What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[kandrathe]

As a true Marxist...

As a true Scotsman, I wear a kilt, wear no underwear and practice the bagpipe daily. Not really. I'm not a Scotsman.

Perhaps we should label your brand of communism, a Pollyanna Communism. And, I will agree to label my vision of a libertarian utopia "Galt Gulch" also a Pollyanna Objectivist fantasy. In reality land, we both need to deal with real people and real systems that are not ideal, but prone to failure, selfishness, corruption and entropy.

As for 'Totalitarianism' and democracy...

From Wikipedia, "Scholars such as Lawrence Aronsen, Richard Pipes, Leopold Labedz, Franz Borkenau, Walter Laqueur, Sir Karl Popper, Eckhard Jesse, Leonard Schapiro, Adam Ulam, Raymond Aron, Claude Lefort, Richard Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Carl Joachim Friedrich and Juan Linz describe totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties."

Democracy is also a variable concept. If you asked a Communist party official if the Soviet Union had democracy, they would have claimed it was true. If you asked a Fascist official if the Italy had democracy under Mussolini, they would have claimed it was true. The key part is how equality of opinion is achieved, whether it is achieved by a one party system with no opposition, or whether it is achieved by a cult of personality which tramples the rights of the minority parties. But, our founders realized this problem with "pure democracy", and so we have a Bill of Rights which seeks to protect the rights of the minority voice.

You've alleged that money has an undo influence on politics in the USA, and I would agree with that. Just as I would agree that gun violence is a problem in urban gang environments. But, in either the case of the 1st amendment, or the 2nd amendment, I'm not in favor of restricting rights as a method of correcting wrongs. We might restrict money in politics by muzzling certain minority special interest opinion, and we might lessen gang gun violence by banning firearms, but in each case it was achieved by sacrificing personal liberty.

[FireIceTalon]

If you don't agree with the ideals of communism, fine. If you don't think people should be treated as equals, fine. We just have to fundamentally disagree there, that is an ideological difference that cannot be reconciled because we view the world differently. The problem I have though, is with people who lump everyone who claims to be Marxist in the same group with Stalin and Mao, and therefore we must be some evil dictator that wants to control you and make your life miserable. That isn't the case at all, yet many seem to believe this way which is quite alarming. The states that have "labeled" themselves communist have been pretty bad, but that is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing, is whether Marxism is an evil ideology or not. It isn't. I believe it is a system that can work, and work quite well. But like anything else, it must be done right. Thus far, it has not been so, since for it to work there has to be democracy in place first. But at the same time, I think it is unfair to dismiss it and its advocates because of a few dictators who only had their self interests in mind to the cost of everyone else. It would be like someone saying I want to do the same things Stalin did, which is absolutely not the case.

[FireIceTalon]

The founders feared the majority would tyrannize the minority, but it is the very opposite that has happened. The corporations and politicians have far more power politically and economically than the masses. Capitalism is democracy for the wealthy and powerful, nothing more (I think Marx referred to it as bourgeois democracy). So, what is your solution now, now that the minority has turned our Republic into an corporate oligarchy? Less government regulation? That can only work if the corporate tyranny is destroyed first. See, in socialism, it is democracy for the masses, and tyranny by government OR corporations is forbidden and prevented, as the means of production and property is shared by all. And this may piss some people off, but I dont necessarily have the utmost respect for the founders as people. They were fucking wealthy, racist and hypocritical slave owners, even if they were brilliant thinkers and politicians.

I am a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment by the way, despite me being a far left wing commie. Guns dont kill people. People kill people ^.^, banning or creating tighter laws on gun ownership is not the solution, and statistics seem to show that there is less crime in places where gun laws are less harsh (though I am uncertain how strong that co-relationship is). Creating more economic equality to reduce crime in the first place, NOW that is a solution I can get down with.

[Jester]

If you don't agree with the ideals of communism, fine. If you don't think people should be treated as equals, fine. We just have to fundamentally disagree there, that is an ideological difference that cannot be reconciled because we view the world differently. The problem I have though, is with people who lump everyone who claims to be Marxist in the same group with Stalin and Mao, and therefore we must be some evil dictator that wants to control you and make your life miserable. That isn't the case at all, yet many seem to believe this way which is quite alarming. The states that have "labeled" themselves communist have been pretty bad, but that is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing, is whether Marxism is an evil ideology or not. It isn't. I believe it is a system that can work, and work quite well. But like anything else, it must be done right. Thus far, it has not been so, since for it to work there has to be democracy in place first. But at the same time, I think it is unfair to dismiss it and its advocates because of a few dictators who only had their self interests in mind to the cost of everyone else. It would be like someone saying I want to do the same things Stalin did, which is absolutely not the case.

I do not object to your Marxism. Want to claim you're a different kind of Communist? Feel free. Want to claim that there are ways of making Marxism work without recourse to violence and oppression? Claim away. Those claims at least are coherent and not ahistorical nonsense.

But you can't project *your* vision of what Communism is, on to the historical entity itself, as if Communism was defined by your preferences and beliefs, as if some logic games are going to cleanse the historical record. Plenty of people read Marx long before you did, who were Marxists, who came to very different conclusions. Some of them were idealistic dreamers, some were progressive reformers, and some of them were bloodsoaked revolutionaries. Some were all three. Communism has a long and complicated history. You simply have no right to deny their historical experience, to define away whatever categories you don't like.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

Communism has a long and complicated history.

Communism is great in theory. In theory, there is nothing different between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Yogi Berra was a smart man.

[kandrathe]

What I am disputing, is whether Marxism is an evil ideology or not.

Overtly, no. It does not espouse gathering up dissenters and executing them. In practice, due to it's implementation and reliance on central planning, which centralizes unchecked power, that has been the result.

Power divided is a power that can be checked.

The corporations and politicians have far more power politically and economically than the masses.

An unproven claim. The people still retain the power to change the government, and boycott products if they like. They have remained somewhat docile while the economy has flourished, when people experienced pain, you see the emergence of the tea party(blame the government) and the occupy movement(blame the corporations).

... now that the minority has turned our Republic into an corporate oligarchy?

Our government structure and rights are mostly intact. The biggest blows to the republic came after the civil war, when a drastic shift of power went to the federal government from the states (infringing the 9th & 10th amendments). And, then again during the FDR years post depression and into the emergency of WWII. Since WWII, we've been addicted to war as an economic engine.

Certain SCOTUS rulings and actions by legislative and the executive branches have shifted power around -- but, all in all, there are still checks and balances. The largest threat to any nation is the internationalization of corporate power, banking, economy, and law. Back to keeping power divided. If I don't like how the Mormons run things in Utah, I can move to another state. If I don't like how things are run on the Earth, I don't have many choices.

Less government regulation? That can only work if the corporate tyranny is destroyed first.

Tyranny is only possible if we let it be. First, we need to give the government more power, through writing more laws and growing the size of government. A bigger government governs more and controls more of the GDP and controls more, and more of our lives. They have the physical power of the army, and the police. The clash in Oakland yesterday was between citizens and their local government, not with the corporations. It might be that the politicians are beholden to the corporations and do their bidding, but we still have the right to replace our politicians.

See, in socialism, it is democracy for the masses, and tyranny by government OR corporations is forbidden and prevented, as the means of production and property is shared by all.

That would be in Socialist Pollyanna world again?

And this may piss some people off, but I dont necessarily have the utmost respect for the founders as people. They were...

... normal for their time. Moral 20/20 hindsight. I don't have much in common with the morality of my viking ancestors and their blood lust religion and lifestyles, other than my DNA.

[eppie]

[quote='FireIceTalon' pid='190752' dateline='1319669038']
I do not object to your Marxism. Want to claim you're a different kind of Communist? Feel free. Want to claim that there are ways of making Marxism work without recourse to violence and oppression? Claim away. Those claims at least are coherent and not ahistorical nonsense.

-Jester

I am disappointed you come with this remark yesterday.
I mean think about it instead of following the general idea among the public.
When did communism as we know it and extreme free market capitalism start?
Communism maybe around 1900 and extreme free market capitalism during Reagan? or after WW2?
Communist societies fell some 25 to 20 years ago and at this moment it is becoming clear that extreme free market economy is not working.
And just as FIT says, you should make an honest comparison between communism and capitalism, not between capitalism and dictatorship of course because then the answer is simple.

The fact that it is extremely difficult to have a democratic communist society is of course very true, but that is another thing.

Anyway for me it is clear that you have to go somewhere in the middle. A social(ist) society with good protection of the weak but with a free market and of course democratic. (But I guess you also agree with me on this Jester)

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='FireIceTalon' pid='190752' dateline='1319669038']
I do not object to your Marxism. Want to claim you're a different kind of Communist? Feel free. Want to claim that there are ways of making Marxism work without recourse to violence and oppression? Claim away. Those claims at least are coherent and not ahistorical nonsense.

-Jester

I am disappointed you come with this remark yesterday.
I mean think about it instead of following the general idea among the public.
When did communism as we know it and extreme free market capitalism start?
Communism maybe around 1900 and extreme free market capitalism during Reagan? or after WW2?
Communist societies fell some 25 to 20 years ago and at this moment it is becoming clear that extreme free market economy is not working.
And just as FIT says, you should make an honest comparison between communism and capitalism, not between capitalism and dictatorship of course because then the answer is simple.

The fact that it is extremely difficult to have a democratic communist society is of course very true, but that is another thing.

Anyway for me it is clear that you have to go somewhere in the middle. A social(ist) society with good protection of the weak but with a free market and of course democratic. (But I guess you also agree with me on this Jester)

Communism was a reaction to the evils of capitalism and social darwinism of the Industrial Revolution. But in truth, communism is much older. Some of the earliest forms of civilization had a form of 'tribal communism', many centuries before Marx was even a speck of dust. Capitalism, of course, was born out of feudalism. I've done some thinking on this whole idea of dialectical materialism being one of struggle between classes throughout history, and for the most part I agree with Marx's historic determinism. The outcome of all events is predetermined, and if you look at it in this context, communism was not yet READY or meant to be successful in the 19th or 20th century. Capitalism at the time, was still very young, and even today most of the world is still 3rd world non-industrialized. For a true communist revolution to take place, the entire world HAS to be industrialized, and we have a long ways to go before that will occur, possibly centuries? So we essentially need a stage of capitalism for Marx's historic determinism to take place. We are still in that stage, though it is progressing as predicted. To add some of my own thoughts into Marx's theory, I believe history is a circle. Tribal communism was the beginning, history will end with what I refer to as "civil communism", which is like tribal communism but of course way more advanced. It is the highest possible form of society, in terms of industrialization, technology, medicine, and so forth. In other words, we will be going back to our roots, but it will be in its most advanced stage, rather than in its most primitive. But for all this to occur, we need global capitalism first. Only then can a global socialist revolution take place, and slowly, very slowly, society will transfer from socialism until it is perfect enough that it can be considered full blown communism. I truly believe this will take place one day, though it does not matter for any of us since we will be long gone. The current state of global capitalism is sparking a new interest in Marx though, and he's probably laughing from the grave saying "fools, I told you so!". Hehe.

The above speculations aside, I still stand firmly that democracy and communism can go together, and in fact they MUST go together for communism to truly exist and not be undermined. Rosa called Lenin on this, and history proved her correct. It is to be a workers revolution, not one for a single nutjob to use as a shield for his own self interests, or to establish a party that calls the shots and thus undermines the entire point of the revolution. That said, I do believe revolution is the only way for this to take place. There is NO reforming capitalism, it is a cancer, and therefore must be abolished entirely. Yes, this means a violent revolution will take place, but I will quote Machiavelli here and say the ends justifies the means. Afterall, it is hardly worse than the violence, war, greed, exploitation, poverty, shallowness, and other countless terrible things that capitalism PERPETUALLY produces. But again, the vanguard for the workers, is the workers themselves, not some party that uses the revolution as a perfect tool to see its interests carried out, and nothing more.

[eppie]

The above speculations aside, I still stand firmly that democracy and communism can go together, and in fact they MUST go together for communism to truly exist and not be undermined. Rosa called Lenin on this, and history proved her correct. It is to be a workers revolution, not one for a single nutjob to use as a shield for his own self interests, or to establish a party that calls the shots and thus undermines the entire point of the revolution. That said, I do believe revolution is the only way for this to take place. There is NO reforming capitalism, it is a cancer, and therefore must be abolished entirely. Yes, this means a violent revolution will take place, but I will quote Machiavelli here and say the ends justifies the means. Afterall, it is hardly worse than the violence, war, greed, exploitation, poverty, shallowness, and other countless terrible things that capitalism PERPETUALLY produces. But again, the vanguard for the workers, is the workers themselves, not some party that uses the revolution as a perfect tool to see its interests carried out, and nothing more.

I am not so sure that communism and democracy can go together.
I used to think so but I very much lost my trust in other human being.
When you have 90% of the population being some sort of moron you can't have a democratic communist state. Just as you can also not have a state as Kandrathe always proposes. Both (the communist one and the libertarian one) need people to align and behave unselfishly.

My main problem with capitalism as we have it now is not that there is inequality but that the division of wealth is unfair.

The guy that breaks down old ships in India or the kid that melt gold and other metals out of batteries and old printboard are working harder than most people here in the west but they will never own even only a fraction of the wealth we have....or the wealth a very normal person in europe has.


And on a more societal level (I have mentioned this before) the idea of capitalism which pushes people to do their best and become as succesul as possible which will bring society as a hole on a higher level to me also is wrong. Most of the jobs with which you can make lots of money (prof. athlete, singer, reality star etc.) are useless for the greater good of society. So capitalism lets talented people waste their talent on crap.

** Bolty, be honest.....does this post makes me extreme left? I don't think so..... to me it seems partly left of center and partly apolitical but more phylosphical.

[FireIceTalon]

Haha, you are very left Eppie, maybe not as much as I, but pretty far there. Nothing wrong with that though, it is the right wing that lives on the darkside (sorry Kand)

I agree with you about the populace. Many of them suffer from false consciousness and in extreme cases, from Stockholm Syndrome. I have no solution to this, to be completely honest, and this would indeed make democracy and communism a difficult marriage. Perhaps the solution lies simply in time. Once capitalism reaches its peak globally and thus its darkest elements come to pass, this will create a "class consciousness" that will allow the workers educate themselves of their situation and become an essential part of making the revolution. I don't have all the answers by any means, but most likely it is something that would need to be learned beforehand. People must recognize who the real enemy is first before unity can take place. It is paramount that people understand critical theory and constructivism when thinking about their role in a global society and the history of the relationships between nations.

My problems with capitalism extend far beyond the economic and social inequality and profits-before-people philosophy that it manifests. Culturally, it promotes competition and consumerism. Note that I am speaking in terms of luxuries here more than anything else here. It is a system that teaches us to be materialistic, and lets such things define us in place of intellect, integrity, and even our personal character can be damaged from it. It is an intrinsically shallow system, and everything is done as a means to an end rather than for the sake of itself. Many argue that socialism promotes laziness and no one has any incentive to work, but this argument is in effect saying people are lazy by nature and it reduces humanity to simply being a bunch of bums who do not want to work. I fundamentally disagree with this. There are SOME individuals like that perhaps, but I believe them to be the exception, and not the rule. If anything, I think it is capitalism that promotes laziness. Afterall, in a capitalistic system, one does the same routine every day: up at 7 to be at work by 9, get off at 5, while some CEO reaps most of the benefits of YOUR labor, and the benefits you do receive are to pay bills, bills, and more bills, overpriced food, healthcare, and education....day after day, after day, in a system where upward mobility is very limited. Until finally you wake up 20 years later and realize "what the fuck am I doing?". Nothing is done for the sake of itself, because in capitalism, it cannot be. Yes, there are some people who love their jobs, but it is safe to say that most people would probably much rather be doing something else. Especially when the economy is like it is right now. Just my thoughts.

[eppie]

Haha, you are very left Eppie, maybe not as much as I, but pretty far there. Nothing wrong with that though, it is the right wing that lives on the darkside (sorry Kand) Just my thoughts.

For me the system that we had in the Netherlands in the 70s 80s and part of the 90s was pretty good, the same as we now have in Sweden and Denmark. Capitalism (and I think nobody can laugh at the competition position of these countries) but with a good social touch.
We had and have all the little perks of capitlism like iphones and TVs but nothing to the extreme.
A strong government is the key, but this requires of course not to have too many exremist elements in society.
I also don't want to call kandrathe the right wing. Our positions just differ on the role of the government......I am for a large government, he for a small one.

[Jester]

Communism was a reaction to the evils of capitalism and social darwinism of the Industrial Revolution.

Industrial revolution: 1750-1850, approx.

Publication of the Origin of Species: 1859.

Publication of the Communist Manifesto: 1848.

Kind of tough to make that argument work. Whatever Marx was reacting to, it wasn't Social Darwinism... unless Marx is just an alias for The Doctor.

-Jester

[eppie]

... unless Marx is just an alias for The Doctor

-Jester

No, motorbikes weren't invented yet in that time.

[kandrathe]

My main problem with capitalism as we have it now is not that there is inequality but that the division of wealth is unfair.

The guy that breaks down old ships in India or the kid that melt gold and other metals out of batteries and old printboard are working harder than most people here in the west but they will never own even only a fraction of the wealth we have....or the wealth a very normal person in europe has.

... In a communist system, the only difference would be that the guy in India would be commanded by the State to break down the ships and every person would have the same level of misery as it was in the Soviet Union.

Capitalism, free markets, or central planning are parts of economic systems. Communism, socialism, democracy, and republicanism are philosophies of governance.

When you have 90% of the population being some sort of moron you can't have a democratic communist state. Just as you can also not have a state as Kandrathe always proposes. Both (the communist one and the libertarian one) need people to align and behave unselfishly.

Maybe so, but "moron" isn't defined as someone who doesn't agree with you. From studies in the US, the average IQ is still 100, so 50% of the population are above average. The number of people in the 50-70 range (Moron) would be 2 to 3 standard deviations below normal, or between .135% and 2.275% of the population.

[kandrathe]

it is the right wing that lives on the darkside Smile (sorry Kand)

I'm not in the right wing, so no harm. And, you think the Weathermen, ALF, and ELF are not *darkside*? Left vs Right is one dimension, Authoritarian vs Libertarian is another dimension. I would classify myself as a social libertarian, with conservative fiscal views.

Many of them suffer from false consciousness and in extreme cases, from Stockholm Syndrome. I have no solution to this, to be completely honest, and this would indeed make democracy and communism a difficult marriage.

This is the height of arrogance. Most people in the US have been presented with different philosophies, and make political choices based on what they know about the candidates. SometimesOften the politicians lie about their intentions, and once in office their true stripes appear.

"class consciousness" is a myth. In my life, I've been variously in all of them. I have been homeless sleeping by the railroad tracks, and I've been in the 1%. Mobility was mostly my choosing, and I'm now where I want to be... Middle class, unstressed, have time to do my artwork, and wealthy enough to raise my children as I feel they should be raised. People aren't defined by "Class" in the US. We aren't born to be coal miners if we live in West Virginia. I don't have consciousness of being "White" in my life decisions, and it is not a "false consciousness" but rather an irrelevance. I have common cause with people of all race/ethnicity, and all classes for that matter. Why? Because, the people in my life, my family and my friends, are variously traversing different stages as they grow up and grow old.

"One way is to say that "objectively" people have common class interests and should act according to the class struggle pattern- but that they are not always "class conscious". They suffer from "false consciousness". But this is (a) not true; nor would it (b) help much if it were. a) There often are conflicts among objective economic interests within a Marxian class- e.g. among workers. Conflicts occur over migration, international trade, religion or race. And workers often have objective interests in common with capitalists and in conflict with the interests of other groups of workers. Class membership is no more and possibly less decisive than say race membership in determining one's political views. If you insist on the importance of race, you may persuade people to act according to their "racial interests" for a while- as the Nazis did. If you convince people that they should act according to what you tell them are your class interests, they might. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. But the action comes from race or class propaganda- not from race or class as objective facts. b) Further if we assume that classes are as important as Marx thought but that people do not act accordingly, because not having read Marx, they are not class conscious- if "class consciousness" becomes independent of class membership- and if class membership is neither sufficient nor necessary to bring the expected class behaviour, then social classes become one of many groups that influence man's action on some occasions. This would be a correct theory. But the distinctive point of Marxian theory is that class membership is decisive in determining most and particularly political actions. This is patently wrong. -- Ernest Van Den Haag

It is paramount that people understand critical theory and constructivism when thinking about their role in a global society and the history of the relationships between nations.

Stand up in front of a crowd and repeat that... <glassy eyed stare> What? Deebye, can I get you a beer?

My problems with capitalism ... blah blah blah pigs... blah blah blah... lazy... blah blah blah... selfish...

You sound like my mother! How about you get off my back, I'll clean my room after I get my homework done! Sheesh!

Yes, there are some people who love their jobs, but it is safe to say that most people would probably much rather be doing something else. Especially when the economy is like it is right now. Just my thoughts.

Many people (17%) would love to be working. I'd venture that nearer to 100% like having the freedom of choosing their own job, rather than be given one by the state commissar.

"tribal communism"

It's called tribalism. There is no such thing as "tribal communism". Especially, if you believe in the Marxist progression of political state to one of ultimate communism.

[eppie]

From studies in the US, the average IQ is still 100,

Haha, did they need to a study for that?

No seriously...what do you need to run a country? Perform scientific research with a certain standard? Or design a skyscraper.
Moron for me begins much earlier than 50-70.

[eppie]

My main problem with capitalism as we have it now is not that there is inequality but that the division of wealth is unfair.

The guy that breaks down old ships in India or the kid that melt gold and other metals out of batteries and old printboard are working harder than most people here in the west but they will never own even only a fraction of the wealth we have....or the wealth a very normal person in europe has.

... In a communist system, the only difference would be that the guy in India would be commanded by the State to break down the ships and every person would have the same level of misery as it was in the Soviet Union.

This is BS and you know it. Please don't start using these cheap arguments. I know you have much better to contribute.
While I was watching out of the window looking at the people that sit more than 1 hour (times 2) in their car queuing every day for going back and forward to their meaningless job, I was thinking...what is misery what is happiness. You as a capitalist can't imagine people getting happiness out of other things than just money, wealth and possession. But what about the good education and understanding of arts and literature common under Russians during the cold war? What about pride in what you do instead of because of what brand of shoe you are wearing?


Anyway to get back to the argument of the kid in India. Capitalism is fun when you are born in the right family and country. Again, I am not at all proposing a communist society but please bare the differences in mind when making comments on this topic.

I am not trying to convince you; we have had this discussion many times here so I know better. But I just hope you don't get your 'facts' about communism only from a Johnson infomercial.

I am not dismissing any ideology or system I just don't think it is fair to say capitalism works when you have 5 billion people living in poverty. The fact that other systems might be worse is not an argument in that discussion.

[FireIceTalon]

"class consciousness" is a myth. In my life, I've been variously in all of them. I have been homeless sleeping by the railroad tracks, and I've been in the 1%. Mobility was mostly my choosing, and I'm now where I want to be... Middle class, unstressed, have time to do my artwork, and wealthy enough to raise my children as I feel they should be raised. People aren't defined by "Class" in the US. We aren't born to be coal miners if we live in West Virginia. I don't have consciousness of being "White" in my life decisions, and it is not a "false consciousness" but rather an irrelevance. I have common cause with people of all race/ethnicity, and all classes for that matter. Why? Because, the people in my life, my family and my friends, are variously traversing different stages as they grow up and grow old.

"One way is to say that "objectively" people have common class interests and should act according to the class struggle pattern- but that they are not always "class conscious". They suffer from "false consciousness". But this is (a) not true; nor would it (b) help much if it were. a) There often are conflicts among objective economic interests within a Marxian class- e.g. among workers. Conflicts occur over migration, international trade, religion or race. And workers often have objective interests in common with capitalists and in conflict with the interests of other groups of workers. Class membership is no more and possibly less decisive than say race membership in determining one's political views. If you insist on the importance of race, you may persuade people to act according to their "racial interests" for a while- as the Nazis did. If you convince people that they should act according to what you tell them are your class interests, they might. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. But the action comes from race or class propaganda- not from race or class as objective facts. b) Further if we assume that classes are as important as Marx thought but that people do not act accordingly, because not having read Marx, they are not class conscious- if "class consciousness" becomes independent of class membership- and if class membership is neither sufficient nor necessary to bring the expected class behaviour, then social classes become one of many groups that influence man's action on some occasions. This would be a correct theory. But the distinctive point of Marxian theory is that class membership is decisive in determining most and particularly political actions. This is patently wrong. -- Ernest Van Den Haag

Arrogant, perhaps. But I call it as I see it. The Tea Party defines false consciousness to the extreme, because their agenda is based on turning this country into a right-wing christian, moral playground, and it's not going to happen. Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned, EVER. Separation of church and state will always be, it's in the 1st Amendment. They want lower taxes? A joke. We already have the lowest taxes in the world among any other western industrialized nation. Race? We have a black man as the president, and it is killing them inside. These and other issues are what they are screaming about, when they matter little, because they are issues that will not be changed. "Dont Ask Dont Tell" was recently appealed. Women are more prominent than ever in the political arena and will continue to be more so as we progress. Then they turn around and want to go fight some terrorists using terrorist methods, because some politician told them they would be doing their country a service. They love patriotism. But if you ask me, patriotism is just a short way of saying "send the poor man to fight the rich mans battle, to make the rich man even richer". At the end of the day, class matters the most, and they vote against their own interests time and again. But it's not just them. Anyone who is working class and votes Republican is voting against their own interest. I had a middle class Republican friend, who under the Bush era, voted for him because he was pro-life and cause he was "personable". Then when the economy tanked in 2007-2008 his business went down the tubes and he was furious. I was sympathetic of course, but deep down I was thinking "well, you reap what you sow, hows that pro life vote working out for you now?". The rest of the world laughs at us, because we are still fussing and bickering over these trivial social issues, and not focusing on what really matters: Economics and class. We don't like to talk about class here in America, but it matters, and ultimately, people here are divided by class more than anything else. I am very pro second Amendment, but I will never vote Republican because I know they do not have my fiscal interests in mind, and they will turn the country into an economic shithole as they almost always do. Not that the Dems are much better, and in fact, I view Obama to be a centrist at best, and a very weak leader in general. Yes politicians lie and do not keep their promises, but that makes it all the more important to understand the true platform of both a party and a particular candidate, and just politics in general. Also, not nearly enough people participate in political affairs, especially young people. We are not in particular, a politically astute nation, and that is a bad thing. I blame much of that on the anti-intellectual agenda of the Republican party. Class consciousness is indeed a myth, because we lack it here, lol. But like any other identity construct, it does exist, and does so in a very big way.

Tribalism was essentially a primitive form of communism. The Native Americans really had a near perfect communist system before the Spanish came here and Christianized them. Also I notice you keep mentioning how Communism is total state control. False, a true communist society is one with NO state control. The people, not a heavy handed state, own and share the means to production and distribution of resources. If the state is involved, you are still in capitalism or socialism, depending on the degree of the control (in this respect, communism is actually more similar to perfect free market capitalism than it is to socialism)

[Jester]

Tribalism was essentially a primitive form of communism. The Native Americans really had a near perfect communist system before the Spanish came here and Christianized them.

I'm not even sure where to begin. For a start, this is cultural imperialism - you are ahistorically shoehorning an entire continent's cultures and societies into an abstract category dreamed up by some Old White Guy ™ over three centuries later.

Next, it demonstrates a near-total lack of understanding about the functioning of indigenous societies in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. It was not perfectly equal - in many societies, especially the more urbanized, classes were highly stratified. It was certainly not utopian. While their ideas of ownership were not familiar to Europeans, that doesn't mean they were Communist, or anything even resembling Communism. The religio-military states that prevailed in Mesoamerica and the Andes more closely resembled Egyptian or Mesopotamian tribute empires than socialist utopias, although even those comparisons are a stretch.

It also shows no understanding of the truly vast range of economic, political, and social systems across the Americas. The Haida had a completely different culture from the Maya, and neither shared anything in common with the Cree. To lump them all together as if they all shared some harmonious utopia is wrong, outdated, and imperialistic.

I'm not even going to go into the question of Christianization, which is not one process, had vastly different effects on different groups (compare: Guaranies or Huron with Araucanians or Sioux!) and was, in many cases, distinct from the imposition of European economic and political order.

-Jester

[Tal]

Tribalism was essentially a primitive form of communism. The Native Americans really had a near perfect communist system before the Spanish came here and Christianized them.

Which part of the near perfect communist system involved going to war with another tribe for land rights and trade agreements?