone who's primary source of income is wages. A capitalist is a person whose primary source of income is the ownership of property.

yeah, these are the relevant definitions. i only added the per se to cover the notion of worker as 'one who does work of any sort', which clearly is irrelevant.

yeah, these are the relevant definitions. i only added the per se to cover the notion of worker as 'one who does work of any sort', which clearly is irrelevant.

For relevant definitions they're notably lacking from dictionary definitions.

For relevant definitions they're notably lacking from dictionary definitions.

Well, that's only because dictionary definitions don't fit their idea of what a worker is...

Well, that's only because dictionary definitions don't fit their idea of what a worker is...

I hear a One True Scotsman.

Well, that's only because dictionary definitions don't fit their idea of what a worker is...

No, the dictionary definitions are fine. But they are not all-encompassing. There are other definitions, such as the ones necessary to an analysis of the class nature of capitalism.

I hear a One True Scotsman.

I hear equivocation.

No, the dictionary definitions are fine. But they are not all-encompassing. There are other definitions, such as the made up ones necessary for FS's and Trots' argument.

Fixed ;)

Fixed ;)

That's absurd. Their definitions are absolutely appropriate to the context.

That's absurd. Their definitions are absolutely appropriate to the context.

Umm, of course they, they were made up to fit the context and argument perfectly.
:D

Umm, of course they, they were made up to fit the context and argument perfectly.
:D

hi and welcome to standard marxian class analysis 101. this is how these words have been used for over 100 years in this context.

hi and welcome to standard marxian class analysis 101. this is how these words have been used for over 100 years in this context.

Oh, come on FS, I was hoping that you at least would realize that I've been joking, even if Soheran didn't.

I hear a One True Scotsman.

i thought it was No true Scotsman.

Not really that huge of a difference.

youre a dumbass, dude. Communism=extreme left wing. Fascism=extreme right wing.

Hate to burst your bubble, but most workers are capitalists too.

Capitalism means making money off of a Capital, aka. Consumer, meaning this only really applies to heads of companies. unless youre fucking stupid enough to completely confuse capitalism with democracy, like most people i've met in real life are, then that would be true in your eyes.

Long live the proletariat!

Shouldn't that be "Abolish the proletariat"?

International Workingmen's Association, Cliffs Notes Edition.

Capitalism means making money off of a Capital, aka. Consumer, meaning this only really applies to heads of companies. unless youre fucking stupid enough to completely confuse capitalism with democracy, like most people i've met in real life are, then that would be true in your eyes.

I didn't realize workers were prevented from investing.

I didn't realize workers were prevented from investing.

Capitalist are generally the top 1% - 5% of America's population in terms of wealth and earnings. So by definition worker class or middle class are not capitalist.

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

youre a dumbass, dude. Communism=extreme left wing. Fascism=extreme right wing.

if your only using a 1 dimensional way to look at it yes then couldn't be farther apart. but use a 2 dimensional or greater means of viewing it they become close because both tend to have dictatorships.
You can further more see this in China. Communist went Fascist hopefully going liberal democracy.

I didn't realize workers were prevented from investing.

The distinction between classes isn't a matter of wealth, but rather of control. Yes, all sorts of people can spend money, but not all sorts of people actually possess significant control over economic decision-making. The closest the vast majority come to such control is in the role as consumers in the market, but even then that role is largely restricted to reaction to decisions already made. Efforts on the part of Capital and Labor elites to manipulate the market through government and other means restricts the majority even more.

The key is ownership and control, not mere wealth or lifestyle.

I prefer his version of The Internationale.
-snip-
Since we're singing songs I think I'll share one of my old favorites.

The sons of the prophet were valiant and bold
and quite unacustomed to fear,
But of all the most reckless or so I am told
Was Abdul Abulbul Amir.

If you wanted a man to encourage the van,
Or harass the foe from the rear,
Storm fort or redoubt, you had only to shout
for Abdul Abulbul Amir.

There were brave men a plenty, all well known to fame
Who served in the ranks of the Czar,
But the most brazen of these was a man by the name
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

One day this bold Russian, he shouldered his gun
and donned his most truculent sneer,
Downtown he did go where he tred on the toe
of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

"Young man," quote Abdul, "do you find life so dull
That you wish to end your career?
Vile infidel know that you have trod on the toe
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

So take your last look at the sunshine and brook
And send your regrets to the Czar
For by this I imply that you're going to die,
Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar."

Then this bold Mameluke drew his trusty skibouk,
Singing, "Allah! Il Allah! Al-lah!"
And with murderous intent he ferociously went
for Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

They parried and thrust, they side-stepped and cussed,
Of blood they spilled a great part;
The philologist blokes, who seldom crack jokes,
Say that hash was first made on the spot.

They fought all that night neath the pale yellow moon;
The din, it was heard from afar,
And huge multitudes came, so great was the fame,
of Abdul and Ivan Skavar.

As Abdul's long knife was extracting the life,
In fact he was shouting, "Huzzah!"
He felt himself struck by that wily Calmuck,
Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

The Sultan drove by in his red-breasted fly,
Expecting the victor to cheer,
But he only drew nigh to hear the last sigh,
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

There's a tomb rises up where the Blue Danube rolls,
And graved there in characters clear,
Is, "Stranger, when passing, oh pray for the soul
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir."

A splash in the Black Sea one dark moonless night
Caused ripples to spread wide and far,
It was made by a sack fitting close to the back,
of Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

A Muscovite maiden her lone vigil keeps,
Neath the light of the cold northern star,
And the name that she murmurs in vain as she weeps,
is Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

if your only using a 1 dimensional way to look at it yes then couldn't be farther apart. but use a 2 dimensional or greater means of viewing it they become close because both tend to have dictatorships.
You can further more see this in China. Communist went Fascist hopefully going liberal democracy.

China AND Russia seem to only use a form of government with a single central leader, so going from Imperialism to Full Communism came as a bit of a shock to them, & it made it easy for a Dictator to take power. TRUE communism is anywhere between Democratic Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism

The distinction between classes isn't a matter of wealth, but rather of control. Yes, all sorts of people can spend money, but not all sorts of people actually possess significant control over economic decision-making. The closest the vast majority come to such control is in the role as consumers in the market, but even then that role is largely restricted to reaction to decisions already made. Efforts on the part of Capital and Labor elites to manipulate the market through government and other means restricts the majority even more.

The key is ownership and control, not mere wealth or lifestyle.

that and the Heads of Capitalist Institutions usually seem to make what is easiest to produce, then make it look cool & convince everyone that they HAVE to have it. Advertising isn't far from Brainwashing at all. we dont NEED some random book about Parenting that probably gives useless tips. We don't NEED 3 or 4 cars that get 1/2 a mile to the gallon per-person. and so on, and so on, etc. but advertising makes consumers THINK that useless crap like this is an absolute neccesity of life.

that and the Heads of Capitalist Institutions usually seem to make what is easiest to produce, then make it look cool & convince everyone that they HAVE to have it. Advertising isn't far from Brainwashing at all. we dont NEED some random book about Parenting that probably gives useless tips. We don't NEED 3 or 4 cars that get 1/2 a mile to the gallon per-person. and so on, and so on, etc. but advertising makes consumers THINK that useless crap like this is an absolute neccesity of life.

Advertising isn't brainwashing. People are perfectly capable of determining whether or not they feel a given good or service is something they want to have; all advertising does is let them know it's available and try to convince them to purchase that particular product over another.

And who says that we don't "need" a certain level of material comfort? It's up to individuals on the basis of their individual utility to determine what their "needs" are, and it's up to the market to satisfy those needs to their fullest extent. Anything else is nothing more than you projecting your own personal material desires on to others as if they are some kind of objective standard. I have no doubt I could easily find plenty of things you consider "necessities" that aren't really necessities at all. That, in a nutshell, is the fundamental reason why planned economies failed; they projected the "needs" of a few on to the entire population, which always produces shortages and massive wastage of economic resources because it is nowhere near the optimal level that would normally be set by a free market.

Another interesting fact is that there was advertising in the Communist world, just like what you'd see in the capitalist countries. It was a little different in some aspects, but the end goal was 100% the same.

If we have a Socialist Worker´s Day, why not have a Capitalist Lazy Ass´s Day? It´s all about balance, you know.:D

all advertising does is let them know it's available and try to convince them to purchase that particular product over another.

By giving a rational analysis of the costs and benefits?

Advertisers are smart--they know what works and what doesn't. And, unsurprisingly, manipulation and emotional appeals often work better than reasoned argument when it comes to getting people to buy your product.

By giving a rational analysis of the costs and benefits?

Interestingly, the commercials in the former USSR did do that most of the time. However, generally, that's not the case. Rational analysis, to the extent to which it can occur, occurs between seeing the commercial and actually buying the product.

Advertisers are smart--they know what works and what doesn't. And, unsurprisingly, manipulation and emotional appeals often work better than reasoned argument when it comes to getting people to buy your product.

But not in the long term. For initial sales, yes, but you need a strong rational basis to build the brand loyalty that keeps people coming back to you for their purchasing needs.

Advertisers are smart--they know what works and what doesn't. And, unsurprisingly, manipulation and emotional appeals often work better than reasoned argument when it comes to getting people to buy your product.

So that would be the fault of the advertisers?
I seem to be missing your point here, either that or you really don't have one.

So that would be the fault of the advertisers?

In short? Yes.

But "fault" assumes that the issue is blame. I don't care about blame, I care about what kinds of societies manipulate people into making irrational decisions, and which kinds of societies don't.

But not in the long term. For initial sales, yes, but you need a strong rational basis to build the brand loyalty that keeps people coming back to you for their purchasing needs.

But brand loyalty has everything to do with image, not necessarily quality. (Just look at the fashion industry.)

I'm not saying you can completely discount quality, price, and so forth... but the general direction of advertising is toward distortion. And a society that respects human freedom should do better.

In short? Yes.

But "fault" assumes that the issue is blame. I don't care about blame, I care about what kinds of societies manipulate people into making irrational decisions, and which kinds of societies don't.

The answers there would 1. all 2. none

The answers there would 1. all 2. none

Well, that's a fairly useless way to address the issue.

Obviously you can never achieve perfection--regarding this or anything. But it does not follow that you can never make any kind of progress at all.

Well, that's a fairly useless way to address the issue.

Obviously you can never achieve perfection--regarding this or anything. But it does not follow that you can never make any kind of progress at all.

It feels like you´re celebrating making progress for progress´s sake.

Well, that's a fairly useless way to address the issue.
Realistically?
Obviously you can never achieve perfection--regarding this or anything. But it does not follow that you can never make any kind of progress at all.
So, somehow it would be better if people weren't allowed to do what works?
Do you even realize how idiotic that sounds?

i thought it was No true Scotsman.
Oh yeah.
No, the dictionary definitions are fine. But they are not all-encompassing. There are other definitions, such as the ones necessary to an analysis of the class nature of capitalism.
And they are?
Capitalism means making money off of a Capital, aka. Consumer, meaning this only really applies to heads of companies. unless youre fucking stupid enough to completely confuse capitalism with democracy, like most people i've met in real life are, then that would be true in your eyes.
This doesn't preclude workers from being capitalists. You don't have to be making money from an economic system to support it. Otherwise there would be very few communists.
Capitalist are generally the top 1% - 5% of America's population in terms of wealth and earnings. So by definition worker class or middle class are not capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class
By one definition. By another they could very well be.

Oh yeah.

And they are?

This doesn't preclude workers from being capitalists. You don't have to be making money from an economic system to support it. Otherwise there would be very few communists.

By one definition. By another they could very well be.

Well, all that really matters is their definitions, because otherwise their whole premise falls apart.

And they are?

FS and Trotkylvania have given them already.

Do you even realize how idiotic that sounds?

Yes, I realize how idiotic your first question was.

The question is, if you do, why did you bother asking it?

FS and Trotkylvania have given them already.

All I saw was them saying that a worker by definition can't be a capitalist. Must have missed the definition itself. *searches*

Ah. Found them. Yeah, I'll stick with my "you don't have to make money off a system to support it"

Yeah, I'll stick with my "you don't have to make money off a system to support it"

True. "Capitalist" (in this sense) doesn't mean "supporter of capitalism."

You can have non-capitalists who support capitalism, and you can have capitalists who oppose it.

True. "Capitalist" (in this sense) doesn't mean "supporter of capitalism."

You can have non-capitalists who support capitalism, and you can have capitalists who oppose it.

True. I oppose capitalism and yet I live in a consumerist society. I too consume.

This doesn't preclude workers from being capitalists. You don't have to be making money from an economic system to support it. Otherwise there would be very few communists.

just living in a capitalist state dosen'e automatically make someone a Capitalist. I live in the USA & im quite obviously Socialist. and Supporting capitalism makes you a SUPPORTER of Capitalism, not a true capitalist. to be ACTUALLY capitalist, you need to be someone with Capital who employs Workers for himself.

just living in a capitalist state dosen'e automatically make someone a Capitalist. I live in the USA & im quite obviously Socialist. and Supporting capitalism makes you a SUPPORTER of Capitalism, not a true capitalist. to be ACTUALLY capitalist, you need to be someone with Capital who employs Workers for himself.

I would say if one is given the opportunity to invest, and they support the system they are capitalist it is only under systems where the worker is prevented from investing that I say supporting worker is not a capitalist.

also if you have money in interest bearing savings account congratulations you a capitalist because you have invested in the bank. I don't know anyone over 22 who does not have money in a interest bearing account in the US so everyone here is a capitalist.

This doesn't preclude workers from being capitalists. You don't have to be making money from an economic system to support it.

in the present context, to be a capitalist is not to be a supporter of capitalism. you are equivocating.

in the present context, to be a capitalist is not to be a supporter of capitalism. you are equivocating.

doesn't matter since most people likely has money in an interest bearing savings account which makes them an investor in the bank and a capitalist.

Oddly enough, the University of Chicago, which is known for having one of the nation's best business schools. :pOr better known as the school where fun goes to die.

doesn't matter since most people likely has money in an interest bearing savings account which makes them an investor in the bank and a capitalist.

but that isn't what defines a capitalist either. also, your understanding of banks is a bit off.

but that isn't what defines a capitalist either. also, your understanding of banks is a bit off.

they take my money loan it out to people and charge those people interest. then give me a share of the profit they make. Seems like investment to me.


So your saying Bankers are not capitalist ????

they take my money loan it out to people and charge those people interest. then give me a share of the profit they make. Seems like investment to me.

nope. to invest in a bank, you buy shares in the bank. but even owning some shares somewhere doesn't make you a capitalist.

So your saying Bankers are not capitalist ????

no, i'm saying having a bank account doesn't make you a banker.

I would say if one is given the opportunity to invest, and they support the system they are capitalist it is only under systems where the worker is prevented from investing that I say supporting worker is not a capitalist.

also if you have money in interest bearing savings account congratulations you a capitalist because you have invested in the bank. I don't know anyone over 22 who does not have money in a interest bearing account in the US so everyone here is a capitalist.

lol what about Hippies? pretty much only thing they "Invest" in is Pot, Tents, Dumpster Diving Manuals and the occasional Computer

:rolleyes:

Are you people really incapable of making basic quantitative distinctions, or are you just out to annoy us?

As with all things in the social sciences, though, this distinction is entirely fuzzy, and the only way one can claim that the distinction is clear is ridackulous mental acrobatics.

Very few people are pure capitalists, and very few people are pure workers.

As with all things in the social sciences, though, this distinction is entirely fuzzy

Even granting that, it changes nothing. There are plenty of "fuzzy" distinctions that are of critical importance. The point is that it makes no sense to forget about class analysis just because plenty of workers own (some) capital.

nope. to invest in a bank, you buy shares in the bank. but even owning some shares somewhere doesn't make you a capitalist.


no, i'm saying having a bank account doesn't make you a banker.

Seems like an investment to me since I do in fact get a return.

Seems like an investment to me since I do in fact get a return.

you are equivocating

Even granting that, it changes nothing. There are plenty of "fuzzy" distinctions that are of critical importance.

in fact, i would say that most crucial distinctions have some fuzziness to them - it's like a feature of the world.

you are equivocating

actually I am using the dictionary definition of investing.

investment or investing[1] is a term with several closely-related meanings in business management, finance and economics, related to saving or deferring consumption. An asset is usually purchased, or equivalently a deposit is made in a bank, in hopes of getting a future return or interest from it.

So I still contend that depositing money in savings account in a bank makes one a capitalist.

actually I am using the dictionary definition of investing.

So I still contend that depositing money in savings account in a bank makes one a capitalist.

and you are wrong. firstly because the relevant sense of capitalist isn't someone that has invested some amount of money, and secondly because having money in the bank doesn't mean that you have invested in the bank.

also, keep reading further down your unsourced wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Personal_finance

and you are wrong. firstly because the relevant sense of capitalist isn't someone that has invested some amount of money, and secondly because having money in the bank doesn't mean that you have invested in the bank.

also, keep reading further down your unsourced wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#Personal_finance

I disagree you put money in bank, bank uses money to invest by loaning out to corporations and people wanting homes or cars. Also banks rates to fluctuate based on how well the bank performs, and prior to the great depression it was possible to lose money in the banks, and it is still possible to lose money in banks if you have over 250,000 dollars (over the amount of federal deposit insurance).

We will celebrate the bourgeois when we line them up against the wall.
Andaras, where are you and how much money do you make? Do you have your own computer, or are you using a public one? I can't force you to give up your Internet anonymity, but you may get more of the attention you crave if people know who's talking to them.

And if you want to intimidate middle class people, how about backing up your threats with actions, and evidence of those actions, instead of trolling like the pussy you are? ;)

I disagree you put money in bank, bank uses money to invest by loaning out to corporations and people wanting homes or cars. Also banks rates to fluctuate based on how well the bank performs, and prior to the great depression it was possible to lose money in the banks, and it is still possible to lose money in banks if you have over 250,000 dollars (over the amount of federal deposit insurance).

even if you were right (and you aren't), your actual point would still be either irrelevant or wrong. having actual stock doesn't make one a capitalist.

Andaras, where are you and how much money do you make? Do you have your own computer, or are you using a public one? I can't force you to give up your Internet anonymity, but you may get more of the attention you crave if people know who's talking to them.

And if you want to intimidate middle class people, how about backing up your threats with actions, and evidence of those actions, instead of trolling like the pussy you are? ;)


lol hes trying to intimidate the Rich & Capitalists, not the middle class (I think). & hes doing a li'el bit overzealous Vladimir Lenin Impersonation

lol hes trying to intimidate the Rich & Capitalists, not the middle class (I think). & hes doing a li'el bit overzealous Josef Stalin Impersonation

fixed, AP is a Stalinist.

sieg heil to the proletariat?

fixed, AP is a Stalinist.

Dude, AP just is anything Commie. ROFL!

lol hes trying to intimidate the Rich & Capitalists, not the middle class (I think). & hes doing a li'el bit overzealous Vladimir Lenin Impersonation
Well, Dictionary.com gives a few definitions, including:
- the middle class.
- (in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values.
Maybe bourgeoisie is kind of upper-middle class, but not extremely upper? :confused:

well, today is May Day, known to Socialists (like me) & immigrants as Worker's Day


Actually, here in Italy the 1st of May (Festa dei Lavoratori) is a national holiday.

Dude, AP just is anything Commie. ROFL!

lmfao are you serious?
Josef Stalin was a fuckin fascist who called himself as a communist pretty much as an excuse to rebel against the Church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeoIHxSaEaU&NR=1

lmfao are you serious?
Josef Stalin was a fuckin fascist who called himself as a communist pretty much as an excuse to rebel against the Church

People who raise a hand against comrade Stalin are naive and utopian, such people sound confused about the Revolution in practise and action, most of them have only dealt with it in theory. What do they think Revolution is? A Revolution by consensus, where we sit down with the bourgeois and discuss our problems over tea? Do you really think socialist society is going to look pretty right away? Did you really expect social transformation to be anything less than a murderous process? Building socialism is a war, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads. Stalinism is practical.

I prefer his version of The Internationale.

And over even that, I prefer Between the Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HRSsLes8vE).

People who raise a hand against comrade Stalin are naive and utopian, such people sound confused about the Revolution in practise and action, most of them have only dealt with it in theory.

Bakunin on the so-called communist dictator: "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself." Insert Soviet Gulag state here.

If Bakunin were here today, he would be saying "I told you so."


What do they think Revolution is?

Well, at the very least, revolution is something that you have to have broad-based support for. That said, you go find some Stalinists, and I'll go find some anarchists, syndicalists and libertarian Marxists. Heck, basically anyone. Then we'll figure out who has more people and more support. I have my bets that I'll be more successful. I've never even met any Stalinists in real life.


A Revolution by consensus, where we sit down with the bourgeois and discuss our problems over tea?

I think you're confused with Democrats.


Do you really think socialist society is going to look pretty right away?

No. Here's a question for you; given that classless society is impossible with the continued existence of the State and given the self-perpetuating nature of the State, what is your plan for how we get to classless society within the frame of Stalinism?

To word the question like you did, do you really think that socialist society will ever materialize the way you plan it?


Did you really expect social transformation to be anything less than a murderous process?

No. But our process will be much more clearly defined and less paranoid than yours.


Building socialism is a war, and you have to fight it like you fight any other war, with discipline, with terror, with firing squads.

No, it isn't. Building socialism is a process that involves organizing labor, something that Stalinists are unlikely to do.

EDIT: And speaking of firing squads, thank you for the excellent idea on how to deal with Stalinists. I was beginning to think we'd have a revolution by consensus, where we talk some sense into you over tea.


Stalinism is practical.
Stalinism is like trying to run Windows Vista on an 8086.

It's also the third most absurdly oppressive ideology on the planet. For those of you who are curious as to how we could possibly get any worse:

2. Lesbian Separatism
1. Primitivism

2. Lesbian Separatism

How is lesbian separatism remotely oppressive... of anyone?

1. Primitivism

Primitivism is perhaps the most consistently anti-oppressive of ideologies. There's a reason it came out of the anarchist movement.

And over even that, I prefer Between the Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HRSsLes8vE).

Me, too... though "There is Power in a Union" is probably my favorite.

How is lesbian separatism remotely oppressive... of anyone?

I'd be really embarrassed if it turned out that the SCUM Manifesto is a satire, because I take it to be the ultimate conclusion of a lesbian separatist position.


Primitivism is perhaps the most consistently anti-oppressive of ideologies. There's a reason it came out of the anarchist movement.

I disagree. If it tends to the obliteration of modern technology, then it tends toward deprivation which could cost the lives of billions of people. I think we need parts of modern technology, but we need to be very specific about what we need and why.

Bombs, nukes and planes we don't need. Electricity produced in ways that aren't stupid, I think we could definitely use.

I'd be really embarrassed if it turned out that the SCUM Manifesto is a satire. I take it to be the ultimate conclusion of a lesbian separatist position.

The author has said it was merely a "literary device", but regardless, it's the words of only one person. An implementation of the Manifesto would indeed be quite oppressive.

If it tends to the obliteration of modern technology, then it tends toward deprivation which could cost the lives of billions of people.

Primitivists generally don't think we should just kill or starve all of them. Some of them advocate gradual transition, some of them think civilization is doomed and will starve its own members.

I think we need parts of modern technology,

We don't "need" any of it. The human species survived for the vast majority of its existence without modern technology. We can do it again.

Electricity produced in ways that aren't stupid, I think we could definitely use.

I agree. But you should be aware of what it is you are conceding: modern technology necessitates a structure of division of labor, of specialization, of unnatural, artificial toil that is inevitably oppressive in some respects, and that historically has produced the horrors of property and class society.

Can we do better, while still keeping modern technology? I think so. But we will never escape paying the price.

The author has said it was merely a "literary device", but regardless, it's the words of only one person. An implementation of the Manifesto would indeed be quite oppressive.

I am looking more closely into it at the moment. I find it disheartening, however, that people seem to believe that the Evil Straight White Male can never change and is not even worth dealing with, and I have concerns about how it motivates some elements of movements, whether Black nationalist, lesbian separatist or otherwise. I hope that this view is not the norm. As I say, I will look into it.


Primitivists generally don't think we should just kill or starve all of them. Some of them advocate gradual transition, some of them think civilization is doomed and will starve its own members.

Civilization will wither away. lol

I do agree with them on at least a few points, though. First, humans are animals too and carrying capacity is very real. Second, industrial capitalism and warfare are ecologically unsustainable and reduce carrying capacity.


We don't "need" any of it. The human species survived for the vast majority of its existence without modern technology. We can do it again.

That was a bit of a silly formulation, I agree. Some things characteristic of civilization are desirable. That's what I really meant.


I agree. But you should be aware of what it is you are conceding: modern technology necessitates a structure of division of labor, of specialization, of unnatural, artificial toil that is inevitably oppressive in some respects, and that historically has produced the horrors of property and class society.

Can we do better, while still keeping modern technology? I think so. But we will never escape paying the price.
I'd like to think that Murray Bookchin is right, and that in many important ways, we don't have to have class society or the State to maintain this level of technology. If we want it that badly, then we will figure out ad hoc ways of dealing with it that center on what specific communities need as opposed to say, Stalinist cookie-cutter schemes. (Part of bureaucracy's inability to handle individual community needs and desires in a thoughtful way is why I describe Stalinism as trying to run Vista on a 8086.)

We have a sculpture on campus that casts a shadow of the hammer and sickle at 12 noon on May Day. I went and saw that take place.that's completely awesome. I wish our campus statues were astronomically aligned...I vote for a campus henge! as it is, we can't even tell what ours are by themselves, let alone what their shadows are supposed to be.

I'd like to think that Murray Bookchin is right, and that in many important ways, we don't have to have class society or the State to maintain this level of technology.

I agree. There are two problems, however.

First, while I agree that this is possible, in some respects it's going to be an uphill battle. You're going to end up depending on classes of experts and specialists... and there's always the risk there of hierarchies of wealth and power reforming themselves.

Second, class society and the State are hardly the only oppressive characteristics of modern society as it presently exists. We can easily imagine a stateless socialism that still sentences its citizens to a life of toil... forced into school at a young age, taught to work at the direction of others, bound to the artificial schedules of alleged social necessity, compelled by various means to do jobs they loathe.

Alienation and toil are not, unfortunately, dependent on class society. The primitivist might argue that we are so lost that, even given political and economic control over our own lives, we might sell ourselves to the machine. I think they might be right. And if we want to keep our technology, we might have to.

Andaras, I see you're back. Do you want to share your plans of neutralizing everyone who doesn't work in a factory or farm?

No. He just wants to troll Stalinism, wait for everyone else to shut him down, and then pusillanimously fail to respond.

Fine then, I give up.

No. He just wants to troll Stalinism, wait for everyone else to shut him down, and then pusillanimously fail to respond.
By 'Stalinism' I assume you mean working class power, they are after all the same thing.

By 'Stalinism' I assume you mean working class power, they are after all the same thing.

lolwut

By 'Stalinism' I assume you mean working class power, they are after all the same thing.

No, by Stalinism we mean Josef Stalin's brand of communism, which was not communism at all.

Stalinism isn't working class power, it's government power. During Stalin's rule, thus, it was Stalin power.

Stalinism isn't working class power, it's government power. During Stalin's rule, thus, it was Stalin power.
Stalin was but a party leader, in comparison the US Presidential system gives far more power to one individual. In actual fact the strongly anti-Soviet American writer Eugene Lyons once asked Stalin directly: ‘Are you a dictator?’ Lyons goes on (and I quote)

"Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side.

‘No’, he said slowly, ‘I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party".

Furthermore, Vyacheslav Molotov, when asked who of two leaders, Lenin or Stalin, was more "severe", replied: "Lenin, of course... I remember how he scolded Stalin for softness and liberalism"

The British Fabian economists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in their comprehensive book ‘Soviet Communism: A New Civilization’ categorically reject the notion of Stalin as a dictator. They say (and I quote):

"Stalin . . . has not even the extensive power . . . which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. .

The Communist Party in the USSR has adopted its own organization.

In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted and elaborately guarded against",

Certainly, in the time of Lenin and Stalin the Soviet regime was officially described as one of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat . But this does not imply personal dictatorship. It means simply that political power is in the hands of working people, and that political activity aimed at taking political power away from the working people is illegal.

Of course, this latter is regarded in official circles in London and Washington as ‘undemocratic’ and ‘a grave violation of human rights’

But the word ‘democracy’ means ‘the rule of the common people’, and in this sense- the Soviet -Union in Stalin’s time was infinitely more democratic than any Western country.

As for ‘human rights’, the United Nations Human Rights Convention of 1966 lays down that states should guarantee to their citizens the ‘right to work’.

But only in a socialist society can this right be put into effect, can unemployment be abolished (as it was in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time). A capitalist society requires what Marx called ‘a reserve army of labour ‘ so that it can make labour readily available in times of boom.

So, there are still people who are stalinists:D

Here's a little "the closest to ojective one can get" aticle about stalinism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalin was but a party leader, in comparison the US Presidential system gives far more power to one individual ...

De jure. De facto Stalin marshalled an enormous amount of power (also thanks to a camarilla of "more stalinists than Stalin"), far greater than the constitutional provisions. See the papers of the XX congress of KPSS about the cult of personality.

Btw, I wouldn't take the US political system as a paragon of democracy.

Oh, remember that Khrus'ëv was the chief Party officer at Stalingrad during the battle and the downright brutality he showed to Hungary - this should avoid any qualification of Khrus'ëv as "class traitor" or some other bs like that.

But only in a socialist society can this right be put into effect, can unemployment be abolished (as it was in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time). A capitalist society requires what Marx called ‘a reserve army of labour ‘ so that it can make labour readily available in times of boom.
You are definitely right that unemployment will be abolished, because everyone will be enslaved by the State.

Stalinism is not workers' power; it's the worker's hoping Stalin won't kill them.

De jure. De facto Stalin marshalled an enormous amount of power (also thanks to a camarilla of "more stalinists than Stalin"),
That simply goes to the point that many, indeed a great majority, agreed with Stalin's Line for the Party and how he was advancing socialism. That's what democracy is, majority rules, if you like petite-bourgeois 'liberty' then stop whining.

far greater than the constitutional provisions. See the papers of the XX congress of KPSS about the cult of personality.
Ahh yes, the 'cult of personality', I've been looking forward to dealing with this.

In fact, talk about human rights is in most cases merely a propaganda weapon directed against socialism. In the eyes of Lombard Street and Wall Street, a corrupt central American ‘banana republic’ which sends out nightly death squads to murder homeless children in order to keep the streets tidy for the tourist trade counts as a ‘free country’ as long as it allows freedom of investment.

The Soviet traitors to socialism opened their attack upon socialism in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 by charging Stalin with organizing a ‘cult of personality’ around himself.

Certainly, there in the time of Stalin. wishes. In fact, Stalin

was a cult of Stalin’s personality in the Soviet Union But this was organized not by Stalin, but against his himself opposed and ridiculed this cult.

For example, when in February 1938 someone wanted to publish entitled ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’, Stalin wrote typically:

"I am absolutely against the publication of ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’.

The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, . . . of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. .

But… the important thing resides tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental…I suggest we burn this book".

There was indeed a ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin. A leading. communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:

"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul . ‘Long live our beloved Stalin!’ .

Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"

The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!

It was Khrushchev too who coined the term ‘Stalinism’ and began to call Stalin ‘Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German ‘Fuhrer’, Leader.

In other words, the ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator

Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of ‘loyalty’ and ‘patriotism’, Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, ‘to discredit him’ at a later date.

Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin’s own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.



Oh, remember that Khrus'ëv was the chief Party officer at Stalingrad during the battle and the downright brutality he showed to Hungary - this should avoid any qualification of Khrus'ëv as "class traitor" or some other bs like that.
And if that above bit hasn't enlightened you as to the truth of the revisionist traitor Khrushchev, I am sure this quote will show you he was a class traitor:


"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).