Working Class and Other Stuff

So howdy folks its me again. Yeah I wrote I wouldnt be posting again, but Ive gotten a little tired of my usual day so I think Ill give posting another shot. I cant promise if Ill post more or not but here it goes:

So really Ive been doing some thinking in the past few hours and Ive changed a lot. First of all I cant call myself anything anymore really. I guess Im still a Nationalist since Im proud of my heritage and I still want the best for my people but honestly I swing towards being a hater of this vile thing called the human race. People ( no matter what nationality) can be such letdowns that I dont understand why the fuck I even care about stuff like national independence. I really dont want to sound like some whiner but really why should someone care about their Nation when many of its members could care less about them? Thats food for thought for me at least.

Also this Socialist thing. Guys I still dont like Capitalism, I fucking hate it. But I dont know if I can say Im a Socialist. I mean I still lean that way its just there is no solid example of a country's economy being based totally on worker cooperatives. So until its tried I see no reason to be sure of it 100%. Im all for trying it out but Im not sure of it.

Another thing I want to bring up is why does everyone use such big words on this forum? I know Im guilty of it ( mainly because of everyone else doing so) but come on guys cant you try toning it down? I mean using words like materialism or heuristic is what professors do. Not everyday working people. I mean if you want to stand up for the working class you should be more working class. Mean honestly there needs to be more drinking, gambling, womanizing, fistfighting, football watching, etc among socialists. Hell maybe there is but Im seeing too much academic crap no offence. Point is if you want to be for the working class you should be one of them or like them.

Also I dont see the point of coming up with good solutions anymore. I mean yeah yeah its good for a while ( if your into some intellectual stuff) but at the end of the day I just want to grab a bottle of whiskey, put on my Arrow Cross helmet, and do some demonic screams while hammering away at my guitar. Cause really everything has been pretty crappy throughout history. And one guy cant do much about it. Riding the wave as best you can is the most you can do.

Anyhow I could go on but this is the end for now. I know this is going to look like emotional bullshit to most of you ( which is okay) but honestly Im not trying to get any sympathy or anything like that. This thread has been pretty rambling but the point of it is criticism. So yeah I put more stock in alcohol, heavy metal, and motorbikes than in any ism because I think most of these concepts suck somewhere.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:So really Ive been doing some thinking in the past few hours and Ive changed a lot. First of all I cant call myself anything anymore really. I guess Im still a Nationalist since Im proud of my heritage and I still want the best for my people but honestly I swing towards being a hater of this vile thing called the human race. People ( no matter what nationality) can be such letdowns that I dont understand why the fuck I even care about stuff like national independence. I really dont want to sound like some whiner but really why should someone care about their Nation when many of its members could care less about them? Thats food for thought for me at least.

This paragraph is utterly contradictory. One the one hand, you claim to be 'proud of your heritage' and desire the 'best for your people,' yet go on to declare your revulsion toward humanity. If human beings are intrinsically contemptible, why would you admire your ancestry at all or wish well for any particular group of people? We all encounter loathsome individuals throughout our life, but that alone isn't an adequate basis for outright misanthropy. If you can truly observe human suffering and injustice with complete indifference, perhaps it is appropriate for you to reconsider your commitment to socialism and/or nationalism—though I cannot fathom how anyone could without being a sociopath.

there is no solid example of a country's economy being based totally on worker cooperatives.

Of course there are. Socialist Yugoslavia between 1950 and 1990 was such an example, as were the syndicalist districts in Spain prior to Francisco Franco's coup d'etat. For much of its existence, Yugoslavia's socialist market economy performed quite admirably. (The hyperinflation and indebtedness which eventually ruined the nation's economy were attributable to the underhanded trade deals entered into with the West and the regime's flawed system of finance, which are extraneous to the efficiency of worker cooperatives.) And what the anarchist collectives and rural communes in Spain achieved from 1936-1939 was nothing short of incredible; it's a tragedy that we'll never know what else the system could have accomplished.

So, unless you can articulate cogent criticisms of the theory of workers' self-management, or socialism more broadly, I see no reason why you should abandon the entire socialist project.

Another thing I want to bring up is why does everyone use such big words on this forum? I know Im guilty of it ( mainly because of everyone else doing so) but come on guys cant you try toning it down? I mean using words like materialism or heuristic is what professors do. Not everyday working people. I mean if you want to stand up for the working class you should be more working class. Mean honestly there needs to be more drinking, gambling, womanizing, fistfighting, football watching, etc among socialists. Hell maybe there is but Im seeing too much academic crap no offence. Point is if you want to be for the working class you should be one of them or like them.

Many members of the forum (myself included) are students, some of whom are interested in actually becoming tenured academicians. If you find our discourse disagreeable, you are always free to start your own threads or respond to ours using terminology more to your liking. None of us are under the illusion that the working class are going to turn to internet forums for revolutionary inspiration or guidance, so alienating laymen with obscure terminology is not really of concern to us. It is the task of radical organizations to provide accessible and easily comprehensible literature and visual media to the masses.

Also I dont see the point of coming up with good solutions anymore. I mean yeah yeah its good for a while ( if your into some intellectual stuff) but at the end of the day I just want to grab a bottle of whiskey, put on my Arrow Cross helmet, and do some demonic screams while hammering away at my guitar.

If your sole interest in life is escapism, then solutions are obviously useless to you. However, some of us understand that material forces are currently at work which are gradually diminishing the false consciousness which has pacified the working class for generations, and this process is going to provide us with an opportunity for revolution.

Cause really everything has been pretty crappy throughout history. And one guy cant do much about it. Riding the wave as best you can is the most you can do.

Things have always been bad to an extent, but the trajectory of history has undoubtedly been progressive. As for individuals being incapable of changing anything, that's true and precisely why collective action is necessary.

Celtiberian wrote:This paragraph is utterly contradictory. One the one hand, you claim to be 'proud of your heritage' and desire the 'best for your people,' yet go on to declare your revulsion toward humanity. If human beings are intrinsically contemptible, why would you admire your ancestry at all or wish well for any particular group of people? We all encounter loathsome individuals throughout our life, but that alone isn't an adequate basis for outright misanthropy. If you can truly observe human suffering and injustice with complete indifference, perhaps it is appropriate for you to reconsider your commitment to socialism and/or nationalism—though I cannot fathom how anyone could without being a sociopath.

I know it doesnt make sense but that is just how I think. I just sometimes hate the whole human race which makes me doubt why I even bother with Nationalism or Socialism.

Of course there are. Tito's Yugoslavia between 1950 and 1990 was such an example, as were the syndicalist districts in Spain prior to Francisco Franco's coup d'etat. For much of its existence, Yugoslavia's socialist market economy performed quite admirably. (The hyperinflation and indebtedness which eventually ruined the nation's economy were attributable to the underhanded trade deals entered into with the West and the regime's flawed system of finance, which are extraneous to the efficiency of worker cooperatives.) And what the anarchist collectives and rural communes in Spain achieved from 1936-1939 was nothing short of incredible; it's a tragedy that we'll never know what else the system could have accomplished.

So, unless you can articulate cogent criticisms of the theory of workers' self-management, or socialism more broadly, I see no reason why you should abandon the entire socialist project.

Well okay Yugoslavia but what if it turns out not to work somewhere else? I mean how do you know it will work in your country until you actually try it?

Many members of the forum (myself included) are students, some of whom are interested in actually becoming tenured academicians. If you find our discourse disagreeable, you are always free to start your own threads or respond to ours using terminology more to your liking. None of us are under the illusion that the working class are going to turn to internet forums for revolutionary inspiration or guidance, so alienating laymen with obscure terminology is not really of concern to us. It is the task of radical organizations to provide accessible and easily comprehensible literature and visual media to the masses.

Well sure. You can write how you want . It just looks weird which is why I asked. Oh and by the way why is there a big sign near the bottom of the forum that has racism and sexism crossed out? I mean didnt many of you write that focusing on stuff like that is pointless? I mean I see nothing wrong with racism. Heck Im a racist more or less. Of course Ive left all the " lets save the white race" crap behind now ( plus I tend to hate on all humans) but I still dont like nonwhites for some reason. Also I think its really fun to do racist stuff like shout things about blacks and Jews while gulping Jagermeister on the street corner with my skinhead buddies. It just pisses uptight people off and I like that.

Things have always been bad to an extent, but the trajectory of history has undoubtedly been progressive. As for individuals being incapable of changing anything, that's true and precisely why collective action is necessary.

To be honest this is a pretty useless thread. I only wrote it cause I felt like taking stabs at my beliefs ( which I cant take too seriously anymore) but the point is I see things in a different light now.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Also I think its really fun to do racist stuff like shout things about blacks and Jews while gulping Jagermeister on the street corner with my skinhead buddies. It just pisses uptight people off and I like that.

It's always fun to do things in groups.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I know it doesnt make sense but that is just how I think.

It doesn't trouble you to know that you're being irrational?

I just sometimes hate the whole human race which makes me doubt why I even bother with Nationalism or Socialism.

You don't know the "whole human race," so it's rather silly to claim that you hate everyone. Moreover, you're a member of the human species, so are you implying that you also hate yourself at times? No offense, but it's beginning to seem as though you've developed some psychological issues recently. Either that or you're just not being serious.

Well okay Yugoslavia but what if it turns out not to work somewhere else? I mean how do you know it will work in your country until you actually try it?

The socialist model practiced in the SFRY was basically the generalization of workers' self-management, public ownership of the means of production, and a nationalized financial sector. Since successful examples of worker cooperatives can be found on every continent and in virtually every economic sector, I see no reason to suspect that a socialist market economy might not function in certain countries. The same applies to centralized economic planning. Participatory socialism is slightly different, since the entire model hasn't been adequately experimented with as of yet; but I've found no glaring theoretical issues which would lead me to believe that it's infeasible.

Oh and by the way why is there a big sign near the bottom of the forum that has racism and sexism crossed out?

So as to discourage Nazis, racists, and/or sexists from registering under the false impression that the left-nationalism espoused by the Socialist Phalanx in anyway corresponds with such views.

I mean didnt many of you write that focusing on stuff like that is pointless?

It is counterproductive for political organizations to push peripheral social issues to the fore (class struggle must take precedence over all else). That doesn't mean that racism or sexism should be actively encouraged, though.

I mean I see nothing wrong with racism. Heck Im a racist more or less.

You don't see anything wrong with oppressing people simply because of the race they were born into?

Also I think its really fun to do racist stuff like shout things about blacks and Jews while gulping Jagermeister on the street corner with my skinhead buddies. It just pisses uptight people off and I like that.

Forgive me if I'm overgeneralizing, but, apart from working, your life basically consists of "shouting things about blacks and Jews while gulping Jägermeister on the street corner" with your skinhead friends (in order to anger "uptight people"), and wearing an "Arrow Cross helmet" whilst 'screaming demonically' as you 'hammer away' at your guitar? Aside from being easily amused, do you honestly consider this a particularly respectable or meaningful existence?

Meanwhile, parents are having an increasingly difficult time feeding their children because of the economic situation, working people (like yourself) remain wage slaves, imperial wars rage across the world, and the capitalists' political representatives are succeeding in dismantling the remnants of the social safety net across Europe and North America. It's one thing for the masses not to respond to all this—since they're struggling to survive at this point, and are still misled by bourgeois disinformation (i.e., they possess a false consciousness)—but you should know better. You already understand exploitation, capitalism's internal contradictions, class conflict, and so forth; so it's especially shameful for you to disregard that reality and instead choose to focus your attention exclusively on trivial nonsense. Your interests as a proletarian are objectively linked to the rest of the working class, so why not advance them once again by being an active participant in the struggle for socialism?

Celtiberian wrote:It doesn't trouble you to know that you're being irrational?

No I dont mind that Im being irrational. I mean most people are irrational in one way or another. I mean could someone give me a logical reason as to why they prefer ranch dressing over Caesar?

You don't know the "whole human race," so it's rather silly to claim that you hate everyone. Moreover, you're a member of the human species, so are you implying that you also hate yourself at times? No offense, but it's beginning to seem as though you've developed some psychological issues recently. Either that or you're just not being serious.

No Im honestly being serious here. I can do pathetic stuff but making a thread just to troll isnt one of them. Let me put it this way: Im not a hardcore people hater, I just do so from time to time and overall Im really cynical about everything and everyone.

The socialist model practiced in the SFRY was basically the generalization of workers' self-management, public ownership of the means of production, and a nationalized financial sector. Since successful examples of worker cooperatives can be found on every continent and in virtually every economic sector, I see no reason to suspect that a socialist market economy might not function in certain countries. The same applies to centralized economic planning. Participatory socialism is slightly different, since the entire model hasn't been adequately experimented with as of yet; but I've found no glaring theoretical issues which would lead me to believe that it's infeasible.

Believe me Im all for trying this market socialist thing out, Im just not sure its 100% possible until its tried out.

So as to discourage Nazis, racists, and/or sexists from registering under the false impression that the left-nationalism espoused by the Socialist Phalanx in anyway corresponds with such views.

Well okay fair enough your forum. I guess Ill just have to be the resident racist white trash biker redneck metalhead eh? ( Excuse me for this jest if it sounds too corny).

You don't see anything wrong with oppressing people simply because of the race they were born into?

No I dont believe in keeping any race down ( that would be like bullying and I hate that). I just dont like nonwhites which makes me a racist more or less.

Forgive me if I'm overgeneralizing, but, apart from working, your life basically consists of "shouting things about blacks and Jews while gulping Jägermeister on the street corner" with your skinhead friends (in order to anger "uptight people"), and wearing an "Arrow Cross helmet" whilst 'screaming demonically' as you 'hammer away' at your guitar? Aside from being easily amused, do you honestly consider this a particularly respectable or meaningful existence?

Meanwhile, parents are having an increasingly difficult time feeding their children because of the economic situation, working people (like yourself) remain wage slaves, imperial wars rage across the world, and the capitalists' political representatives are succeeding in dismantling the remnants of the social safety net across Europe and North America. It's one thing for the masses not to respond to all this—since they're struggling to survive at this point, and are still misled by bourgeois disinformation (i.e., they possess a false consciousness)—but you should know better. You already understand exploitation, capitalism's internal contradictions, class conflict, and so forth; so it's especially shameful for you to disregard that reality and instead choose to focus your attention exclusively on trivial nonsense. Your interests as a proletarian are objectively linked to the rest of the working class, so why not advance them once again by being an active participant in the struggle for socialism?

No thats not my whole life, I do plenty of other stuff ( even some " nerdy" stuff like read history books), but yeah I do lots of stuff you only see in bad parodies or at your local chapter of the crazy hessians fraternity. Do I think my life is respectable? Absolutely not. Meaningful? Yes because I like what I do. Now anyways forgive me for making this thread too personal but I couldnt think of a better way to try and get my point across. Which is all worldviews ( if you will) seem to be lacking somewhere. I mean Ive tried believing in many different worldviews ( from Traditional Catholicism and White Nationalism to Socialism and degrowth ideas) but they have all turned out to be either too narrow, lacking in sense, or just simply not watertight enough. If you wish I can go deeper but for now that is basically all I have to say on my part. Now granted I may be totally overlooking some things, since Im after all just a rookie in these things. I mean I am a nothing ( when it comes to intellectual stuff) compared to people like Proudhon, Fichte, Voltaire, hell even John Zerzan. But Ive tried to find sense in many different ideas and its simply not working. As for the rest of your paragraph, Id be lying if I said Im totally apathetic. I mean to some extent I still care about things like justice for the working man or freedom for the nation. Its just that Im not too sure of these things and Im pretty cynical. But yeah if the time comes for some sort of Socialist, Nationalist, whatever revolt Ill join it. Im just not sure Ill stick to it through the end, since things can get stale very fast.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:No I dont mind that Im being irrational.

Interesting. In that case, you must not take yourself too seriously.

I mean most people are irrational in one way or another.

That may be so, but anyone with a of modicum of intelligence at least aspires to be rational.

I mean could someone give me a logical reason as to why they prefer ranch dressing over Caesar?

That's a false analogy. There is obviously no logical basis for subjective preferences, but it is objectively irrational to hold mutually exclusive views.

Im not a hardcore people hater, I just do so from time to time and overall Im really cynical about everything and everyone.

It's normal to be somewhat cynical at times, but I don't find apathy excusable as a result.

No I dont believe in keeping any race down ( that would be like bullying and I hate that). I just dont like nonwhites which makes me a racist more or less.

Preferring the company of a certain race doesn't qualify as racism as far as I'm concerned. Shouting racial slurs, however, does. I don't consider it anything worthy of legislating against, or what have you, but I do consider it mean-spirited, juvenile, and unnecessary.

I mean Ive tried believing in many different worldviews ( from Traditional Catholicism and White Nationalism to Socialism and degrowth ideas) but they have all turned out to be either too narrow, lacking in sense, or just simply not watertight enough. If you wish I can go deeper but for now that is basically all I have to say on my part.

I am genuinely interested in exactly what you consider "too narrow, lacking in sense, or just simply not watertight enough" about socialism. I would appreciate if you could expound on that, so we could proceed to discuss your thoughts on the matter.

I mean to some extent I still care about things like justice for the working man or freedom for the nation.

That's encouraging.

But yeah if the time comes for some sort of Socialist, Nationalist, whatever revolt Ill join it. Im just not sure Ill stick to it through the end, since things can get stale very fast.

Achieving justice for yourself and your class, and establishing a society wherein everyone can develop and self-actualize their capabilities, would get too stale to keep your attention? You're indifferent enough to risk seeing the workers defeated in the class struggle?

Celtiberian wrote:Interesting. In that case, you must not take yourself too seriously.

I know its totally weird for me to be hate all people ( at times) and then have Nationalist feelings ( at times) but that is just how I am. As for being rational its all about time and place. Sometimes its good sometimes it isnt. Honestly Im not a fan of the idea that reason ( or anything else) is the number one thing when it comes to solving problems or whatever. Life isnt something you can tread over quickly with some big formula. Which really is the big problem with all worldviews. I mean somewhere every worldview holds that this " one thing" ( whether it be religion, class, race, etc) is " the answer" . Things arent that simple yet these worldviews try making them simple. And thats why I think all these wise men should fuck off. Cause their answers are just a big load of shit. Humans have always been in a fucked up state and are always going to be. Nothing, not Capitalism, not Socialism, not any other kind of '' save us from our fucked up ness ism" , is going to change that. So yeah call me a cynical idiot but thats my calling card.

Preferring the company of a certain race doesn't qualify as racism as far as I'm concerned. Shouting racial slurs, however, does. I don't consider it anything worthy of legislating against, or what have you, but I do consider it mean-spirited, juvenile, and unnecessary.

Well most people call me a racist so Ive just learned to hang that label on my neck. I agree that what I do is dumb but hey I think its funny.

I am genuinely interested in exactly what you consider "too narrow, lacking in sense, or just simply not watertight enough" about socialism. I would appreciate if you could expound on that, so we could proceed to discuss your thoughts on the matter.

As for Socialism, this co-op thing sounds good, it just hasnt been tried out in Hungary before. So thats mainly why I cant stand behind it one hundred percent. Also I dont know much about Socialism really ( besides this idea). I mean Ive tried reading books about it but I always ended up falling asleep on the second page. And I mean how can I say Im something that I dont know much about? Also ( much more importantly) I think a lot of Socialism is totally not working class. In other words bullshit cooked up by professors who have never had to stand behind a checkout counter for 8 hours or pull a 12 hour shift at a GM plant. I mean just look at the words Marx uses, does anyone seriously think a worker ( he claims to stand for ) could even get what hes saying? I mean come on. Course Im kind of biting myself in the foot here since Im a very unusual working class guy ( cause I do read a bit and all) but really who were these guys writing for? Themselves? Most importantly, a lot of stuff these socialists write lacks down to earth sense. This whole banging on about being equal for instance. Nobody is equal and trying to change that is bound to be a failure. Paying people based on effort and not how much they get done is rewarding the inefficient. Not to mention it will make the better workers mad and stir up more shit. I could go on but my point is theres too much egalitarian ( as most say) bullshit in many types of Socialism that I cant stand. Call me " right wing" ( a pointless word IMO) but banging on about being equal just flies in the face of common sense. And Im not speaking for myself here. Many people know this is as well. Of course intellectuals have always had their head up their ass when it came to everyday common sense, so this crap will fly forever. And finally if you were going to have Socialism then you would need a stable economy. A stable economy needs law and order and for that you need government. Which I fucking hate. I cant say Im for no government cause its always been around ( and will probably always will be) but I just fucking hate it. I mean Id probably even hate a government that was all Magyar all the way. I just dont like laws, dont like getting told what to do, and thats that. I hate the fucking state worse than religion or capitalism. The priests preach self flaying bullshit all day and the CEO's take your money but the state, those bastards actually toss you in a cell if you dont follow their rules. I mean fuck them you know. So yeah having co-ops sounds good but other than that Socialism is not for me. As for getting stale, how do you know a revolt like that wouldnt turn out to be a big pile of shit? Sure the people rise up, overthrow the Capitalists, how do you know they wont start fighting each other for the wealth? Whats to stop them? You dont know and neither do I which is why I cant stand behind a revolt 100%.

You haven't read socialist work, but you say that they are incomprehensible. You don't think that logic is the best way to learn and instead seem to side with "common sense" which means nothing more than a gut feeling. You seem to be advocating meritocracy but don't like authority. You say that you don't like socialism but you have not even read about it, it's worth repeating. Did you not also admit to shouting racist filth just to make people mad?

Gathering from all this you are immature with the attitude of a child. Read a book, learn some basic philosophy, learn some formal logic.

Red Aegis wrote:You haven't read socialist work, but you say that they are incomprehensible. You don't think that logic is the best way to learn and instead seem to side with "common sense" which means nothing more than a gut feeling. You seem to be advocating meritocracy but don't like authority. You say that you don't like socialism but you have not even read about it, it's worth repeating. Did you not also admit to shouting racist filth just to make people mad?

Gathering from all this you are immature with the attitude of a child. Read a book, learn some basic philosophy, learn some formal logic.

Although i disagree with the insults at the end of red's statement, i have to say he has made a point here. You seem to be overcome with a rather extream world view that is a mixture of pessimism and skepticism and it has rendered your logic void of any valid points i.e "its not 100%" or "it has a chance to fail" without a base for such a statement.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:As for being rational its all about time and place. Sometimes its good sometimes it isnt.

Under what circumstances is it ever advisable to be irrational?

Honestly Im not a fan of the idea that reason ( or anything else) is the number one thing when it comes to solving problems or whatever. Life isnt something you can tread over quickly with some big formula.

I suppose it depends on what you consider an optimal outcome. Flapping your arms around quickly in an attempt to fly may not achieve anything, but perhaps mentally deranged individuals consider the pursuit alone more entertaining than actual flight. Likewise, a shaman may not be able to cure the flu, but a tribe of Native Americans may find it ethically preferable to accepting "Western medicine." Personally, I consider such subjectivities inane.

I mean somewhere every worldview holds that this " one thing" ( whether it be religion, class, race, etc) is " the answer" . Things arent that simple yet these worldviews try making them simple. And thats why I think all these wise men should fuck off. Cause their answers are just a big load of shit. Humans have always been in a fucked up state and are always going to be. Nothing, not Capitalism, not Socialism, not any other kind of '' save us from our fucked up ness ism" , is going to change that. So yeah call me a cynical idiot but thats my calling card.

You've created a complete straw man. I've not encountered a single socialist theoretician ever claim that "one thing" alone is capable of solving all of society's problems, or that such a utopian state of affairs could even be achieved at all. The most that the majority of socialists claim is that humanity can do better than capitalism, which is a rather modest position.

As for Socialism, this co-op thing sounds good, it just hasnt been tried out in Hungary before. So thats mainly why I cant stand behind it one hundred percent.

That is just factually incorrect. The cooperative movement has been active in Hungary since the 19th century. Elemér de Balogh was one of the nation's earliest and most respected cooperative organizers, having established thousands of consumer and worker cooperative societies in his career and representing Hungary in the central committee of the International Cooperative Alliance for 25 years. Andreas György and Moritz Erdélyi were also a significant figures in the early Hungarian cooperative movement. The following is a concise history of that movement, which you may find interesting:

"The first Hungarian cooperative, a credit association at Beogterce, was established in 1850. The first cooperative legislation, which remained in effect until 1947, was passed in 1875. The first federation, Hangya, was established in 1898 by Count Alexander Karolyi, and the first national union was established in 1909. The development of the cooperative movement in Hungary in the early part of the 20th century followed much the same pattern as the rest of Europe, and cooperatives emerged and grew in the sectors of agriculture, consumers, credit, fisheries, housing, insurance and small industry (artisans). Readjustments in cooperative relationships took place with the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I, and specific Hungarian national federations for each sector were established during the 1920s. These guided the movement through the World War II period. With the advent of a communist government after the war, cooperatives became integrated into and responsive to the centralized planning of the system. Cooperative growth, not always completely voluntary, continued until the collapse of that system in 1989-90.

New cooperative legislation, the Unified Cooperative Act and the Cooperative Transition Act, were passed in early 1992 and provided for conversion of the cooperative network into a private system, a transition that was mandated to be accomplished that year. The cooperative federations were constituted and the necessary transition completed, at least in a rudimentary sense, a process made simpler than in some other Eastern European countries by the fact that Hungarian cooperatives had increasingly established a growing independence under the former system.

A 1992 ICA study reported that a national cooperative union had been restructured, that 6 national sectoral organizations had been reconstituted or initiated, and that the movement was reporting a total of 8,651 cooperatives with 4,408,600 members (42.8% of the population). A subsequent report in 1998, reflecting the 1996 statistics, noted a cooperative structure including 3,497 cooperatives with 3,013,000 members in the following sectors: agriculture—1,345 societies/with 300,000 members; consumer—260/559,000; housing—1,060/304,000; savings and credit—226/1,800,000; and worker productive 606/50,000 (est.). Cooperative membership in 1996 was 30.1% of the population."
Shaffer, Jack. Historical Dictionary of the Cooperative Movement, pp. 254-255.

Thus we find that Hungary has had a very intimate history with cooperatives. Moreover, during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, a system of syndicalist workers' councils spontaneously emerged and "developed all over the country with astonishing speed, so that it was able to turn into an alternative base of power" [Rainer, János M. "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956: Causes, Aims, and Course of Events" in The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Hungarian and Canadian Perspectives, p. 24.], thereby indicating a strong syndicalist spirit in the Hungarian working class. Considering these facts, I think a form of participatory socialism is perfectly feasible in the country. You should be proud of this aspect of your people's history.

Also I dont know much about Socialism really ( besides this idea). I mean Ive tried reading books about it but I always ended up falling asleep on the second page. And I mean how can I say Im something that I dont know much about?

Socialism is really not that difficult to grasp. Ignoring the sociological, philosophical, and economic details, it can be summarized as a system of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Also ( much more importantly) I think a lot of Socialism is totally not working class. In other words bullshit cooked up by professors who have never had to stand behind a checkout counter for 8 hours or pull a 12 hour shift at a GM plant.

Nonsense. The basic foundations of socialist thought, such as an opposition to exploitation and advocacy of workers' self-management, can be traced back to the writings of the labor press during the Industrial Revolution. The term "wage slavery" itself was coined by factory workers in Lowell, Massachusetts during the 1850s. The radical intelligentsia has primarily concerned itself with critiquing capitalism, studying the sociological factors which contribute to revolution, and formulating the finer details of how a socialist mode of production might function. In other words, intellectuals are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not socialism will be achieved; though that's not to say they don't have valuable contributions to make. Socialism is basically a representation of humanity's instinct for freedom.

I mean just look at the words Marx uses, does anyone seriously think a worker ( he claims to stand for ) could even get what hes saying? I mean come on.

Karl Marx wasn't writing for an audience consisting of workers. In fact, very few workers were even literate in the 19th century. Marx realized that his work would primarily be read by economists and educated labor organizers, so he made no attempt to adjust his terminology so as to be more accessible to the layman.

This whole banging on about being equal for instance. Nobody is equal and trying to change that is bound to be a failure.

There is a significant difference between biological equality and economic equality, and one needn't accept the validity of the former to advocate the latter (as the quote from J. B. S. Haldane in my signature alludes to). I certainly don't believe that people are endowed with equal innate potential, but I don't believe that classlessness is infeasible as a result of that inequality.

Paying people based on effort and not how much they get done is rewarding the inefficient. Not to mention it will make the better workers mad and stir up more shit. I could go on but my point is theres too much egalitarian ( as most say) bullshit in many types of Socialism that I cant stand.

It would only be "inefficient" if productivity plummeted as a result, which we have absolutely no reason to suspect would transpire. It would also be extraordinarily petty for genetically gifted workers to get upset over being remunerated on the basis of effort, and I seriously doubt such pettiness would occur to an alarming degree. Were remunerative on the basis of effort to become the cultural norm, people wouldn't even question its legitimacy. As it is, anyone who spends more than five minutes thinking about the subject understands why effort is the most equitable basis for remuneration.

Call me " right wing" ( a pointless word IMO)

In what way is it "pointless"? It is a label which represents a set of beliefs which a significant percentage of people espouse.

I just dont like laws, dont like getting told what to do, and thats that. I hate the fucking state worse than religion or capitalism.

All social structures have laws; civilization simply couldn't be maintained without some sort of enforceable rules. It's one thing to disagree with current legislation, but it's quite another to desire outright lawlessness.

As for getting stale, how do you know a revolt like that wouldnt turn out to be a big pile of shit? Sure the people rise up, overthrow the Capitalists, how do you know they wont start fighting each other for the wealth? Whats to stop them? You dont know and neither do I which is why I cant stand behind a revolt 100%.

Because I have found no historical examples which would lead me to believe that order would not eventually follow the revolution. Revolutions can be long and rather chaotic, but people have no interest in living in a perpetual state of disorder.

It is not humanity that people should hate, but the self interest and greed that exists within certain human beings and which help prop up the 'dog eat dog' doctrine of capitalism.

As for shouting racial abuse, have you not considered you are shouting at your fellow workers? Or to look at it another way people that could help overthrow the capitalist system? Capitalism exploits all races and all races need to fight together to eradicate it. People can be proud of their ethnic origins and culture wherever they live, and fight to overthrow capitalism where they live. Alienating people by abusing them simply drives people away from the fight.

"Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." - V.I. Lenin

Celtiberian wrote:Under what circumstances is it ever advisable to be irrational?

Well if your onstage playing a gig then your better off if you act like a madman then a reasonable person.

I suppose it depends on what you consider an optimal outcome. Flapping your arms around quickly in an attempt to fly may not achieve anything, but perhaps mentally deranged individuals consider the pursuit alone more entertaining than actual flight. Likewise, a shaman may not be able to cure the flu, but a tribe of Native Americans may find it ethically preferable to accepting "Western medicine." Personally, I consider such subjectivities inane.

Its all about time and place dude. If your solving a math problem then sure you use reason but you dont act reasonable if you plan on spending the night singing songs on the street while totally drunk.

You've created a complete straw man. I've not encountered a single socialist theoretician ever claim that "one thing" alone is capable of solving all of society's problems, or that such a utopian state of affairs could even be achieved at all. The most that the majority of socialists claim is that humanity can do better than capitalism, which is a rather modest position.

Ok but what if socialism doesnt work out? I mean nobody knows stuff like that for sure ( even if they pretend to).

That is just factually incorrect. The cooperative movement has been active in Hungary since the 19th century. Elemér de Balogh was one of the nation's earliest and most respected cooperative organizers, having established thousands of consumer and worker cooperative societies in his career and representing Hungary in the central committee of the International Cooperative Alliance for 25 years. Andreas György and Moritz Erdélyi were also a significant figures in the early Hungarian cooperative movement. The following is a concise history of that movement, which you may find interesting:

"The first Hungarian cooperative, a credit association at Beogterce, was established in 1850. The first cooperative legislation, which remained in effect until 1947, was passed in 1875. The first federation, Hangya, was established in 1898 by Count Alexander Karolyi, and the first national union was established in 1909. The development of the cooperative movement in Hungary in the early part of the 20th century followed much the same pattern as the rest of Europe, and cooperatives emerged and grew in the sectors of agriculture, consumers, credit, fisheries, housing, insurance and small industry (artisans). Readjustments in cooperative relationships took place with the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I, and specific Hungarian national federations for each sector were established during the 1920s. These guided the movement through the World War II period. With the advent of a communist government after the war, cooperatives became integrated into and responsive to the centralized planning of the system. Cooperative growth, not always completely voluntary, continued until the collapse of that system in 1989-90.

New cooperative legislation, the Unified Cooperative Act and the Cooperative Transition Act, were passed in early 1992 and provided for conversion of the cooperative network into a private system, a transition that was mandated to be accomplished that year. The cooperative federations were constituted and the necessary transition completed, at least in a rudimentary sense, a process made simpler than in some other Eastern European countries by the fact that Hungarian cooperatives had increasingly established a growing independence under the former system.

A 1992 ICA study reported that a national cooperative union had been restructured, that 6 national sectoral organizations had been reconstituted or initiated, and that the movement was reporting a total of 8,651 cooperatives with 4,408,600 members (42.8% of the population). A subsequent report in 1998, reflecting the 1996 statistics, noted a cooperative structure including 3,497 cooperatives with 3,013,000 members in the following sectors: agriculture—1,345 societies/with 300,000 members; consumer—260/559,000; housing—1,060/304,000; savings and credit—226/1,800,000; and worker productive 606/50,000 (est.). Cooperative membership in 1996 was 30.1% of the population."
Shaffer, Jack. Historical Dictionary of the Cooperative Movement, pp. 254-255.

Thus we find that Hungary has had a very intimate history with cooperatives. Moreover, during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, a system of syndicalist workers' councils spontaneously emerged and "developed all over the country with astonishing speed, so that it was able to turn into an alternative base of power" [Rainer, János M. "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956: Causes, Aims, and Course of Events" in The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Hungarian and Canadian Perspectives, p. 24.], thereby indicating a strong syndicalist spirit in the Hungarian working class. Considering these facts, I think a form of participatory socialism is perfectly feasible in the country. You should be proud of this aspect of your people's history.

Yes but Hungary's economy has never been completely based on co ops. So until that is tried out it makes no sense to stand behind this thing 100%.

Socialism is really not that difficult to grasp. Ignoring the sociological, philosophical, and economic details, it can be summarized as a system of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Yeah but trying to learn about Socialism is very boring. I mean these guys write so fucking dry its not even funny. Id rather spend my evening vomiting on my neighbors dog than try to read the works of some smartass who writes like my 9th grade English teacher.

Nonsense. The basic foundations of socialist thought, such as an opposition to exploitation and advocacy of workers' self-management, can be traced back to the writings of the labor press during the Industrial Revolution. The term "wage slavery" itself was coined by factory workers in Lowell, Massachusetts during the 1850s. The radical intelligentsia has primarily concerned itself with critiquing capitalism, studying the sociological factors which contribute to revolution, and formulating the finer details of how a socialist mode of production might function. In other words, intellectuals are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not socialism will be achieved; though that's not to say they don't have valuable contributions to make. Socialism is basically a representation of humanity's instinct for freedom.

Oh come on dude really? Are you trying to say that the works of college educated guys ( who use incredibly big words) are totally working class? These guys knew nothing about having to punch in numbers at a cash register 8 hours a day or having to haul heavy sacks of meat at a packing plant. They never got into fistfights at some cheap bar or had to get up for work at 5 in the morning. They do absolutely nothing except spout a lot of hot air.

Karl Marx wasn't writing for an audience consisting of workers. In fact, very few workers were even literate in the 19th century. Marx realized that his work would primarily be read by economists and educated labor organizers, so he made no attempt to adjust his terminology so as to be more accessible to the layman.

Well if Marx wasnt writing for workers then why the fuck did he claim to be for workers? I mean honestly what the hell is the point of saying your for the working class and at the same time putting all your energy into writing for people who arent working class? Marx was a fucking phony thats for sure. Along with his factory owning buddy Engels.

There is a significant difference between biological equality and economic equality, and one needn't accept the validity of the former to advocate the latter (as the quote from J. B. S. Haldane in my signature alludes to). I certainly don't believe that people are endowed with equal innate potential, but I don't believe that classlessness is infeasible as a result of that inequality.

So you want everyone to earn the same or what?

It would only be "inefficient" if productivity plummeted as a result, which we have absolutely no reason to suspect would transpire. It would also be extraordinarily petty for genetically gifted workers to get upset over being remunerated on the basis of effort, and I seriously doubt such pettiness would occur to an alarming degree. Were remunerative on the basis of effort to become the cultural norm, people wouldn't even question its legitimacy. As it is, anyone who spends more than five minutes thinking about the subject understands why effort is the most equitable basis for remuneration.

So let me get this straight: In this effort based system the guy who put more effort into loading crates at a warehouse would earn more then the guy who actually loaded more crates then him because hes a lot stronger?

In what way is it "pointless"? It is a label which represents a set of beliefs which a significant percentage of people espouse.

Its pointless to put people with very different beliefs into the same group. Which is what this left wing right wing bullshit does. I say go chicken wings. At least their tasty unlike this political crap that goes nowhere.

All social structures have laws; civilization simply couldn't be maintained without some sort of enforceable rules. It's one thing to disagree with current legislation, but it's quite another to desire outright lawlessness.

I want fucking law and order to die man. That would be like Mad Max and that would be fucking cool. I mean can you imagine no more goddamn cops, bureaucrats, politicians, or anyone else telling you what to do? That seems fucking sweet to me. Id love to just get on my Harley and ride out slaying all the scum who got in my way. I think this is my " ideology": No more law and order. Only chaos, destruction, death, and other cool stuff you can only hear about in war metal songs.

Because I have found no historical examples which would lead me to believe that order would not eventually follow the revolution. Revolutions can be long and rather chaotic, but people have no interest in living in a perpetual state of disorder.

Ok but how do you know that order will be a socialist one? What if it turns out to be just another sucky one?

Modgardener wrote:It is not humanity that people should hate, but the self interest and greed that exists within certain human beings and which help prop up the 'dog eat dog' doctrine of capitalism.

As for shouting racial abuse, have you not considered you are shouting at your fellow workers? Or to look at it another way people that could help overthrow the capitalist system? Capitalism exploits all races and all races need to fight together to eradicate it. People can be proud of their ethnic origins and culture wherever they live, and fight to overthrow capitalism where they live. Alienating people by abusing them simply drives people away from the fight.

Racial abuse? Come on dude wheres your sense of rock n roll and sticking it to the man? This " dont offend anyone" bullshit is the Man. If you break these rules then youre the fucking devil in many people's eyes which is sticking it to the man. I mean Ive been a rebel since grade school. I always broke the rules just to get the teachers mad. Course the rules were a load of horseshit so I wasnt doing anything wrong really. Anyway fuck the mainstream and fuck the system is what I say. And yeah Capitalism lords over a lot of people so what? You really think Im gonna fight for workers in fuckin Pakistan or vice versa? Fuck that shit. Theyve got their own problems and Ive got mine. Once the time is right Im gonna strike at the Capitalists where Im at and that is that.

Red Aegis wrote:You haven't read socialist work, but you say that they are incomprehensible. You don't think that logic is the best way to learn and instead seem to side with "common sense" which means nothing more than a gut feeling. You seem to be advocating meritocracy but don't like authority. You say that you don't like socialism but you have not even read about it, it's worth repeating. Did you not also admit to shouting racist filth just to make people mad?

Gathering from all this you are immature with the attitude of a child. Read a book, learn some basic philosophy, learn some formal logic.

Yeah Im immature so what?

Rebel Warrior,

I think you should let go of your ego and not be so immature. You should take time out of your day to read, work out, learn a martial art, or just do something constructive. You are obviously not very happy with yourself nor are you a confident and knowledgeable person or else you would not be on this forum talking to us. What you are really trying to do is learn more about yourself. Where does all this rock n' roll and yelling racial slurs get you? You think you are somehow sticking it to the man, yet you have already admitted you prefer not to study revolutionary theory, so you can have no idea on the nature of "the man". Furthermore sticking it to this "man" does not make you feel important and apart of something or else you wouldn't be so unhappy.

Sincerely,
Pantheon Rising

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Racial abuse? Come on dude wheres your sense of rock n roll and sticking it to the man? This " dont offend anyone" bullshit is the Man. If you break these rules then youre the fucking devil in many people's eyes which is sticking it to the man. I mean Ive been a rebel since grade school. I always broke the rules just to get the teachers mad. Course the rules were a load of horseshit so I wasnt doing anything wrong really. Anyway fuck the mainstream and fuck the system is what I say. And yeah Capitalism lords over a lot of people so what? You really think Im gonna fight for workers in fuckin Pakistan or vice versa? Fuck that shit. Theyve got their own problems and Ive got mine. Once the time is right Im gonna strike at the Capitalists where Im at and that is that.

What you are stating is non-constructive to bringing down capitalism, and is completely divisive. You simply seem to be calling for a 'one race state', which I think a certain Corporal tried to do during the 1930's and 40's.

Workers across the globe do have their own problems, I agree. But at the route of those problems is the capitalist system. Wherever we are we need to work towards overthrowing that system and creating a nation which can inspire others. Personally a persons ethnic background does not worry me if they are fighting on the same side as me. Away from the battlefield we all have our cultural and ethnic backgrounds and all are entitled to these without fear of racial abuse. To quote Marx 'Workers of all lands unite'.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ok but what if socialism doesnt work out? I mean nobody knows stuff like that for sure ( even if they pretend to).

Life is unpredictable, but no one can truthfully claim that socialism won't work. The theoretical and empirical literature suggests that we have every reason to suspect that humanity has the potential to transcend capitalism. If participatory socialism "doesn't work out" that would be a great tragedy, but there's only one way to conclusively determine the matter: implementing the system. As I mentioned earlier, market socialism and centralized economic planning have already proven their operational viability, so it isn't as if feasible alternatives to capitalism don't exist; they may not be as desirable as other models, but they're alternatives nonetheless. And I would submit to you that capitalism itself is failing, so there is a humanitarian and ecological imperative to dismantle this system as soon as possible.

Yes but Hungary's economy has never been completely based on co ops. So until that is tried out it makes no sense to stand behind this thing 100%.

I haven't any respect for your arbitrary consequentialism, for you're erring on the side of caution with respect to workers' self-management but then praising the notion of humanity descending into a state of barbarism in the very same post.

Yeah but trying to learn about Socialism is very boring. I mean these guys write so fucking dry its not even funny.

Most of them were writing in a period of time during which people had slightly longer attention spans and valued reading, so I understand why individuals like yourself find it so unbearable. Considering the deplorable condition Western culture is currently in, it has been obvious to me for years that radical organizations need to invest more time and energy into developing stimulating visual media to teach people what socialism is. (Believe me, I take absolutely no pleasure in knowing that socialist and communist organizers need to think more like advertising industry executives in order to advance the movement.)

Id rather spend my evening vomiting on my neighbors dog than try to read the works of some smartass who writes like my 9th grade English teacher.

God forbid you should have to exercise your mental faculties.. Former drug dealers in the Black Panthers were capable of reading and comprehending Marxist literature, but apparently it's beyond the realm of possibility for you to do likewise.

Oh come on dude really? Are you trying to say that the works of college educated guys ( who use incredibly big words) are totally working class?

First of all, you seem to be using the term "working class" in a manner which I (and most socialists in general) reject. There are plenty of educated proletarians. An engineer working for a corporation, for example, is just as much a member of the working class as a construction worker is—one's social class derives from their relation to the means of production. Secondly, I do believe that the work of intellectuals can benefit the working class; critical thinking is one of the prime reasons we have progressed as a species.

Your knee-jerk anti-intellectualism is ridiculous.

These guys knew nothing about having to punch in numbers at a cash register 8 hours a day or having to haul heavy sacks of meat at a packing plant. They never got into fistfights at some cheap bar or had to get up for work at 5 in the morning. They do absolutely nothing except spout a lot of hot air.

Excuse me, but many of these socialist intellectuals you despise were in fact proletarians. (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, James Connolly, Eugene V. Debs, Joseph Stalin, to name but a few.) Most leading socialist figures were also involved in trade union organizing, and were therefore intimately familiar with working class life.

Considering your aversion to reading and the many factually incorrect statements you've made throughout our exchange, I'm perplexed as to why you continue to write about issues you clearly haven't any knowledge in.

Well if Marx wasnt writing for workers then why the fuck did he claim to be for workers?

Marx's work can be divided into three categories: philosophy (most of which was written while he was a young adult), sociology, and political economy. He exerted the most effort in his economic writings, because it was the subject he was most fascinated with. If you understood Marxist sociology, however, you would know that the materialist dialectic indicates that capitalism will be transcended as a result of material forces. In other words, it was irrelevant to Marx whether one likes workers or not, the reality is such that the proletariat is the revolutionary class which will ultimately overthrow the dictatorship of capital because it is in their direct interest to do so. In his opinion, being "for workers" is synonymous with being "for victory," in the context of class struggle.

I mean honestly what the hell is the point of saying your for the working class and at the same time putting all your energy into writing for people who arent working class?

Marx and Engels's writings were valuable to the working class because they served to inform educated labor organizers. Moreover, Marx and Engels partook in the labor struggle themselves, as demonstrated by their involvement in the International Workingmen's Association.

Marx was a fucking phony thats for sure. Along with his factory owning buddy Engels.

So you want everyone to earn the same or what?

Given the available resources and technology, and human psychology, it's unlikely that people could earn the same exact income at this point in time. However, a far more equitable distribution of the social product is certainly possible.

So let me get this straight: In this effort based system the guy who put more effort into loading crates at a warehouse would earn more then the guy who actually loaded more crates then him because hes a lot stronger?

It would depend on how much more effort the individual in your example expended, but yes—because none of us has any control over the genetic endowment we were born with and therefore shouldn't be rewarded or punished as a result. The income differential scale wouldn't be dramatic, however. To quote Edward Bellamy,

"Desert is a moral question and the amount of effort alone is pertinent to the question of desert. All men who do their best, do the same. A man's endowments, however godlike, merely fix the measure of his duty. The man of great endowments who does not do all he might, though he may do more than a man of small endowments who does his best, is deemed a less deserving worker than the latter, and dies a debtor to his fellows. The Creator sets men's tasks for them by the faculties he gives them; we simply exact their fulfillment. The right of a man to maintenance at the nation's table depends on the fact that he is a man, and not on the amount of health and strength he may have, so long as he does his best. From our point of view as to the collective ownership of the economic machinery of the social system, and the absolute claim of society collectively to its product, there is something amusing in the laborious, disputations by which your contemporaries used to try to settle just how much or little wages or compensation for services this or that individual or group was entitled to. Why, dear me, Julian, if the cleverest worker were limited to his own product, strictly separated and distinguished from the elements by which the use of the social machinery had multiplied it, he would fare no better than a half-starved savage. Everybody is entitled not only to his own product, but to vastly more—namely, to his share of the product of the social organism. But he is entitled to this share not on the grab-as-grab-can plan of your day, by which some made themselves millionaires and others were left beggars, but on equal terms with all his fellows."
Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward: 2000-1887, p. 129.

(I know you must be familiar with that quote, because you and I have had this very conversation several times in the past.)

Its pointless to put people with very different beliefs into the same group. Which is what this left wing right wing bullshit does.

If applied correctly, it does no such thing.

I say go chicken wings. At least their tasty unlike this political crap that goes nowhere.

Yeah, it's not as if revolutions have ever occurred or anything..

I want fucking law and order to die man. That would be like Mad Max and that would be fucking cool. I mean can you imagine no more goddamn cops, bureaucrats, politicians, or anyone else telling you what to do? That seems fucking sweet to me. Id love to just get on my Harley and ride out slaying all the scum who got in my way. I think this is my " ideology": No more law and order. Only chaos, destruction, death, and other cool stuff you can only hear about in war metal songs.

Pathetic. If you intend on this being the caliber of your posts from henceforth, I suggest you reconsider your role here and instead join 4chan to grace them with your thoughts (they might be more appreciated there).

Ok but how do you know that order will be a socialist one? What if it turns out to be just another sucky one?

If the revolution is indeed socialist in character, why would it result in anything but socialism?

Ok so I did get carried away with all the fucks but I think Ill give this another swing. Ill try to be more " intellectual". Anyways here it goes.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I think you should let go of your ego and not be so immature. You should take time out of your day to read, work out, learn a martial art, or just do something constructive. You are obviously not very happy with yourself nor are you a confident and knowledgeable person or else you would not be on this forum talking to us. What you are really trying to do is learn more about yourself. Where does all this rock n' roll and yelling racial slurs get you? You think you are somehow sticking it to the man, yet you have already admitted you prefer not to study revolutionary theory, so you can have no idea on the nature of "the man". Furthermore sticking it to this "man" does not make you feel important and apart of something or else you wouldn't be so unhappy.

Im not unhappy all the time. I mean sure I have bad days but Im not always mad or anything like that. And no Im not trying to learn more about myself whatever that means.

Modgardener wrote:What you are stating is non-constructive to bringing down capitalism, and is completely divisive. You simply seem to be calling for a 'one race state', which I think a certain Corporal tried to do during the 1930's and 40's.

Workers across the globe do have their own problems, I agree. But at the route of those problems is the capitalist system. Wherever we are we need to work towards overthrowing that system and creating a nation which can inspire others. Personally a persons ethnic background does not worry me if they are fighting on the same side as me. Away from the battlefield we all have our cultural and ethnic backgrounds and all are entitled to these without fear of racial abuse. To quote Marx 'Workers of all lands unite'.

I dont know where your coming from with this racial abuse thing, you might be saying something else, but it sounds like the same old " lets not offend anyone" PC stuff to me. Anti Racism is based on peace and love and looks for a world in which everyone " gets along" ( in other words its not too far from an episode of Barney). There has always been hatred between different races and peoples and there always will be. Trying to stamp it out is not realistic. More importantly, it is weak kneed and has ended up taking away a lot of freedom. Its fit only for sensitive people who will cry about anything that might possibly offend and is upheld by the government ( you neednt look further than what they teach in schools or to the fact that people can lose their jobs over this). I never liked stepping carefully over the toes of others just to avoid offending and I never liked tie wearing people telling me what I can and cant say. And I will not try to start liking these things just for the sake of overthrowing Capitalism thats for sure.

Celtiberian wrote:Marx's work can be divided into three categories: philosophy (most of which was written while he was a young adult), sociology, and political economy. He exerted the most effort in his economic writings, because it was the subject he was most fascinated with. If you understood Marxist sociology, however, you would know that the materialist dialectic indicates that capitalism will be transcended as a result of material forces. In other words, it was irrelevant to Marx whether one likes workers or not, the reality is such that the proletariat is the revolutionary class which will ultimately overthrow the dictatorship of capital because it is in their direct interest to do so. In his opinion, being "for workers" is synonymous with being "for victory," in the context of class struggle.

The working class has never been intellectual ( which Im sure you know) so having intellectuals root for it is a bit weird dont you think? Many socialist writers seem to be intellectuals/intellectual wannabees who focus on stuff that is totally not related to working class problems they claim to want to solve. Marx for example wrote about materialism, dialectic, history, etc. Now can you tell me what does this stuff do for the working class besides absolutely nothing? Theres no need for theories theres need for action ( which needs a collapse to take place) . Its pretty simple to figure out why Capitalism sucks there is no need to write several volumes of pages about it. You got to make things simple or else you wont go anywhere. Which is why I cant accept this part of Socialism. Its simply too intellectual for its own good.

It would depend on how much more effort the individual in your example expended, but yes—because none of us has any control over the genetic endowment we were born with and therefore shouldn't be rewarded or punished as a result. The income differential scale wouldn't be dramatic, however. To quote Edward Bellamy,

"Desert is a moral question and the amount of effort alone is pertinent to the question of desert. All men who do their best, do the same. A man's endowments, however godlike, merely fix the measure of his duty. The man of great endowments who does not do all he might, though he may do more than a man of small endowments who does his best, is deemed a less deserving worker than the latter, and dies a debtor to his fellows. The Creator sets men's tasks for them by the faculties he gives them; we simply exact their fulfillment. The right of a man to maintenance at the nation's table depends on the fact that he is a man, and not on the amount of health and strength he may have, so long as he does his best. From our point of view as to the collective ownership of the economic machinery of the social system, and the absolute claim of society collectively to its product, there is something amusing in the laborious, disputations by which your contemporaries used to try to settle just how much or little wages or compensation for services this or that individual or group was entitled to. Why, dear me, Julian, if the cleverest worker were limited to his own product, strictly separated and distinguished from the elements by which the use of the social machinery had multiplied it, he would fare no better than a half-starved savage. Everybody is entitled not only to his own product, but to vastly more—namely, to his share of the product of the social organism. But he is entitled to this share not on the grab-as-grab-can plan of your day, by which some made themselves millionaires and others were left beggars, but on equal terms with all his fellows."
Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward: 2000-1887, p. 129.

(I know you must be familiar with that quote, because you and I have had this very conversation several times in the past.)

As for pay based on effort, your basically saying that someone who tries harder should get paid more than someone who actually gets more done. I believe that the person who gets more done should get more whether they have better genes or not. Of course Im not going to try and convince you otherwise since this is a matter of fairness ( which boils down to morals) and reason is useless here. Which brings me to another thing: Socialism often ( really mostly based on what Ive seen) tries to be totally rationalist. Marxism especially is supposed to be all scientific. But its based on moral values just like any other worldview. And morals are never rational. Which is another reason I cant stand completely behind Socialism. It tries to be totally rational while losing sight of the fact that no worldview dealing with questions of justice can be rational since it always has to tie into morality ( which is never a rational thing). Anyways Socialism that is only about cooperatives seems totally good to me but like I write before I cant be sure of it until its tried out in my homeland first ( on a national scale).

Pathetic. If you intend on this being the caliber of your posts from henceforth, I suggest you reconsider your role here and instead join 4chan to grace them with your thoughts (they might be more appreciated there).

As for lawlessness, I know my last post looked stupid but that is really how I think. I honestly cant decide whether Im a nationalist, a socialist, or simply someone who hates law and order and loves adventure. You can hear a lot of talk about a coming collapse these days and I look forward to it because I think it would be interesting. Of course I might change my mind once it happened but this is the truth. Im an anarchist at heart. Anyhow this is me cracking out the dictionary and trying to write more like you all.

Also why did someone write pathetic low life/fucking idiot in my tendency? I mean whatever but that is a cheap trick you know.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:There has always been hatred between different races and peoples and there always will be. Trying to stamp it out is not realistic.

"Hatred" is a strong word, and I think it rather unlikely that race hatred would persist under all conceivable conditions. What gave rise to racism historically was imperialism, economic competition, propaganda, and (in some cases) religion. The first three causes will be eliminated with the ascent of syndicalism and national self-determination, and the last one has already been significantly mitigated due to the general acceptance of Enlightenment values. This isn't to say that people will suddenly cease preferring the company of their own ethnocultural group, but that's a far cry from outright race hatred.

The working class has never been intellectual ( which Im sure you know) so having intellectuals root for it is a bit weird dont you think?

The first part of your sentence is simply incorrect—there have been many proletarian intellectuals throughout history, as I demonstrated in my previous response (for more on this phenomenon, I recommend reading Jonathan Rose's The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes)—and, no, I don't consider it "weird" for intellectuals to "root for" the proletariat in the class struggle. Even a few capitalists have been capable of transcending their class interests and objectively examining the capitalist mode of production (e.g., Friedrich Engels and Robert Owen), thereby learning that the system is fundamentally exploitative and unjust. Considering intellectuals spend a disproportionate amount of time analyzing and theorizing, it makes perfect sense as to why they have always been heavily involved in socialist and communist organizations. Moreover, intellectuals don't directly benefit from the perpetuation of capitalism, so even though the vast preponderance of them serve as paid apologists for the system, it isn't difficult for some of them to find fault with and assist in the abolition of capitalism. And finally, from a purely material perspective, the obstacles to capitalism's continued reproduction as a system are considerable, so it's entirely logical for intellectuals to seek to be on the right side of history, as it were.

Marx for example wrote about materialism, dialectic, history, etc. Now can you tell me what does this stuff do for the working class besides absolutely nothing?

Understanding history and the materialist dialectic is immensely helpful to labor organizers, as it provides guidance for activism. For example, learning how previous ruling classes defended their privilege and how revolutions eventually changed power dynamics provides us with the information necessary to predict how the bourgeoisie might respond to threats against its hegemony and the manner by which the proletarian revolution may succeed.

Theres no need for theories theres need for action ( which needs a collapse to take place)

Action is obviously necessary, but not aimless and spontaneous outbursts thereof. Every revolution is the culmination of years of ideological and tactical preparation—this even applies to the anarcho-syndicalist uprising in Spain, which is often inaccurately described as having been "spontaneous" in nature.

Its pretty simple to figure out why Capitalism sucks there is no need to write several volumes of pages about it.

As I've stated throughout our exchange, Das Kapital wasn't written as a revolutionary tract. However, understanding capitalism's laws of motion is relevant to socialism, for reasons I will address below.

I believe that the person who gets more done should get more whether they have better genes or not.

The only way someone could produce a higher rate of output without possessing an innate advantage over their co-workers would be if he or she was expending more effort, so that's irrelevant to the form of remunerative justice I espouse. Again, effort ratings wouldn't permit vast disparities in income; they would primarily exist to incentivize productivity. If you would like to discuss this particular subject in greater detail, it would probably be best to start a specific thread about it.

Which brings me to another thing: Socialism often ( really mostly based on what Ive seen) tries to be totally rationalist. Marxism especially is supposed to be all scientific. But its based on moral values just like any other worldview. And morals are never rational. Which is another reason I cant stand completely behind Socialism. It tries to be totally rational while losing sight of the fact that no worldview dealing with questions of justice can be rational since it always has to tie into morality ( which is never a rational thing).

You're conflating several things here. Marxism is scientific precisely because it intentionally analyzes capitalism from an amoral perspective. It was Marx and Engels's contention that capitalism would collapse due to its own internal contradictions. Chronic instability and crises, relative immiseration, and the pursuit of economic self-interest all conspire to ensure that capitalism does not represent the 'end of history,' according to those of us who accept the scientific socialist approach pioneered by Marx and Engels. However, this is exactly where Marxism ends and socialism begins. While material forces are the means by which revolution will be generated, socialism will be constructed according to the principles which the revolutionaries themselves espouse. Marx famously abstained from conjecturing about how socialism would look in practice, except to warn theoreticians about the inherent dangers which lie in maintaining the law of value in their models. In short, subjective ethical considerations (and practical implementation) are undoubtedly integral aspects of socialism, but this in no way invalidates Marxism.

Anyhow this is me cracking out the dictionary and trying to write more like you all.

I appreciate it. But, more importantly, you should value your thoughts enough to ensure they're always conveyed coherently. You and I have discussed and debated many times in the past, and I know that you're perfectly capable of sustaining this level of discourse.

Also why did someone write pathetic low life/fucking idiot in my tendency? I mean whatever but that is a cheap trick you know.

It wasn't I, but surely you can't fault whoever did it considering some of the statements you made in your previous posts. Feel free to change it back to whatever it was previously, and I'm sure no one will change it again.

Celtiberian wrote:"Hatred" is a strong word, and I think it rather unlikely that race hatred would persist under all conceivable conditions. What gave rise to racism historically was imperialism, economic competition, propaganda, and (in some cases) religion. The first three causes will be eliminated with the ascent of syndicalism and national self-determination, and the last one has already been significantly mitigated due to the general acceptance of Enlightenment values. This isn't to say that people will suddenly cease preferring the company of their own ethnocultural group, but that's a far cry from outright race hatred.

Im pretty sure there is always going to at least some sort of dislike between different races. Sure you can factor in economics and law but even when that isnt there you can find racism. I mean I spent a good bit of time in juvie about 5 years back and there was lots of racism. Even though we were basically equal as prisoners. Anyways I think thats all I have to say about this on my part, but my point is I dont see anything wrong with disliking or hating other races ( as long as you dont go out and start killing or robbing because of that) and I cant stop myself from disliking other races in the name of uniting against Capitalism.

The first part of your sentence is simply incorrect—there have been many proletarian intellectuals throughout history, as I demonstrated in my previous response (for more on this phenomenon, I recommend reading Jonathan Rose's The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes)—and, no, I don't consider it "weird" for intellectuals to "root for" the proletariat in the class struggle. Even a few capitalists have been capable of transcending their class interests and objectively examining the capitalist mode of production (e.g., Friedrich Engels and Robert Owen), thereby learning that the system is fundamentally exploitative and unjust. Considering intellectuals spend a disproportionate amount of time analyzing and theorizing, it makes perfect sense as to why they have always been heavily involved in socialist and communist organizations. Moreover, intellectuals don't directly benefit from the perpetuation of capitalism, so even though the vast preponderance of them serve as paid apologists for the system, it isn't difficult for some of them to find fault with and assist in the abolition of capitalism. And finally, from a purely material perspective, the obstacles to capitalism's continued reproduction as a system are considerable, so it's entirely logical for intellectuals to seek to be on the right side of history, as it were.

Ok your right, yes Proudhon's dad was a cooper ( I think) and so on but I still dont like all the intellectual stuff in socialism. I guess Im just petty but I like to keep things simple. Also this working class unity thing is not as easy as it seems. Even if you take out nationality, theres great differences between workers. I mean a worker who's from a rural blue collar background ( like me) oftentimes thinks and acts differently then a white collar guy from the suburbs. Uniting all these people , no matter if they're accountants or dock workers, is not an easy task and you have to get past lots of rivalry. Which is another reason Im not too sure about Socialism working out. Regional and occupational differences can be bigger than you think.

You're conflating several things here. Marxism is scientific precisely because it intentionally analyzes capitalism from an amoral perspective. It was Marx and Engels's contention that capitalism would collapse due to its own internal contradictions. Chronic instability and crises, relative immiseration, and the pursuit of economic self-interest all conspire to ensure that capitalism does not represent the 'end of history,' according to those of us who accept the scientific socialist approach pioneered by Marx and Engels. However, this is exactly where Marxism ends and socialism begins. While material forces are the means by which revolution will be generated, socialism will be constructed according to the principles which the revolutionaries themselves espouse. Marx famously abstained from conjecturing about how socialism would look in practice, except to warn theoreticians about the inherent dangers which lie in maintaining the law of value in their models. In short, subjective ethical considerations (and practical implementation) are undoubtedly integral aspects of socialism, but this in no way invalidates Marxism.

Ok but Marxists also believe that Capitalism is wrong so how exactly is this amoral objective judging coming into play? I mean how can you sit back and make theories about Capitalism without judging it and then say its morally wrong? Also whats up with this sitting back and studying Capitalism? I mean honestly it sounds like Marxism makes Capitalism out to be like a living plant that should be studied and observed. And treating an economic system like a plant seems funny to me.

It wasn't I, but surely you can't fault whoever did it considering some of the statements you made in your previous posts. Feel free to change it back to whatever it was previously, and I'm sure no one will change it again.

Ok well anyways I might start a few more threads sometime, who knows, but this is just about where Ill end this. My point is Im not sure if my goal is to support a new system or just be happy to see this one collapse and live among its ruins. I lean towards Socialism and Nationalism but I also lean towards being a simple rebel and Misanthrope. Im totally undecided and thats that really. Oh yeah and I dont mind being called a lowlife since thats really what I am ( with all the boozing, smoking, whoremongering, and fighting that I do) but I think Ill change my tendency anyway.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Im pretty sure there is always going to at least some sort of dislike between different races.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean such behavior is rational or that it should be encouraged.

Sure you can factor in economics and law but even when that isnt there you can find racism. I mean I spent a good bit of time in juvie about 5 years back and there was lots of racism. Even though we were basically equal as prisoners.

That's irrelevant to what the specific causes of racism are. Caucasians who should happen to live in majority black housing projects are regularly discriminated against, prisons abound with racial tension, etc. The question is: why? That is where the history of imperialism, economic competition, propaganda, and religion factor into the equation. A propensity to associate with those most similar to yourself is relatively benign and is incapable of causing race hatred by itself.

I dont see anything wrong with disliking or hating other races ( as long as you dont go out and start killing or robbing because of that) and I cant stop myself from disliking other races in the name of uniting against Capitalism.

Hating someone solely due to the racial group they were born into doesn't make any sense, and anyone who takes the time to actually think about the issue can quickly understand why—provided they're of sound mental health, of course. For example, there are non-Caucasian people throughout the world who likely share more in common with you than a randomly selected Hungarian does (insofar as non-physical attributes are concerned). And I realize it's a cliché, but there are respectable and loathsome individuals in every racial group. Acknowledging these facts doesn't suggest that one shouldn't value their own ethnocultural heritage, or that multiculturalism is somehow an ideal social arrangement, so bear that in mind.

I still dont like all the intellectual stuff in socialism. I guess Im just petty but I like to keep things simple.

Some skeptical workers require detailed information regarding the precise manner by which capitalism is exploitative and exactly how a socialist mode of production would function. If socialist organizations don't possess adequate answers to such questions, the skeptics could very well obstruct the movement by way of sowing seeds of doubt within the proletariat. That is why radical intellectuals are necessary.

Also this working class unity thing is not as easy as it seems. Even if you take out nationality, theres great differences between workers. I mean a worker who's from a rural blue collar background ( like me) oftentimes thinks and acts differently then a white collar guy from the suburbs. Uniting all these people , no matter if they're accountants or dock workers, is not an easy task and you have to get past lots of rivalry.

The most significant distinction between members of the working class primarily concerns the division between coordinators and those involved in more disempowering labor. This is a subject which socialist theoreticians (e.g., Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel) have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing. Fortunately, the coordinator class represents a minority (roughly 20%) within the working class and is therefore inconsequential to the prospect of achieving socialism. As for other distinctions within the proletariat, they should be set aside for the sake of achieving what's in everyone's class interest. Simply put, it isn't necessary for all members of the working class to like one another in order for a revolution to succeed.

Which is another reason Im not too sure about Socialism working out.

The functionality of socialism as an economic system is extraneous to whatever difficulties might arise in the process of amassing a revolutionary coalition.

Ok but Marxists also believe that Capitalism is wrong so how exactly is this amoral objective judging coming into play? I mean how can you sit back and make theories about Capitalism without judging it and then say its morally wrong?

Most Marxists do consider capitalism ethically objectionable, but that's because they are also socialists. In other words, their personal feelings regarding capitalism are not predicated on their use of Marxian analysis—with the exception of their opposition to the bourgeoisie's systematic exploitation of the proletariat, which Marxism reveals.

Also whats up with this sitting back and studying Capitalism? I mean honestly it sounds like Marxism makes Capitalism out to be like a living plant that should be studied and observed. And treating an economic system like a plant seems funny to me.

That is the approach all social scientists take, whether they're studying institutions, economics, foreign policy, the family unit, or what have you.

Celtiberian wrote:Maybe so, but that doesn't mean such behavior is rational or that it should be encouraged.

Well personally Im all for spreading racism cause it raises a big middle finger to the mainstream.

That's irrelevant to what the specific causes of racism are. Caucasians who should happen to live in majority black housing projects are regularly discriminated against, prisons abound with racial tension, etc. The question is: why? That is where the history of imperialism, economic competition, propaganda, and religion factor into the equation. A propensity to associate with those most similar to yourself is relatively benign and is incapable of causing race hatred by itself.

Ok but racism is a natural thing as well. Also hatred is something that should be respected if its done in a true way. Theres always been way too much feel good lets be happy bullcrap in culture. Anything that kicks this fake ass stuff in the butt is something I look up to.

Hating someone solely due to the racial group they were born into doesn't make any sense, and anyone who takes the time to actually think about the issue can quickly understand why—provided they're of sound mental health, of course. For example, there are non-Caucasian people throughout the world who likely share more in common with you than a randomly selected Hungarian does (insofar as non-physical attributes are concerned). And I realize it's a cliché, but there are respectable and loathsome individuals in every racial group. Acknowledging these facts doesn't suggest that one shouldn't value their own ethnocultural heritage, or that multiculturalism is somehow an ideal social arrangement, so bear that in mind.

Of course it doesnt make sense but hating broccoli doesnt make sense either. Tons of things we like or hate in life ( from movies to food) dont have any sense behind it. Hate in itself doesnt hurt anyone or anything so I dont see why its wrong at all.

Some skeptical workers require detailed information regarding the precise manner by which capitalism is exploitative and exactly how a socialist mode of production would function. If socialist organizations don't possess adequate answers to such questions, the skeptics could very well obstruct the movement by way of sowing seeds of doubt within the proletariat. That is why radical intellectuals are necessary.

Well whatever lets just leave it at you do your own thing while I do mine.

The most significant distinction between members of the working class primarily concerns the division between coordinators and those involved in more disempowering labor. This is a subject which socialist theoreticians (e.g., Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel) have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing. Fortunately, the coordinator class represents a minority (roughly 20%) within the working class and is therefore inconsequential to the prospect of achieving socialism. As for other distinctions within the proletariat, they should be set aside for the sake of achieving what's in everyone's class interest. Simply put, it isn't necessary for all members of the working class to like one another in order for a revolution to succeed.

Celt this is better suited for another thread, but I think this whole empowering/disempowering thing all boils down to personal taste. I for one like doing some disempowering labor tasks ( like carpentry) while others do not. Anyways I might make a thread about this later.

That is the approach all social scientists take, whether they're studying institutions, economics, foreign policy, the family unit, or what have you.

Hmm I see well Marxism is not for me dude. I know its senseless to throw away something before taking a good look at it but hey this stuff just isnt my thing. Really the way I see it Socialism ( of the sort your into) is rooted in rationalism, materialism, and empiricism. The fifty cent words Im rooted in are idealism, heroicism, and spiritualism if you get my drift. If I could Id be more of a poet than a scholar. So anyways I might get more into this whole philosophical wankery ( as my English friends rightly call it) once I get really bored but this is it for now.