Take Two

jtem:

princelytreasures:

I’m using the ‘bourgeois - middle class (incorporating both the petty bourgeoisie and rich proletarians) - working class’ model. 

You’re taking what would be natural allies to reform and making them enemies.  Any model that allows you to do that is a stupid model.  You’re placing your dogma — your strict adherence to outmoded ideas — ahead of actually accomplishing something useful. 

NOTE:  The Soviet Union collapsed before you were born.  Your “Kulaks” were not only decades out of date by then, but they demonstrated MY point and the futility of your dogmatic approach.  After all, the demonizing of your “Kulaks” and their persecution led directly to a massive famine that killed anywhere from 3 to 8 million going by popular estimates.

But my point is that the middle class and the working class are not necessarily ‘natural allies’ simply because they both oppose the bourgeoisie. The fact that kulaks destroyed crops because they were no longer able to make a profit on it (hence the ‘demonisation’ as you put it) and that many middle-class Germans (bearing in mind they were the foundation of Nazi support) allowed both members of the bourgeoisie and members of the working class to be killed and imprisoned due to their resentment shows a remarkable lack of unity with the working class. 

I’m not saying outright that I hate middle-class people or anything like that, but I’m seriously sceptical about the tendency to act as if the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is the only class struggle. History has shown us that, as Marx puts it, it’s mostly those with ‘nothing to lose’ who will throw themselves into the task of building a socialist society with the most enthusiasm, and that those who have benefited from capitalist society will tend to be the saboteurs of a socialist one.

NYC bus company’s ‘ghetto’ tours angers locals

coumtransmissions:

tombomp:

A bus company that bills one of its tours as a real-life ride through an actual inner-city ghetto has been packing the seats, as tourists from Europe and Australia have flocked for the up-close-and-personal glimpse into one of America’s crime-ridden areas.

no words

“To have foreigners come and gawk at a long line of people who are less fortunate than they are and to make money off of that … is pretty disgusting.”

westerners do this in third world countries on a much larger scale :/ why is it only bad if it’s in america

vegetablearian:

princelytreasures:

class-struggle-anarchism:

When Britain abolished the slave trade, the British taxpayer paid 20 million pounds in compensation to slave owners. That was forty percent of annual state expenditure in 1833.

What did they do with this extraordinary amount of money?

If you live in any reasonably sized British town, it’s still there - It’s in your fancy Victorian council buildings and public libraries, it was invested in the railways you take to work, it started up businesses that still exist, one might employ you. Slavery made the empire, and when it was abolished it funded the industrial revolution. 

They don’t tell you that in school, and no one talks about it, ever. Scotland had a disproportionately high level of slave ownership compared to England but I can tell you right now that it’s not part of our perceived national history, it’s just not there. The average Scot might even be forgiven for not knowing that we ever had slaves, on the grounds that if such a thing happened, surely we would’ve heard about it.

The US is fucked but at least they acknowledge the role slavery played in their history. For all the back patting the British (and especially us ‘left wing’ Scots) indulge in, we’ve actually got much further to go in terms of facing up to the unforgivable brutality that built our nations.

The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade though, therefore it’s not a matter of ‘we’ or ‘us’ unless the people you’re addressing are members of the ruling class. If any meaningful discussions about the slave trade and the British empire are to be had, it has to be strongly emphasised that it’s the ruling class’ behaviour we’re analysing and it’s them we’re criticising, not the British proletariat.

But even if we were not responsible, we benefited, surely?

To some extent, yes, but the slave trade and the Empire weren’t set up for the benefit of the proletariat. And the proletariat had absolutely no control over any aspect of the slave trade or the Empire, so whether the ruling class decided to build public libraries out of dirty money is largely irrelevant. The proletariat can’t be blamed for any of it.

There’s also the fact that there are a lot of proletarians in Britain who have ancestors who were under direct imperial rule (such as myself) who may not entirely appreciate the implication that they should be ‘ashamed’ about the slave trade or the Empire.

class-struggle-anarchism:

When Britain abolished the slave trade, the British taxpayer paid 20 million pounds in compensation to slave owners. That was forty percent of annual state expenditure in 1833.

What did they do with this extraordinary amount of money?

If you live in any reasonably sized British town, it’s still there - It’s in your fancy Victorian council buildings and public libraries, it was invested in the railways you take to work, it started up businesses that still exist, one might employ you. Slavery made the empire, and when it was abolished it funded the industrial revolution. 

They don’t tell you that in school, and no one talks about it, ever. Scotland had a disproportionately high level of slave ownership compared to England but I can tell you right now that it’s not part of our perceived national history, it’s just not there. The average Scot might even be forgiven for not knowing that we ever had slaves, on the grounds that if such a thing happened, surely we would’ve heard about it.

The US is fucked but at least they acknowledge the role slavery played in their history. For all the back patting the British (and especially us ‘left wing’ Scots) indulge in, we’ve actually got much further to go in terms of facing up to the unforgivable brutality that built our nations.

The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade though, therefore it’s not a matter of ‘we’ or ‘us’ unless the people you’re addressing are members of the ruling class. If any meaningful discussions about the slave trade and the British empire are to be had, it has to be strongly emphasised that it’s the ruling class’ behaviour we’re analysing and it’s them we’re criticising, not the British proletariat.

jtem:

princelytreasures:

jtem replied to your post: I really wish people would distinguish between the…

I wish people would get a clue and understand there is no difference, as far as exploitation by the 1% goes…

A woman who cleans toilets for a living and a tenured professor aren’t ‘just as exploited’. 

Clueless…

On average, the full professor in the U.S. is outside “Middle Class,” earning more than $110,000 a year as of 2011.  As of 2010, less than 12% of HOUSEHOLDS earned more than $100,000 each year, and “Household” income would include all working members of the household. Which means, in quite a few of those households (most of them?) nobody would be earning anything approaching that amount. 

So while they wouldn’t be considered “Middle Class” by anyone besides Obama & Mitt Romney (both had $100K AND HIGHER included in their “Middle Class Tax Cut”), they are also victims of the 1%.  They’re outside the top 90(plus) percent and so have actually LOST economic ground to the top 1% in recent years.

Put another way:  They would be natural allies in the fight against income disparity, yet you insanely set them against your goals.

Dumb.  Really, really dumb…

I’m using the ‘bourgeois - middle class (incorporating both the petty bourgeoisie and rich proletarians) - working class’ model. 

And the middle classes of every country tend to be pretty self-centred and would have a lot to lose in a revolution, so as a communist, I treat them with a wary eye. The middle class don’t own the means of production, but they might own a shop, or have a large stake in society as an academic or as a civil servant, and they will most likely own their own property. It’s for these reasons that they’ve historically backed anti-working class, anti-capitalist movements such as Nazism.

EDIT: The kulaks of the USSR and their reaction to collectivisation is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Ukip donor says women in trousers are 'hostile' and unmarried mothers need a 'smack' - Telegraph

sexistradar:

A businessman who gave £10,000 to Ukip has said women in trousers are showing “hostile” behaviour, unmarried mothers deserve “a good smack” and “date rape” is an invention of feminists.

The article is full if sexist and misogynist remarks such as:

“Walk along any street and you see women using trousers like a uniform every single day.This is hostile behaviour - they are deliberately dressing in a way that is opposite to what men would like.

Statements like this are harmful to women and men and don’t need to be tolerated. The assumptions that what women wear or do has something to do with men is a sign of misogyny and desire to dominate and control women and their bodies. 

Such sexist comments about women’s appearances and bodies are mostly done by men who think women’s main role and task is to please their expectations and take care of their erections (is what Demetri Marchessini clearly implies).

It didn’t cross their minds that women too prefer to live their lives the way they want and deserve to treated as intelligent human beings with full potential. Not as a walking vagina/breasts that is there to satisfy men’s sexual needs. 

jtem replied to your post: I really wish people would distinguish between the…

I wish people would get a clue and understand there is no difference, as far as exploitation by the 1% goes…

A woman who cleans toilets for a living and a tenured professor aren’t ‘just as exploited’.