Socialism Vs Blue Collar Outlook

Now then I will write about why Socialism ( of today at least) totally goes against the blue collar outlook. So first off, yes blue collar is just a silly word ( like all other words) but Im going to use it to make things simpler. Anyhow blue collar workers are workers who work with their hands. Their few in number nowadays ( and will probably shrink even more) so you Socialists dont have to worry about winning them over or whatnot, but my point is to show why the blue collar outlook cant be mixed with Socialism of today at least.

First of all most Socialists dont seem to care about the fact that blue collar jobs are dying out fast. Sure they care about the unemployment it causes but at the same time they are all for more automation. Some even go as far to say that robots should do all the work in the future. Course this would get rid of white collar jobs but it would hurt the pride of skilled tradesman the most. Contrary to what many Socialists say, skilled manual work isnt " disempowering" or " uncreative". I know from personal experience that carpentry ( for example) can be very creative. Much more so than many office jobs. If you work as a carpenter you often times have to improvise when doing things. Not to mention the fact that you have to think when doing many parts of the job ( like when taking measurements). My point is plenty of skilled tradesmen enjoy doing their job and take pride in doing it. Making the economy more automated or heaven forbid having robots do all work, would piss tons of tradesmen off to no end. Which is exactly one reason why Socialism wont gain much support from blue collar workers ( the skilled ones definitely).

Second of all a lot of Socialism is very academic which obviously makes it look bad to blue collar workers. Socialists use way too many big long words that nobody knows of. Blue collar workers usually dont like academic stuff ( and oftentimes academic people) so they are put off from Socialism because of that.

Third of all Socialists nowadays are very PC. In Marx's time at least Socialists werent scared of somehow stepping on the toes of blacks, Gypsies, Jews, gays, so on but now they are. Socialists by far are very politically correct. Now true in this day many blue collar workers are sadly PC or are close to it, but many still arent. There are quite a few racists among blue collar workers ( especially loud and proud racists) and many more who dont shy away from telling Mexican jokes or screaming " fucking faggots " at the top of their lungs. At the same time most Socialists are all lined up with feminism. Now yes feminism means different things to different people but todays version just sucks. I honestly have nothing against women getting jobs, going to college, etc ( in fact I think anyone who thinks otherwise is a dick) but feminism today isnt about that. It isnt about getting women job rights or whatever. Its just bascially about attacking men which of course doesnt fit well with blue collar workers ( who are mostly male). Then again there are actual sexists among blue collar workers ( more so than among other workers) so thats another reason why PC doest work too well on them. Now I forgot to add Im doing this from the view of a white male blue collar worker ( reason being is that is what I am) but from what Ive seen nonwhite blue collar workers are pretty similar in many ways too. That is there are plenty of racists and other un PC people among them as well.

Also the general egalitarian spirit of Socialism doesnt fit well with the blue collar world. For example, anyone who has worked on a good bit of construction sites has seen the pecking orders that develop among the workers. Which oftentime end up as nothing more than the stronger man pushing around the weak one. Good amount of fistfights, lots of brawls happen because of macho attitudes. Which are pretty much all about " Im the big man and Im gonna show all these fuckers that I am". This type of thinking obviously goes against the lets have everyone be equal in standing view of Socialism. And of course many Socialists are put off by blue collar workers because they dont like drunkenness, loud chaotic fun, brawls, and all the loutish stuff because of their background ( which is often intellectual).

Anyways I could go on but I think Ive gotten my main point across. An intellectual well bred outlook like Socialism doesnt mix with the vulgar and much simpler world of blue collar workers. Not to mention Socialists favor changes that could totally crush blue collar jobs. So yeah thats it. I got all the info used on this thread from personal observation by the way. Exceptions always are around but you can put up a general picture if need be.

The guest is me by the way.

Rebel Wa wrote:Now then I will write about why Socialism ( of today at least) totally goes against the blue collar outlook. So first off, yes blue collar is just a silly word ( like all other words) but Im going to use it to make things simpler. Anyhow blue collar workers are workers who work with their hands. Their few in number nowadays ( and will probably shrink even more) so you Socialists dont have to worry about winning them over or whatnot, but my point is to show why the blue collar outlook cant be mixed with Socialism of today at least.

"Blue collar" is a term used to describe the general worker. White collar refers to middle to upper management and professionals.

People who work in restaurants, shopping malls, and warehouses are blue collar and so are their immediate managers. You have your definitions wrong.

First of all most Socialists dont seem to care about the fact that blue collar jobs are dying out fast. Sure they care about the unemployment it causes but at the same time they are all for more automation. Some even go as far to say that robots should do all the work in the future. Course this would get rid of white collar jobs but it would hurt the pride of skilled tradesman the most. Contrary to what many Socialists say, skilled manual work isnt " disempowering" or " uncreative". I know from personal experience that carpentry ( for example) can be very creative. Much more so than many office jobs. If you work as a carpenter you often times have to improvise when doing things. Not to mention the fact that you have to think when doing many parts of the job ( like when taking measurements). My point is plenty of skilled tradesmen enjoy doing their job and take pride in doing it. Making the economy more automated or heaven forbid having robots do all work, would piss tons of tradesmen off to no end. Which is exactly one reason why Socialism wont gain much support from blue collar workers ( the skilled ones definitely).

1- I don't think that you know what Socialism is.
2- You are still using the wrong definition of blue collar.
3- You should really read at least some literature, come on.

Second of all a lot of Socialism is very academic which obviously makes it look bad to blue collar workers. Socialists use way too many big long words that nobody knows of. Blue collar workers usually dont like academic stuff ( and oftentimes academic people) so they are put off from Socialism because of that.

There are plenty of easily accessible Marxian economists out there that don't use "big words". I'm also offended for much of the proletariat for your making them out to be dumb brutes. They are not as stupid as you make them sound, whether you meant to or not.

Third of all Socialists nowadays are very PC. In Marx's time at least Socialists werent scared of somehow stepping on the toes of blacks, Gypsies, Jews, gays, so on but now they are. Socialists by far are very politically correct. Now true in this day many blue collar workers are sadly PC or are close to it, but many still arent. There are quite a few racists among blue collar workers ( especially loud and proud racists) and many more who dont shy away from telling Mexican jokes or screaming " fucking faggots " at the top of their lungs. At the same time most Socialists are all lined up with feminism. Now yes feminism means different things to different people but todays version just sucks. I honestly have nothing against women getting jobs, going to college, etc ( in fact I think anyone who thinks otherwise is a dick) but feminism today isnt about that. It isnt about getting women job rights or whatever. Its just bascially about attacking men which of course doesnt fit well with blue collar workers ( who are mostly male). Then again there are actual sexists among blue collar workers ( more so than among other workers) so thats another reason why PC doest work too well on them. Now I forgot to add Im doing this from the view of a white male blue collar worker ( reason being is that is what I am) but from what Ive seen nonwhite blue collar workers are pretty similar in many ways too. That is there are plenty of racists and other un PC people among them as well.

Fuck racism! Fuck sexism!

These are reactionary views and propaganda must fight these views. These reactionary ideas will be easier to fight without Capitalism, but I still combat racism and sexism where ever I find them.

Also the general egalitarian spirit of Socialism doesnt fit well with the blue collar world. For example, anyone who has worked on a good bit of construction sites has seen the pecking orders that develop among the workers. Which oftentime end up as nothing more than the stronger man pushing around the weak one. Good amount of fistfights, lots of brawls happen because of macho attitudes. Which are pretty much all about " Im the big man and Im gonna show all these fuckers that I am". This type of thinking obviously goes against the lets have everyone be equal in standing view of Socialism. And of course many Socialists are put off by blue collar workers because they dont like drunkenness, loud chaotic fun, brawls, and all the loutish stuff because of their background ( which is often intellectual).

I'm sorry that you worked with a bunch of assholes. It wasn't that way for me. Anyway, who says that I don't like drunkenness, loud fun, and brawls sometimes? I've done my share of partying and will do more but that doesn't mean that I can't be a socialist. Your experience is narrow.

Anyways I could go on but I think Ive gotten my main point across. An intellectual well bred outlook like Socialism doesnt mix with the vulgar and much simpler world of blue collar workers. Not to mention Socialists favor changes that could totally crush blue collar jobs. So yeah thats it. I got all the info used on this thread from personal observation by the way. Exceptions always are around but you can put up a general picture if need be.

You seem to have several stereotypes in your mind. The first being that all tradesman are hooligans, and the second being that socialists are intellectual snobs.

I work in the blue collar sector. Have since I was thirteen. Folks consider me a redneck. Very much looking forward to Capitalism being replaced by something better, something Red.

LULZ @ Admin's post.

The way you explain it makes it sound as though as soon as socialism comes about, every tradesman will have to give up his job to a robot and do something completely random like looking after old people (something a machine probably can't do). You seem to be under the impression that capitalism has not already taken advantage of such technology, or that if it has then it won't continue to do so if it benefits the people who make good use of it. Ever heard of a vending machine?

As for your 'big words' argument, you seem to be blind to the fact that workers have created successful movements and organised themselves very well without having English and economics tutors by their side teaching them how to read Marx. The French Revolution didn't happen because every single Frenchman studied revolutionary socialist literature at evening college courses when he came home from work. Sure, I've given people bits of Marx to read and they have absolutely no idea of what's being said, but thankfully socialism lives on past five billion pages of Das Kapital.

Moving on, political correctness does pose a threat when it comes to discussing things like immigration that are important to our cause, as well as on the completely opposite side of the page where you have the anti-brown worker shouting his hate for blacks and gays. Socialism doesn't have to associate itself with the liberal anarkiddies of the 21st century or try to please those who fall under that category, nor does it have to appeal to Nazi skinheads. If there is one thing that will largely break the hatred and and blame put on certain ethnic groups (be it blacks, whites, Jews etc.), it will be the exposure of the true enemy of the relevant ethnic working class. White nationalists already seem to recognise capitalism—more specifically the form it presents itself in currently—as a threat to their people. Their understanding of it is, however, significantly different from ours. Black supremacists may partly blame capitalism for their oppression, but also largely rely on the whole "white devil" nonsense to gain support for their cause. I suppose Obama isn't black enough in their eyes to be considered a contradiction to their silly little ideas.

And just to finish, this made me laugh:

Rebel Wa wrote:Also the general egalitarian spirit of Socialism doesnt fit well with the blue collar world. For example, anyone who has worked on a good bit of construction sites has seen the pecking orders that develop among the workers. Which oftentime end up as nothing more than the stronger man pushing around the weak one. Good amount of fistfights, lots of brawls happen because of macho attitudes. Which are pretty much all about " Im the big man and Im gonna show all these fuckers that I am". This type of thinking obviously goes against the lets have everyone be equal in standing view of Socialism. And of course many Socialists are put off by blue collar workers because they dont like drunkenness, loud chaotic fun, brawls, and all the loutish stuff because of their background ( which is often intellectual).

This is largely true in many working class people, and it would be silly for me to deny it, but the way you explain it would make me think that every working class person looks, sounds and acts like the big fat guy in the bomber jacket:

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:First of all most Socialists dont seem to care about the fact that blue collar jobs are dying out fast. Sure they care about the unemployment it causes but at the same time they are all for more automation. Some even go as far to say that robots should do all the work in the future. Course this would get rid of white collar jobs but it would hurt the pride of skilled tradesman the most.

You're presuming that the complete automation of work would prevent people from continuing to engage in creative labor, when there's absolutely no reason to suspect this will occur. Automation has the potential of freeing humanity from the need to perform socially necessary labor—i.e., labor performed to meet consumer demand. It would provide people with the opportunity to engage in whatever sort of labor they wish to in their extended leisure time.

Contrary to what many Socialists say, skilled manual work isnt " disempowering" or " uncreative".

Excuse me, but what socialist has ever claimed that skilled manual labor is disempowering or uncreative? On the contrary, many socialists are in favor of providing skilled labor to the entire workforce, which is precisely why some of us advocate for the formation of balanced job complexes. We define disempowering labor as rote, menial, and onerous tasks, and it is this sort of work which we believe society should place a priority on automating.

Making the economy more automated or heaven forbid having robots do all work, would piss tons of tradesmen off to no end. Which is exactly one reason why Socialism wont gain much support from blue collar workers ( the skilled ones definitely).

Capitalism has been involved in the systematic deskilling labor since its inception; Luddism was (and remains) a reaction against this feature of the system. The bourgeoisie are most interested in automating skilled labor because it fetches a premium in the labor market—since such skills require time to cultivate and not all workers possess the requisite aptitude for it. As I explained above, socialists are most concerned with automating menial labor, so skilled blue collar workers and artisans cannot oppose socialism on that basis.

Second of all a lot of Socialism is very academic which obviously makes it look bad to blue collar workers.

The Marxist critique of political economy may be somewhat difficult for uneducated people to grasp, but socialist theory is really quite simple. To most proletarians, it's intuitively obvious that bourgeois social relations are exploitative and market remunerative norms are unjust, so it doesn't require much to assist them in overcoming false consciousness. Moreover, were you familiar with the history of socialism, you would be aware of the fact that blue collar workers constituted the nucleus of the socialist and syndicalist movements until the the 1950s (when Western capitalism began its "Golden Age").

Socialists use way too many big long words that nobody knows of. Blue collar workers usually dont like academic stuff ( and oftentimes academic people) so they are put off from Socialism because of that.

The failings of the contemporary Left are well known by the members of this forum. However, the use of obscure terminology in socialist leaflets and newspapers is the least of our problems, I assure you.

There are quite a few racists among blue collar workers ( especially loud and proud racists) and many more who dont shy away from telling Mexican jokes or screaming " fucking faggots " at the top of their lungs.

We are not interested in controlling language, but we most certainly are interested in creating unity among the working class, and casual racism, sexism, and homophobia obstructs that. (In my opinion, it's illogical to believe that any of the aforementioned forms of petty discrimination can be ended within capitalism, since much of it is attributable to market competition and pernicious religious dogmas, but it can be constrained long enough to achieve the class solidarity necessary to abolish capitalism. When humanity finally moves beyond the economics of competition and greed, I suspect that our ignoble traits will be mitigated to an extent.)

Also the general egalitarian spirit of Socialism doesnt fit well with the blue collar world.

The existence of millions of socialist and syndicalist blue collar workers throughout history suggests otherwise.

For example, anyone who has worked on a good bit of construction sites has seen the pecking orders that develop among the workers. Which oftentime end up as nothing more than the stronger man pushing around the weak one. Good amount of fistfights, lots of brawls happen because of macho attitudes.

Such archaic, divisive displays of masculinity should not be encouraged. Realistic people understand that humans vary with respect to their physical strength and cognitive abilities, but inequality in our genetic endowment doesn't legitimize abusing the less fortunate members of society.

Anyways I could go on but I think Ive gotten my main point across.

Once again, all you've gotten across is your ignorance regarding what socialists advocate.

Celtiberian wrote:You're presuming that the complete automation of work would prevent people from continuing to engage in creative labor, when there's absolutely no reason to suspect this will occur. Automation has the potential of freeing humanity from the need to perform socially necessary labor—i.e., labor performed to meet consumer demand. It would provide people with the opportunity to engage in whatever sort of labor they wish to in their extended leisure time.

Ah ok so then workers wouldnt have to work unless they wanted to? Well then how would people get paid? Guaranteed income? Free food and goods distribution? Or would everyone work as robot/machine builder, operators, maintainers etc and get paid for that? Sure tradesman wouldnt be pissed off at laws ( if you didnt declare that from now on only machines will do work) but I think many of them would look at this plan as pie in the sky bullshit ( which many other people would). Mean this really does sound like something from a sci fi movie.

The Marxist critique of political economy may be somewhat difficult for uneducated people to grasp, but socialist theory is really quite simple. To most proletarians, it's intuitively obvious that bourgeois social relations are exploitative and market remunerative norms are unjust, so it doesn't require much to assist them in overcoming false consciousness. Moreover, were you familiar with the history of socialism, you would be aware of the fact that blue collar workers constituted the nucleus of the socialist and syndicalist movements until the the 1950s (when Western capitalism began its "Golden Age").

Yes I know that blue collar workers were oftentimes socialists in the past but thats because socialism back then left all the bullshit in the books. Recruiters didnt talk about capitalism's contradictions or any such horseshit. At the street level it was all about " Look at these rich upper class fucks, their screwing you over, lets band together and smash the bastards". As you know now it doesnt go that way.

We are not interested in controlling language, but we most certainly are interested in creating unity among the working class, and casual racism, sexism, and homophobia obstructs that. (In my opinion, it's illogical to believe that any of the aforementioned forms of petty discrimination can be ended within capitalism, since much of it is attributable to market competition and pernicious religious dogmas, but it can be constrained long enough to achieve the class solidarity necessary to abolish capitalism. When humanity finally moves beyond the economics of competition and greed, I suspect that our ignoble traits will be mitigated to an extent.)

Unity among the working class? How and where? Some places it might work others it wont. But the point is your not gonna get rid of racism and certainly not fag bashing. Well then again fuck knows, with enough braintingling you might, but I hope that ship wont sail too far. Political correctness should die in an unmarked grave.

The existence of millions of socialist and syndicalist blue collar workers throughout history suggests otherwise.

The blue collar workers for Socialism were hardly in it because of the lets be equal mantra. Well generally speaking the whole point was similar to the purpose of the unions. Better standard of living not oh lets make sure everyone is equal in standing.

Such archaic, divisive displays of masculinity should not be encouraged. Realistic people understand that humans vary with respect to their physical strength and cognitive abilities, but inequality in our genetic endowment doesn't legitimize abusing the less fortunate members of society.

I dont support much of the pecking order stuff, especially when it turns to bullying or senseless fights. I never liked that but its there and its not going to go away.

Once again, all you've gotten across is your ignorance regarding what socialists advocate.

Dude I know ( and Im not honestly not ashamed to say) Im not a smart man but I do know what Socialism is . Yeah I have no clue about the finer details but you know Ive been in this forum business long enough to know the basics.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ah ok so then workers wouldnt have to work unless they wanted to?

Right.

Well then how would people get paid? Guaranteed income? Free food and goods distribution? Or would everyone work as robot/machine builder, operators, maintainers etc and get paid for that?

It would vary according to the state of automation and the availability of resources. Presumably, some goods would be plentiful enough to distribute on the basis of need, while others would need to be rationed more conservatively.

Sure tradesman wouldnt be pissed off at laws ( if you didnt declare that from now on only machines will do work) but I think many of them would look at this plan as pie in the sky bullshit ( which many other people would). Mean this really does sound like something from a sci fi movie.

Recall that it was you who brought up automation, not I. I've already had this debate elsewhere, so I'll simply say that I'm not aware of any socialist or communist organization that has the complete automation of labor as a central tenet in their economic program. (That isn't to say that they don't consider it a possibility, but they understand that the prospects of it remain remote for the foreseeable future, therefore rendering any conversation pertaining to automation necessarily speculative.) My response to you merely stressed that the trajectory of automation under socialism is going to be quite different from that currently experienced in capitalism, and I also argued that you were wrong in claiming that socialists place a priority on automating skilled labor (blue collar or otherwise).

Yes I know that blue collar workers were oftentimes socialists in the past but thats because socialism back then left all the bullshit in the books. Recruiters didnt talk about capitalism's contradictions or any such horseshit.

What's "horseshit" is your opposition to anything which demands that you exercise your cognitive faculties to an extent. That you can't wrap your mind around something as basic as a systemic contradiction doesn't mean that it's nonsensical, it just means that you should consider reading and thinking more often. Moreover, radical activists didn't need to utilize academic language in order to explain that capitalism's internal contradictions were harming the working class, they simply said things like 'capitalism is incapable of providing you with a decent standard of living' or 'the reason we're having to endure this economic crisis is because capitalism (not politicians or evil bankers) periodically creates them,' etc. People got the point.

At the street level it was all about " Look at these rich upper class fucks, their screwing you over, lets band together and smash the bastards". As you know now it doesnt go that way.

Class warfare rhetoric occasionally took those dimensions, but the arguments against capitalism were often more nuanced than that. Emphasizing the reality of wage slavery, for example, was very effective. And if socialist rhetoric has become more complex over the years, it's only because the arguments in favor of capitalism have become more sophisticated, thereby requiring of us more detailed criticisms of the system. You would be surprised by the amount of working class people who take bourgeois propaganda seriously today (just observe Ron Paul's massive following online), and if we can't offer coherent and persuasive responses to such rubbish, we're going to lose in the battle of ideas.

Unity among the working class? How and where?

There have been instances of it throughout history. If you're asking for concrete examples, research the Paris Commune, anarchist Barcelona, or the biennio rosso in Italy.

Some places it might work others it wont.

Its success depends entirely on material conditions and how effective radical movements are in organizing the working class.

But the point is your not gonna get rid of racism and certainly not fag bashing.

I didn't say that you could ever get rid of it—I suspect there will always be a few nitwits who derive satisfaction from belittling people who are different from themselves in some capacity—what I said was an economy structured around the principle of mutual aid would mitigate the frequency of such behavior. Even under capitalism, we have witnessed a marked decline in homophobia, sexism, and racism over the last 50 years.

The blue collar workers for Socialism were hardly in it because of the lets be equal mantra. Well generally speaking the whole point was similar to the purpose of the unions. Better standard of living not oh lets make sure everyone is equal in standing.

Again, incorrect. The promise of equality has been one of the most animating slogans in history, nearly every revolution has had to make use of it in order to amass support from the working classes. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is what encouraged the people of France to overthrow the ancien régime; during his activism, Peter Kropotkin was often struck "by the easiness with which they [workers and peasants] always accept Communist principles"; examples abound. As for socialism sharing similarities with unionism, the most successful radical unions in history, namely, the IWW and CNT/FAI, didn't adhere to the traditional union motto of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work." On the contrary, they demanded the "abolition of the wage system." The consciousness of workers who were/are members of socialist parties or syndicalist unions are far different from those involved with yellow unions.

The egalitarianism which socialists (and, when they transcend false consciousness, people in general) support isn't that of absolute equality, either. We find no problem in permitting individuals to receive a greater share of the social product if they work longer hours or suffer under more onerous conditions at their jobs. It is inequalities which derive from luck (in workmates, tools, capricious market conditions, or genetic endowment) which we consider to be unjust, and I believe this view resonates with humanity's sense of fairness.

Dude I know ( and Im not honestly not ashamed to say) Im not a smart man but I do know what Socialism is

First of all, I wasn't suggesting that you're not intelligent, I was stating that you're willfully ignorant. Secondly, you may know what socialism is in a general sense, but you're clearly ignorant regarding its history and, as you admit, the finer details of what it is we advocate.

Celtiberian wrote:It would vary according to the state of automation and the availability of resources. Presumably, some goods would be plentiful enough to distribute on the basis of need, while others would need to be rationed more conservatively.

Well life would in many ways be much easier with all the automation but that does make me think. I mean wouldnt people become a bunch of lazy slugs if they didnt have to work at all? Anyways yeah automation can have its own big thread but Im not too thrilled about it ( by the way, Im not exactly a Luddite, but Im not on the oh technologys so cool bandwagon either).

What's "horseshit" is your opposition to anything which demands that you exercise your cognitive faculties to an extent. That you can't wrap your mind around something as basic as a systemic contradiction doesn't mean that it's nonsensical, it means that you should consider reading and thinking more often. Moreover, radical activists didn't need to utilize academic language in order to explain that capitalism's internal contradictions were harming the working class, they simply said things like 'capitalism is incapable of providing you with a decent standard of living' or 'the reason we're having to endure this economic crisis is because capitalism (not politicians or evil bankers) periodically creates them,' etc. People got the point.


Class warfare rhetoric occasionally took those dimensions, but the arguments against capitalism were often more nuanced than that. Emphasizing the reality of wage slavery, for example, was very effective. And if socialist rhetoric has become more complex over the years, it's only because the arguments in favor of capitalism have become more sophisticated, thereby requiring of us more detailed criticisms of the system. You would be surprised by the amount of working class people who take bourgeois propaganda seriously today (just observe Ron Paul's massive following online), and if we can't offer coherent and persuasive responses to such rubbish, we're going to lose in the battle of ideas.

No honestly Im not against thinking I just think Socialists should write more plainly. For example why cant they simply use the word goods instead of " social products". I mean I can understand a lot of what I read ( especially if I have a dictionary as backup) but a lot of times getting through one paragraph is pretty tiring. As for Capitalist rhetoric becoming more complex, I aint too sure about that. Blue collar people look out more to election ads (than politician fanboy sites) which arent getting any more complex. Of course I may be wrong, but from what Ive seen pro Capitalist sites seem to be filled with conservative nerds and small businesspeople not blue collar workers.

I didn't say that you could ever get rid of it—I suspect there will always be a few nitwits who derive satisfaction from belittling people who are different from themselves in some capacity—what I said was an economy structured around the principle of mutual aid would mitigate the frequency of such behavior. Even under capitalism, we have witnessed a marked decline in homophobia, sexism, and racism over the last 50 years.

I think you place far too much power on economics. Capitalism didnt cause racism ( and other non PC attitudes) to go down, school and media propaganda did.

The egalitarianism which socialists (and, when they transcend false consciousness, people in general) support isn't that of absolute equality, either. We find no problem in permitting individuals to receive a higher share of the social product if they work longer hours or suffer under more onerous conditions at their jobs. It is inequalities which derive from luck (in workmates, tools, capricious market conditions, and genetic endowment) which we consider to be unjust, and I believe this view resonates with humanity's sense of fairness.

Ok maybe I hang out a little too much with the war metal crowd but even among blue collar workers who dont belong to that group, attitudes about equality dont seem to be way off. I mean honestly if you think about it egalitarianism doesnt fit well with the whole macho attitude thats still far from uncommon among blue collar workers. Yes I know what Im writing might sound come off like stock TV show shit, but believe it or not Ive been a blue collar worker basically all my life, and Im very familiar with this attitude.

First of all, I wasn't suggesting that you're not intelligent, I was stating that you're willfully ignorant. Secondly, you may know what socialism is in a general sense, but you're clearly ignorant regarding its history and, as you admit, the finer details of what it is we advocate.

Well ok Im ignorant but I dont think that matters right now since I didnt go after the finer details of Socialism.

DSN wrote:LULZ @ Admin's post.

The way you explain it makes it sound as though as soon as socialism comes about, every tradesman will have to give up his job to a robot and do something completely random like looking after old people (something a machine probably can't do). You seem to be under the impression that capitalism has not already taken advantage of such technology, or that if it has then it won't continue to do so if it benefits the people who make good use of it. Ever heard of a vending machine?

As for your 'big words' argument, you seem to be blind to the fact that workers have created successful movements and organised themselves very well without having English and economics tutors by their side teaching them how to read Marx. The French Revolution didn't happen because every single Frenchman studied revolutionary socialist literature at evening college courses when he came home from work. Sure, I've given people bits of Marx to read and they have absolutely no idea of what's being said, but thankfully socialism lives on past five billion pages of Das Kapital.

Moving on, political correctness does pose a threat when it comes to discussing things like immigration that are important to our cause, as well as on the completely opposite side of the page where you have the anti-brown worker shouting his hate for blacks and gays. Socialism doesn't have to associate itself with the liberal anarkiddies of the 21st century or try to please those who fall under that category, nor does it have to appeal to Nazi skinheads. If there is one thing that will largely break the hatred and and blame put on certain ethnic groups (be it blacks, whites, Jews etc.), it will be the exposure of the true enemy of the relevant ethnic working class. White nationalists already seem to recognise capitalism—more specifically the form it presents itself in currently—as a threat to their people. Their understanding of it is, however, significantly different from ours. Black supremacists may partly blame capitalism for their oppression, but also largely rely on the whole "white devil" nonsense to gain support for their cause. I suppose Obama isn't black enough in their eyes to be considered a contradiction to their silly little ideas.

And just to finish, this made me laugh:

Rebel Wa wrote:Also the general egalitarian spirit of Socialism doesnt fit well with the blue collar world. For example, anyone who has worked on a good bit of construction sites has seen the pecking orders that develop among the workers. Which oftentime end up as nothing more than the stronger man pushing around the weak one. Good amount of fistfights, lots of brawls happen because of macho attitudes. Which are pretty much all about " Im the big man and Im gonna show all these fuckers that I am". This type of thinking obviously goes against the lets have everyone be equal in standing view of Socialism. And of course many Socialists are put off by blue collar workers because they dont like drunkenness, loud chaotic fun, brawls, and all the loutish stuff because of their background ( which is often intellectual).

This is largely true in many working class people, and it would be silly for me to deny it, but the way you explain it would make me think that every working class person looks, sounds and acts like the big fat guy in the bomber jacket:

Oh come on man, I did write there are exceptions. But to be fair, yes you do have a point since many younger new generation blue collar workers have accepted white collar ideals and are pretty PC to boot.

Red Aegis wrote:"Blue collar" is a term used to describe the general worker. White collar refers to middle to upper management and professionals.

People who work in restaurants, shopping malls, and warehouses are blue collar and so are their immediate managers. You have your definitions wrong.

I dont like arguing about words but here's why I use blue collar when talking about manual workers: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blue-collar

1- I don't think that you know what Socialism is.
2- You are still using the wrong definition of blue collar.
3- You should really read at least some literature, come on.

Ok I might look into Proudhon and other non Marxist books. Anyhow I do know what Socialism is.

There are plenty of easily accessible Marxian economists out there that don't use "big words". I'm also offended for much of the proletariat for your making them out to be dumb brutes. They are not as stupid as you make them sound, whether you meant to or not.

Ok I could have been clearer but I never wrote blue collar workers are put off by Marxism because they cant read. The reason is mainly because they would rather do something else rather than sift through lengthy tiresome writings, which is how way too many Socialist authors write.

Fuck racism! Fuck sexism!

These are reactionary views and propaganda must fight these views. These reactionary ideas will be easier to fight without Capitalism, but I still combat racism and sexism where ever I find them..

If you want to be an anti racist go ahead. Just keep in mind that your support of it isnt revolutionary at all since the System supports it completely. Like it or love it racists ( escpecially loud and proud ones) are the true rebels of today.

I'm sorry that you worked with a bunch of assholes. It wasn't that way for me. Anyway, who says that I don't like drunkenness, loud fun, and brawls sometimes? I've done my share of partying and will do more but that doesn't mean that I can't be a socialist. Your experience is narrow.

I think my experience and background are enough to speak about this

You seem to have several stereotypes in your mind. The first being that all tradesman are hooligans, and the second being that socialists are intellectual snobs.

Ah come on how is writing about bar brawls and drunkenness being commoner among tradesman the same as saying their hooligans? Hooligans fight everywhere not just bars. And no not all Socialists are snobs just their ideals are out of touch with the blue collar class. Maybe I could have been clearer but I did mention there are exceptions ( and yes those exceptions arent few at all).

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:If you want to be an anti racist go ahead. Just keep in mind that your support of it isnt revolutionary at all since the System supports it completely. Like it or love it racists ( escpecially loud and proud ones) are the true rebels of today.

As if the members of this forum needed yet another reason to cease taking you seriously...

"Racists are the true rebels of today"? Wow. How can anyone respond to this complete crap?

"The System supports it completely"? If you are referring to capitalism, indeed it perpetuates it. Yet another reason to say 'fuck you' to capitalism. If you are referring to the system we advocate, you have no actual evidence or way to prove this. All you have is your ridiculous opinion.

So...

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: I dont like arguing about words but here's why I use blue collar when talking about manual workers: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blue-collar

Alright. I'll concede your definition. Just know that there are others.

Ok I might look into Proudhon and other non Marxist books. Anyhow I do know what Socialism is.

I doubt it but I'm not going to discourage you from reading theory.

Ok I could have been clearer but I never wrote blue collar workers are put off by Marxism because they cant read. The reason is mainly because they would rather do something else rather than sift through lengthy tiresome writings, which is how way too many Socialist authors write.

They don't have to be theoretical scholars to be class conscious. All they need to know is how they are being exploited, by whom, and why. You don't need to read Marx for that, but it helps, especially with the details.

Given that, Socialism doesn't have to be for dusty book worms. It can be obvious to a child if it's pointed out correctly.

If you want to be an anti racist go ahead. Just keep in mind that your support of it isnt revolutionary at all since the System supports it completely. Like it or love it racists ( escpecially loud and proud ones) are the true rebels of today.

The system also supports buying food. Should I stop eating? Would that make me revolutionary?

I don't care to change the parts that are right. I care to change that which is wrong.

Also, racism is stupid on it's face, which ever color that face is. I'm also anti-stupid.

Ah come on how is writing about bar brawls and drunkenness being commoner among tradesman the same as saying their hooligans? Hooligans fight everywhere not just bars. And no not all Socialists are snobs just their ideals are out of touch with the blue collar class. Maybe I could have been clearer but I did mention there are exceptions ( and yes those exceptions arent few at all).

Being drunk is not being a hooligan. Being a macho asshole who fights all the time when he gets drunk and looks like an idiot is a hooligan. You can drink and have a good time without being an ass.

I think you should revise your statement from being about the ideals of the working class to being against the ideals of ignorant drunkards that fight all the time. Most workers, ones that work with their hands or not, don't act like that in my experience. In fact people that do act like that are looked down as "that guy".

Altair wrote:As if the members of this forum needed yet another reason to cease taking you seriously...

"Racists are the true rebels of today"? Wow. How can anyone respond to this complete crap?

"The System supports it completely"? If you are referring to capitalism, indeed it perpetuates it. Yet another reason to say 'fuck you' to capitalism. If you are referring to the system we advocate, you have no actual evidence or way to prove this. All you have is your ridiculous opinion.

So...

Since you asked every institution ( whether it be government, major church, corporation, etc) that has power in the Western World is against racism. There are countless examples supporting this, Ill get into a few here. Anyone who has been through the US public school system knows what stance teachers take about racism. In some European countries you can get locked up for saying racist things or at the very least fined. To top it off in Europe you can even get in trouble for wearing certain symbols on your clothing that can be considered racist. In almost every Western country you run the risk of losing your job if you say something racist at work. Not to mention the messages the media sends about racism. So yeah racists are the true rebels of today because they are definitely going against the Establishment's view.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Since you asked every institution ( whether it be government, major church, corporation, etc) that has power in the Western World is against racism. There are countless examples supporting this, Ill get into a few here. Anyone who has been through the US public school system knows what stance teachers take about racism. In some European countries you can get locked up for saying racist things or at the very least fined. To top it off in Europe you can even get in trouble for wearing certain symbols on your clothing that can be considered racist. In almost every Western country you run the risk of losing your job if you say something racist at work. Not to mention the messages the media sends about racism. So yeah racists are the true rebels of today because they are definitely going against the Establishment's view.

You really got me there.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Well life would in many ways be much easier with all the automation but that does make me think. I mean wouldnt people become a bunch of lazy slugs if they didnt have to work at all?

I doubt it. Individuals attain self-realization in creative work, whether or not it's compelled by necessity. That is why people who work full-time jobs still take the time to start projects in their leisure time, such as restoring classic cars or learning how to paint. Would you say that retired people are "lazy slugs"? I certainly wouldn't. They continue to derive satisfaction from learning and working, and they frequently travel, spend time with their families, participate in civic life, and engage in other useful activities.

Anyways yeah automation can have its own big thread but Im not too thrilled about it ( by the way, Im not exactly a Luddite, but Im not on the oh technologys so cool bandwagon either).

It's reasonable to maintain a degree of skepticism regarding automation, particularly when you don't have any influence over the direction it takes—as in capitalism.

No honestly Im not against thinking I just think Socialists should write more plainly.

Despite what you think, socialists generally understand their audience. When we're talking with economists or philosophers, we utilize the terminology and arguments appropriate for those disciplines; when we're dealing with laypeople on the street, we keep things very basic. Honestly, what is so complicated about materials such as these?:







Socialism Made Easy by James Connolly.

For example why cant they simply use the word goods instead of " social products".

Because goods refer to particular items of consumption, whereas social product (not "social products") refers to the totality of goods which society produces. It's simple to define and therefore shouldn't be abandoned by activists.

I mean I can understand a lot of what I read ( especially if I have a dictionary as backup) but a lot of times getting through one paragraph is pretty tiring.

When you decide to read a treatise on socialism (or any other subject), you must possess a certain amount of ardor in order to succeed in fully comprehending the material, otherwise you'll quit the moment it becomes slightly difficult. Some people don't require much convincing to accept the basic tenets of socialism, whereas others may find the idea intriguing but require further details regarding how such a society would function before committing to the economic philosophy. The latter group usually have the requisite intellectual competency and interest to succeed in acquiring a better understanding of the topic, but, for those who don't, simple visual media and pamphlets are readily available.

As for Capitalist rhetoric becoming more complex, I aint too sure about that.

It's not so much the rhetoric itself, but rather the philosophical justifications for the system which have gotten more sophisticated. Moreover, when you're confronted with a proletarian who defends capitalism on the basis of 'liberty,' for instance, you need to be able to understand what s/he means by this and how to counter the notion that liberty is compatible with capitalism, as well as how to articulate that it's hardly the only value which people interested in leading an ethical and dignified existence should consider.

I think you place far too much power on economics. Capitalism didnt cause racism ( and other non PC attitudes) to go down, school and media propaganda did.

As Noam Chomsky explains in Understanding Power (p. 89), "identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance." In other words, the chief reason anti-racist programs have been promoted in our educational institutions and the media is because racism is a hindrance to capital accumulation, and this has actually had somewhat of a beneficial effect on race relations. However, an economy fundamentally organized around the principle of mutual aid would accomplish more in the way of ameliorating racial tensions (again, not completely but significantly).

Ok maybe I hang out a little too much with the war metal crowd but even among blue collar workers who dont belong to that group, attitudes about equality dont seem to be way off. I mean honestly if you think about it egalitarianism doesnt fit well with the whole macho attitude thats still far from uncommon among blue collar workers.

There is a difference between being an aggressive macho dipshit and supporting systems which foster an inegalitarian distribution of resources and opportunities. There is a reason why blue collar workers in labor-managed firms, for example, frequently democratically decide on a relatively even distribution of income in their workplaces: they believe that it is the fair thing to do.

Well ok Im ignorant but I dont think that matters right now since I didnt go after the finer details of Socialism.

But you did. You argued that socialists demand that skilled blue collar work be automated, when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

Red Aegis wrote:Alright. I'll concede your definition. Just know that there are others.

Fair enough

They don't have to be theoretical scholars to be class conscious. All they need to know is how they are being exploited, by whom, and why. You don't need to read Marx for that, but it helps, especially with the details.

Given that, Socialism doesn't have to be for dusty book worms. It can be obvious to a child if it's pointed out correctly.

Ok sure but I still think Socialists ( especially Socialist authors) should be a bit plainer when writing about things. My main issue with Socialism is that its basically egalitarian by the way.

The system also supports buying food. Should I stop eating? Would that make me revolutionary?

I don't care to change the parts that are right. I care to change that which is wrong.

Also, racism is stupid on it's face, which ever color that face is. I'm also anti-stupid.

Well I dont want to steer way off course since this thread is about blue collar ideals ( I only brought up racism to point out the blue collar mindset is totally un PC) but no you dont have to be a racist to be revolutionary it just pisses me off when people pretend anti racism is revolutionary when its totally not the case.

Being drunk is not being a hooligan. Being a macho asshole who fights all the time when he gets drunk and looks like an idiot is a hooligan. You can drink and have a good time without being an ass.

I think you should revise your statement from being about the ideals of the working class to being against the ideals of ignorant drunkards that fight all the time. Most workers, ones that work with their hands or not, don't act like that in my experience. In fact people that do act like that are looked down as "that guy".

Yes yes I could have been clearer but what I was trying to get across is drinking, loud rowdy fun, and brawling are a part of the blue collar lifestyle and reflect if you will that class's ideals.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ok sure but I still think Socialists ( especially Socialist authors) should be a bit plainer when writing about things. My main issue with Socialism is that its basically egalitarian by the way.

Do wut? I'm presuming you're anti-statist from your given tendency, but you promote inegalitarianism? What's this nonsense about socialist authors needing to be more 'clear' in their own writing? I find that if you're not a moron, you should be able to understand their writings as much as one can understand the writings of a Capitalist, a Fascist, a Liberal, a Conservative, or an anarchist.

So you're saying that the blue collar class should be permitted to indulge in degeneracy, brawling, as well as other forms of self-destructive behaviour both harmful to themselves & the society around them due to the mere fact "muh blue c0llar lifestylez"?

You're funny.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Well I dont want to steer way off course since this thread is about blue collar ideals ( I only brought up racism to point out the blue collar mindset is totally un PC) but no you dont have to be a racist to be revolutionary it just pisses me off when people pretend anti racism is revolutionary when its totally not the case.

I think you're confusing us with RevLeft.

All American Protectorate wrote:Do wut? I'm presuming you're anti-statist from your given tendency, but you promote inegalitarianism? What's this nonsense about socialist authors needing to be more 'clear' in their own writing? I find that if you're not a moron, you should be able to understand their writings as much as one can understand the writings of a Capitalist, a Fascist, a Liberal, a Conservative, or an anarchist.

So you're saying that the blue collar class should be permitted to indulge in degeneracy, brawling, as well as other forms of self-destructive behaviour both harmful to themselves & the society around them due to the mere fact "muh blue c0llar lifestylez"?

You're funny.

Yes you can call me an anti statist, I dont see how that stops me from being anti egalitarian. I dont really want to repeat myself with the clearer writing thing. Its enough to say that using big ass words doesnt help you get your point across to most people which is what most Socialists want last time I checked.

How is getting drunk and brawling in your spare time degenerate and self destructive?

Celtiberian wrote:I doubt it. Individuals attain self-realization in creative work, whether or not it's compelled by necessity. That is why people who work full-time jobs still take the time to start projects in their leisure time, such as restoring classic cars or learning how to paint. Would you say that retired people are "lazy slugs"? I certainly wouldn't. They continue to derive satisfaction from learning and working, and they frequently travel, spend time with their families, participate in civic life, and engage in other useful activities.

I cant say anything for sure. Nonetheless I wouldnt be surprised if everyone's local couch potato chapter would grow tenfold if automation became that widespread. Not that Id care, but it would kind of be in the way of making society better ( which is what I think Socialists want).

Despite what you think, socialists generally understand their audience. When we're talking with economists or philosophers, we utilize the terminology and arguments appropriate for those disciplines; when we're dealing with laypeople on the street, we keep things very basic. Honestly, what is so complicated about materials such as these?:







Socialism Made Easy by James Connolly.

Nothings hard to understand about that stuff. I was only talking about books.

Because goods refer to particular items of consumption, whereas social product (not "social products") refers to the totality of goods which society produces. It's simple to define and therefore shouldn't be abandoned by activists.

Ah all it boils down to is wordplay. Socialists can use whatever words they like they shoudl just keep in mind that many people ( like me) might find their writings tiresome.

When you decide to read a treatise on socialism (or any other subject), you must possess a certain amount of ardor in order to succeed in fully comprehending the material, otherwise you'll quit the moment it becomes slightly difficult. Some people don't require much convincing to accept the basic tenets of socialism, whereas others may find the idea intriguing but require further details regarding how such a society would function before committing to the economic philosophy. The latter group usually have the requisite intellectual competency and interest to succeed in acquiring a better understanding of the topic, but, for those who don't, simple visual media and pamphlets are readily available.

Ive tried my hand at both and neither made me a waver of the red flag. But hey its not like I need to be.

As Noam Chomsky explains in Understanding Power (p. 89), "identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance." In other words, the chief reason anti-racist programs have been promoted in our educational institutions and the media is because racism is a hindrance to capital accumulation, and this has actually had somewhat of a beneficial effect on race relations. However, an economy fundamentally organized around the principle of mutual aid would accomplish more in the way of ameliorating racial tensions (again, not completely but significantly).

Good point but I still say its half and half. Intellectuals started the whole anti racist ideology and they still push it as well.

There is a difference between being an aggressive macho dipshit and supporting systems which foster an inegalitarian distribution of resources and opportunities. There is a reason why blue collar workers in labor-managed firms, for example, frequently democratically decide on a relatively even distribution of income in their workplaces: they believe that it is the fair thing to do.

Equality is seen as being a pansy thing by many blue collar workers. If you think about it men can be pretty competitive by nature which gets in the way of equal income, standing, etc. I mean surely you must have seen that in say high school. Guys trying to outdo each other in everything from sports to cars. Basically trying to be conquerors if you will. Since the blue collar world is often pretty macho conqueror type, many blue collar workers think acting like a conqueror is part of being a man. Therefore cries for equality are viewed as cries against manhood itself. Since equality would crush the conqueror thing. Of course there are blue collar workers for equality but theres always going to be a core thats against this.

But you did. You argued that socialists demand that skilled blue collar work be automated, when there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

Well I thought wanting more automation would apply to skilled work as well.

DSN wrote:I think you're confusing us with RevLeft.

Yeah that was a pointless post but thats what happens if you stay up too late.

Altair wrote:You really got me there.

You asked so I answered, it really is no secret as to what the German government ( f.ex) does to racists.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ok sure but I still think Socialists ( especially Socialist authors) should be a bit plainer when writing about things. My main issue with Socialism is that its basically egalitarian by the way.

Celtiberian pointed out that they do when they are talking to the general population. Look at the Communist Manifesto and compare it to this part of Capital vol. 1. They are written differently for different audiences.

Well I dont want to steer way off course since this thread is about blue collar ideals ( I only brought up racism to point out the blue collar mindset is totally un PC) but no you dont have to be a racist to be revolutionary it just pisses me off when people pretend anti racism is revolutionary when its totally not the case.

It is not a revolutionary mindset since it doesn't cause the person to want to change class relations in the way that I'm talking about. It is; however, a good mindset. Race should never be used to divide people of anything and wanting it to is reactionary. Again, Celtiberian mentioned this. In regards to your base contention above, I know plenty of working people that work with their hands that are disgusted with racism in any real sense, most certainly they are against institutionalizing it. They may enjoy a racist joke now and again but that doesn't make them racist.

Yes yes I could have been clearer but what I was trying to get across is drinking, loud rowdy fun, and brawling are a part of the blue collar lifestyle and reflect if you will that class's ideals.

I think that it is a much smaller part than you are making it out to be. I think that familial fidelity is a much larger part as well as self-reliance and decency. All of these things would be easier to maintain and foster under Socialism.