Unemployment, and so on

[Jester]

Did you read the article? Your response seems to indicate you didn't. They have to work for FREE. That my friend, is S-L-A-V-E-R-Y, with a capital S.

... and now one of the few reasonable people on the forums who you haven't alienated, is now faced with your extraordinary rudeness. That your argument is also rubbish is almost beside the point.

Congratulations!

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Whatever. Obviously, you are all reactionaries here, that do not get it. And you probably never will. I will leave you to enjoy your trickle down economics/crapitalism. Anyone who justifies/defends the article I posted is so far gone, that they cannot be reasoned with anyway. You have to be a borderline sociopath to defend it.

[Kevin]

Did you read the article? Your response seems to indicate you didn't. They have to work for FREE. That my friend, is S-L-A-V-E-R-Y, with a capital S (even if it is for only 2 months, it is still 2 months of slavery). Such propositions always end up in exploitation or are understated anyway.

"...or face having their benefits docked."
"they would be stripped of their £53- a-week jobseekers allowance (JSA)..."

They aren't working for free. They are getting paid by the government 53 pounds a week which right now is about $84 US dollars a week. They work "up to 30 hours a week". So at worst they are getting $2.80 an hour. It looks like minimum wage for the age group the article was talking about translate to about $6.75 an hour. Of course that up to could mean some are only working 10 hours a week and would then be getting ~$8.40 an hour.

I'm not saying there aren't issues. I'm not saying they are underpaid. I'm not saying the policy doesn't need to be fixed.

I am saying that they are being compensated, the compensation is not from the people they are working for, but I have been paid by one company to do work for another company, my hours and work conditions were not dictated by who was paying me, but by who I was doing the work for. So where the the money is coming from is mostly irrelevant.

They get money, it's clearly stated in the article. Since they don't get much money at all they are likely able to get other forms of assistance too. If the experience they get allows them get a job with real pay and they break the contract and lose the government money they probably don't care.

Again despite what I anticipate you are going to read from my post, I'm not defending the practice the article is discussing. I'm pointing out that you are wrong in saying this is slavery.

[FireIceTalon]

Ok, so we're back to wage slavery then, instead of just plain slavery Except this time, there is a coercive element to it, since they are being forced to work for free or they lose their unemployment benefits. Not exactly democratic, is it? It's just another bourgeois tactic in a long line of countless to screw the proles into working for $3 an hour (you know very well most of those people will be working more hours, than less...the bourgeois will take any free labor they can get). The additional assistance they get elsewhere (if any) just further demonstrates my point: they are economically dependent and tied to the system, much like serfs were tied to the land in the Feudal era. It kind of reminds me of the situation here in the United States: "Those damn poor people on welfare are leeching the system!!!".....yea, as if they have this romanticized glamorous life of being on welfare. Because after all the benefit of welfare checks and food stamps just completely outweighs the benefits of corporate tax write-offs, and near trillion-dollar bailouts. Only people who are leeching the system are the trust fund pretty boys that never have to lift a finger in their life because they inherited daddies business and wealth. LMAO. I realize you aren't necessarily defending the article, but nevertheless, the system, and this particular policy, isnt justified.

Damn, I have to say, that post was rhetorical as all hell even by my standards. But I'll be damned if it ain't the truth. It is.

[Roland]

Whatever. Obviously, you are all reactionaries here, that do not get it. And you probably never will. I will leave you to enjoy your trickle down economics/crapitalism. Anyone who justifies/defends the article I posted is so far gone, that they cannot be reasoned with anyway. You have to be a borderline sociopath to defend it.

Ad hominem attacks and idle threats do not endear you to this community, and while you've seemingly yet to grasp that concept you repeatedly express a desire not to remain here - yet here you are.

At any rate, Shadow was not defending the article. She was trying to draw your conclusion of slavery from said article, and was falling short (as has just about everyone else). She gave you a very reasoned, rationale question and not only do you ignore her inquiry, you attempt to debase those who attempt to converse with you (let alone criticize you or your viewpoints), and then proceed to ignore them entirely.

I know I am breaking the cardinal rule of online social interaction ("Don't feed the trolls"), but perhaps you could take a step back from your rhetoric long enough to see your follies. At the very least, it would make your presence here more tolerable to those of us who prefer to discourse in a more civilized, respectable manner.

[Jester]

Damn, I have to say, that post was rhetorical as all hell even by my standards. But I'll be damned if it ain't the truth. It is.

Yeah! You stick it to the man! To the man who runs the grocery stores! And the... banks, I guess! And the feudal lords! Nobody likes you, feudal lords! Fight the power!

-Jester

[Bun-Bun]

Damn, I have to say, that post was rhetorical as all hell even by my standards. But I'll be damned if it ain't the truth. It is.

Yeah! You stick it to the man! To the man who runs the grocery stores! And the... banks, I guess! And the feudal lords! Nobody likes you, feudal lords! Fight the power!

-Jester

Resistance is feudal.

[ShadowHM]

I will leave you to enjoy your trickle down economics/crapitalism.

Promises, promises....

I find it hard to believe you will follow through on that.

Anyone who justifies/defends the article I posted is so far gone, that they cannot be reasoned with anyway. You have to be a borderline sociopath to defend it.

I didn't see anyone justifying or defending the activities reported in the article. On my end, I asked you to explain your over-the-top conclusion. You declined to do so and restated it in caps, as if shouting it would make a difference.

On the bright side, since hope springs eternal...

Stomping out muttering insults is still leaving! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

[kandrathe]

Ad hominem attacks and idle threats do not endear you to this community, and while you've seemingly yet to grasp that concept you repeatedly express a desire not to remain here - yet here you are.

Call me the crazy libertarian, but I think it's a bit disconnected to have one who is self-proclaimed to be 100% Marxist, and studying political science in a nation that despises Marxism. Nothing to me has been more non sequitur of late, than a Marxist political science student worried about getting a job out of college. I can't think of a more quixotic endeavor or a better way to self-flagellate than to dedicate oneself to to the ideal of toppling a free market economy in the worlds largest free market economy. Thank God, I changed my major from nuclear physics back in the early 80's, and chose my eminently more marketable real talent, which was programming computers.

Collectively, (pun intended) I feel the supporting arguments he presented were well challenged. Although, possibly a person with a better grasp of the theories, and a more understandable and eloquent delivery might have made a better case (which I was also interested in understanding). In any case, since he is in an extreme minority of viewpoint, it should come as little surprise that the majority of people on the planet just want to be left to enjoy their lives in whatever crappy system we live under. And, if you need to whip out Hegel dialectics to attempt to convince the masses, you are truly Quixote with a lance the size of ... Well, I don't know... Burj Khalifa? Tilt away.

At any rate, Shadow was not defending the article. She was trying to draw your conclusion of slavery from said article, and was falling short (as has just about everyone else). She gave you a very reasoned, rationale question and not only do you ignore her inquiry, you attempt to debase those who attempt to converse with you (let alone criticize you or your viewpoints), and then proceed to ignore them entirely.

Interestingly enough, I've made this similar argument many months ago, and it was similarly met with equal challenge. I'll try to be more succinct this time. I see the bigger problem more as limiting peoples options for being self sufficient, and forcing them into a system where they choose the dole, or working for a mega-corporation, like Walmart. Some examples... You cannot drive a cab in almost every city without permission. You cannot open a fruit stand without permission. It's getting to the point where every consumer product, including fresh produce, must be tracked, cataloged, and tagged by the government. It is just a further turn of the screw to then have that government who limited your choices to then turn around and coerce you (for free) into the arms of the corporations.

I described climbing out of poverty much like a beetle climbing the side of a bowl. The further you get from the bottom, the steeper the sides get and eventually due to some shake up (e.g. economic problem, illness, crime, etc.) that beetle just slides right back down into poverty again. The bowl to me are both the rigid rules, but also that we increasingly accept the limitations, in the name of _____. Sometimes that's safety, sometimes it's fairness, and sometimes its just a mystery.

I described that we, like the beetle in the bowl, are as trapped in our system. Ultimately, exhausted, there are no options except to accept your lot wherever you happen to be clinging. It's not a bad trap, but it is a trap. We live in a country where some of the anti-wallstreet protesters (representing the poorest 99%), once kicked out of Zucotti Park, layed up in a $700/night luxery hotel. I'm feeling that some of them are more at the upper 90% level, than at my level.

I know I am breaking the cardinal rule of online social interaction ("Don't feed the trolls"), but perhaps you could take a step back from your rhetoric long enough to see your follies. At the very least, it would make your presence here more tolerable to those of us who prefer to discourse in a more civilized, respectable manner.

Or, as my dad always told me... "Count to ten, and if you're still upset, then to count to a thousand." I'm at that point in my life where I don't really get worked up at too much in this world anymore, except for those actions that victimize others. My advice would be for FIT to add more thought, more research, more reasoned contemplation, and less bombast.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea, I'm so disconnected because I'm not a blind flag waving patriot that thinks my country can do no wrong, and doesn't conform to the views the majority of the sheeple hold. Right.

I have no qualms about being a Marxist in America (or anywhere for that matter), for I know most people, have a distorted, propaganda-indoctrinated view of what Marxism really is, and what kind of people Marxists are. I'm a free thinker and I don't buy into all the egocentric reactionary mentality this country, and others, promotes: jingoism and xenophobia, racism, apathy, misogyny and sexism, hatred of gays, fundamentalism, fighting terrorism with more terrorism, and the complete austerity and disregard capitalism has for humanity for the sake of maximizing profits. To be a Marxist is to simply be a lover of humanity, and to be a disbeliever and skeptic of economic, as well as socially constructed divisions in our society and the status quo in general. Now, if people want to hate me for that, it is they, not I, who has the problem. They are most likely pretty shallow anyways. I don't really give a damn regardless. I could be the last Marxist on earth, and I still wouldn't change my views. I would rather be in the smallest of minorities in the world and be able to be a free thinker, than hold the majority opinion but be a complete tool for the system and take everything that is fed to me (just because the masses say this is how it is). Whatever. To each his own I guess.

[kandrathe]

... because I'm not a blind flag waving patriot that thinks my country can do no wrong, and doesn't conform to the views the majority of the sheeple hold. Right.

Implying that anyone who's not with you, on what verges in the US as being upon the lunatic fringe... is a blind flag waving patriot sheeple.

I have no qualms about being a Marxist in America

Except, that you stated you feared you won't find a job. Which I think is an apt assessment given your career choices.

...for I know most people, have a distorted, propaganda-indoctrinated view of what Marxism really is, and what kind of people Marxists are.

Sheeple again. And, non-Marxists cannot be "Free thinkers"?

Do you really believe the majority of people in the US, and "other" countries buy into "egocentric reactionary mentality" promoting "jingoism and xenophobia, racism, apathy, misogyny and sexism, hatred of gays, fundamentalism"? Really? And, the counter corollary is that these things do not exist in a Anarcho-Marxist state. Do you realize how crazy this sounds?

As for "fighting terrorism with more terrorism" depends on your definition of terrorism. This is a crux of a problem with any approach to a war on "-ism"s. Given the right set of government lawyers, torture can be whitewashed as necessary enhanced interrogation.

"and the complete austerity and disregard capitalism has for humanity for the sake of maximizing profits." Again, "-isms" don't love people, or give them regard. People love people, and give them regard. Our systems just reflect ways in which we attempt to be both fair and compassionate.

To be a Marxist is to simply be a lover of humanity, and to be a disbeliever and skeptic of economic, as well as socially constructed divisions in our society and the status quo in general.

Which has to be the weirdest definition of Marxism I've seen to date. Wouldn't that equally describe MLK and the equal rights marches of the 1960's?

Now, if people want to hate me for that, it is they, not I, who has the problem. They are most likely pretty shallow anyways. I don't really give a damn either way. I could be the last Marxist on earth, and I still wouldn't change my views. I would rather be in the smallest of minorities in the world and be able to be a free thinker, than hold the majority opinion but be a complete tool for the system and take everything that is fed to me (just because the masses say this is how it is).

And, no one should hate you for your Marxist ideas. Just don't prejudge people as distorted through your lens, and understand that your lens may seem distorted to others. Holding the majority opinion does not imply one needs to "be a complete tool for the system". You like democracy, except when it disagrees with you, and then you need to cover that by explaining that people are deluded sheeple. As one of the so called, "Sheeple", I'd just like to say that the implication is bigoted, and condescending.

Whatever. To each his own I guess.

Exactly. Give people respect for having thought through their views, and don't automatically assume people are sheeple just because they are moving within a majority. Maybe they are right, and you are wrong. It might be possible.

[FireIceTalon]

Sure, non-Marxists can be free thinkers. But whether they can or cannot be was hardly my point. I was speaking for myself, in that I don't easily buy into the mainstream norms of our society as many people, willingly or otherwise, do. I am all for Democracy, but not when it promotes hatred of another group of individuals because they are of a different ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Yes, I do believe a 'substantial' amount of Americans are very jingoist, racist, sexist, apathetic, and so forth. Many of them don't even realize they are. That is what this country was built on, just ask the Indians. Other day I over heard some guy at Starbucks saying how all the immigrants are stealing our jobs. That is a totally reactionary type comment, and typical of the xenophobia that runs rampant in the nation. And it is my personal belief that no, you wouldnt see these kinds of things in a Communist society (not state, as Communism can only exist globally), or at least much less of it. There is a reason us Commies hate the far right so much, because most of the reactionary bigotry and egocentric/patriarch rhetoric that we see comes from them. Why do you think most Socialists in general, are so anti-religious and anti-nationalist? Because these are social constructs that divide people, create conflict, and imply that some how someone of a particular ethnicity, country or religion is different or even superior to that of another. Which they are NOT, though many of them like to think they are. Sorry to say, but this is all I pretty much see coming from the Republican party, and most other right wing factions in general, be they Tea Partiers, traditional conservatives, fundamentalists, Nazi Fascists (which are the worst scum of this earth, and shouldn't be allowed 1st, or 2nd, Amendment Rights IMO), or other reactionary types. You dont see elements of racism, sexism and such coming from anyone who is on the far left (and I dont mean the lame reformist Democrats, but I mean the far left like myself, who want fundamental change and not just silly, ineffective reforms that still keep the status quo intact), at least I never do. And any Commie making a comment like that guy in Starbucks might want to rethink who he really is, because such comments are reactionary and go against everything any self-respecting Marxist stands for. Not saying all right wingers are this way, I know a few personally who arent, but most of the people that act like this, ARE right wingers. Sorry man, but tis true.

"People love people, and give them regard. Our systems just reflect ways in which we attempt to be both fair and compassionate". Or, as a capitalist system reflects, the ruling class loves the proletariat, because they have an unlimited supply of wage slaves at their beck and call to exploit and maximize profits off of. There is nothing fair or campassionate about capitalism. It is barbarism, and it is the most evil, devisive and inhumane system possibly ever contrived, because it conditions people to be ruthless, greedy and apathetic in the continuous search for profits. And not just the wealthy oppressing the working class, but it creates conflict and exploitation in same class dynamics too (wealthy vs wealthy, working class vs working class). Now, in a Socialist system, people WOULD love people, because the divisions between class, race, gender, and nationality would cease to exist. *sings the Depeche Mode song, People are People*

I won't change your mind, but those are my views, and what I see day to day. Maybe I'm being super judgemental, but I cant help but think "reactionary douche bag" when I hear someone complaining about immigration, or calling a woman a c*nt, "let the uninsured die", or "we need to just nuke all those crazy Muslims".....you don't hear that type of shit coming from Socialists, only from reactionaries. Anyway, Ill stop there.

PS. If you truly find that meaning I posted of what it means to be Marxist as strange, than that truly shows you do have a misconception of what Marxism and Marxists are about. May I suggest you take a peak here? www.revleft.com

[Jester]

We live in a country where some of the anti-wallstreet protesters (representing the poorest 99%), once kicked out of Zucotti Park, layed up in a $700/night luxery hotel. I'm feeling that some of them are more at the upper 90% level, than at my level.

Wait, are you telling me that in this mob of millions of people, at least a handful are... hypocrites?

Oh, well, nevermind then. I obviously can't support a movement like *that*.

-Jester

---

Why do you think most Socialists in general, are so anti-religious and anti-nationalist? Because these are social constructs that divide people, create conflict, and imply that some how someone of a particular ethnicity, country or religion is different or even superior to that of another. Which they are NOT, though many of them like to think they are.

When one is trying to flog your own version of the "one true division" among people, class affiliation, it only makes sense to compete against the others. Every other type of division can be suitably denigrated as "false conciousness."

The other groups say similar. Churches love the idea that your background, race and creed are no relevance, but other religions are beyond the pale. Nationalists think the nation is an organic, patriotic whole, but of course other nations are to be resisted.

And, of course, a certain kind of unreconstructed Marxist believes that it doesn't matter what religion, race or country is yours, but the bourgeois everywhere are reactionary pigs who need to be overthrown.

Same crap, different piles.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... Other day I over heard some guy at Starbucks saying ...

There is your problem... you let one ignorant guy spouting off at a Starbucks establish your opinion. From what you write, you draw broad conclusions on people based on anecdotes, and your own prejudices.

Is that judgmental? No, it sounds like a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

To me, it's not such a far step from X are " the worst scum of this earth, and shouldn't be allowed 1st, or 2nd, Amendment Rights IMO" to rounding them up, and then eliminating the scum problem. Why stop at two amendments? Why not just remove all their rights?

You've got your X, and other people have theirs. What's the difference?

There are many people who say hurtful and hateful things, but that doesn't make them irredeemable. I was watching Oprah with my wife the other day, and she had on a reformed Nazi skinhead who she'd interviewed on her show like 20 years ago. The guy did time for assault, and ended up on an all black chain gang, with a black man as trustee of the group. There was no hiding his tattoos, or where he stood... They accepted him as just another man on the chain gang. Over time, he saw how wrong he was, and he changed his heart. So, it's possible, some people might turn away from their ignorance.

Instead of castigate, why not educate?

"..you don't hear that type of crap coming from Socialists, only from reactionaries."

I don't hear that type of crap coming from Democrats or Republicans either. Maybe I hang out with less ignorant people.

[FireIceTalon]

The starbucks guy was just one example though. I see this coming from the far right in person, and in the media....The hypocrisy of the right amazes me, like when Newt Gingrich told Occupy protestors to go get a job and take a bath. Pretty ass backwards to tell people who are protesting about jobs not being available to go get one, and talk down on them like they are worthless bums. Why doesn't he fly out to Nigeria or Ethiopia and tell those people the same thing while he's at it? Gingrich is the perfect example of a tool for what we see coming from the far right nowadays. But in times of crisis, I can hardly be surprised. Reactionary philosophy becomes quite popular in such times.

Never said people couldn't change. They do all the time. There are a number of people on that site I posted who are ex-fascists, and realized how bad and hateful their views were. Now they are anti-war, love-everybody Communist hippies. I live in a Democratic state, so it is a bit easier for me to erase peoples misconceptions of what Socialism really is and the principles it seeks to achieve. But when I hear hateful comments like that, it tells me something about that person, and depending on their tone, if they are approachable or not. But I dont want to look like a Jehova's Witness either. If I happen to get into a political discussion with someone, I will explain to them the grounds of my views and resources where they can get further information if they wish to understand them more.

[kandrathe]

If I happen to get into a political discussion with someone, I will explain to them the grounds of my views and resources where they can get further information if they wish to understand them more.

Well, not really. Here, at the Lounge, what comes across is that your ideas are the correct ideas, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hateful, ignorant, racist, jingoist, money grubbing, gay bashing, gutter talking, fundamentalist, sexist, etc, etc, etc...

Most people find that to be off putting. And... As Jester suggested, for someone dedicated to "democracy" and tearing down social barriers, you have erected a pretty large set of ideological walls yourself.

Wait, are you telling me that in this mob of millions of people, at least a handful are... hypocrites?

Yes. Well, I guess for me, it was more that they were mostly the organized leadership of that local movement. It's the irony of the movement arguing whether they should get Hagen Daz, or Ben and Jerry's ice cream. I get the message, but sometimes I can't help but see a bunch of relatively well off spoiled brats with too much time on their hands.

[Treesh]

I get the message, but sometimes I can't help but see a bunch of relatively well off spoiled brats with too much time on their hands.

Who else is going to do things like this to affect change? The folks who have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table? This has been the case throughout history. The ones who have time for thoughts beyond "How can I keep my family from starving" are the ones who generally have money so they don't have to work excessive hours to get their basic needs taken care of. You have to have some sort of support to be able to spend days/weeks at a protest sit-in/rally otherwise you're going to go hungry.

[Tal]

Most people find that to be off putting. And... As Jester suggested, for someone dedicated to "democracy" and tearing down social barriers, you have erected a pretty large set of ideological walls yourself.

Word.

[kandrathe]

Who else is going to do things like this to affect change? The folks who have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table? This has been the case throughout history. The ones who have time for thoughts beyond "How can I keep my family from starving" are the ones who generally have money so they don't have to work excessive hours to get their basic needs taken care of. You have to have some sort of support to be able to spend days/weeks at a protest sit-in/rally otherwise you're going to go hungry.

I hear you. I just know that were I to spend my time engaging in civil disobedience, getting arrested, etc... That I'd soon also be unemployed, and in a worse position than when I started.

The strange irony of that those with the financial freedom to express their 1st amendment rights don't need to, and those who have the need can't break free from the system long enough to express themselves.

So, while interesting, I find the views of 1%ers like Soros, Buffet, or Micheal Moore also just a little hypocritical. They are in a position to *really* tap into the power to change the system, and yet given the prospect, they won't kill their golden goose.

[FireIceTalon]

If I happen to get into a political discussion with someone, I will explain to them the grounds of my views and resources where they can get further information if they wish to understand them more.

Well, not really. Here, at the Lounge, what comes across is that your ideas are the correct ideas, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hateful, ignorant, racist, jingoist, money grubbing, gay bashing, gutter talking, fundamentalist, sexist, etc, etc, etc...

Most people find that to be off putting. And... As Jester suggested, for someone dedicated to "democracy" and tearing down social barriers, you have erected a pretty large set of ideological walls yourself.

Wait, are you telling me that in this mob of millions of people, at least a handful are... hypocrites?

Yes. Well, I guess for me, it was more that they were mostly the organized leadership of that local movement. It's the irony of the movement arguing whether they should get Hagen Daz, or Ben and Jerry's ice cream. I get the message, but sometimes I can't help but see a bunch of relatively well off spoiled brats with too much time on their hands.

LMAO. I have to admit, you are clever. But trying to turn my own arguments against me completely flies in the face of the self-evidence that is grounded in reality. Again, I'm not saying all right-wingers fit that description (all Fascists certainly do though), but all those things DO come from the right-wing/reactionaries perspective, not from Socialists, who view people as being people and nothing more or less. How anyone can deny something so obvious is beyond any logical reasoning. And why avoid addressing my Newt Gingrich example? Because it is the perfect example that proves my point correct, that his egocentric rhetoric is par for the course for the majority of the Republican Party today? I don't have any ideological walls, I just call things as I see from constant observation. I don't have to say that reactionaries are racist, sexist, and jingoist to be honest....they themselves make those points loud and clear everyday WITHOUT me having to point it out. I will quote Napoleon (I think it was him) here and say "Never interfere with an opponent while he’s in the process of destroying himself".

As for my views being correct or incorrect, that is a separate (and more subjective) issue that comes down to our values and how we see the world. My side views all social divisions, be it racial, gender, national, sexual orientation, or any other social construct, as well as MATERIAL divisions (class) to be wrong and unjust. MUCH of the right-wing - not all of it - is often tolerable of these divisions and inequalities, and in many cases even supportive of them (Tea Party/Fascists especially, but most of the Republican Party of today manifests these ideas - to at least some extent). Whether either side is right or wrong all comes down to perspective, otherwise such a political dichotomy wouldn't exist to begin with. But you cannot deny that these are the positions and tendencies held respectively; claiming otherwise is being intellectually dishonest, straight up. If my observations offend people, sorry, but the truth evidently hurts. Besides, I haven't really referred to anyone here in particular, just the far right wing in general outside of cyberspace or otherwise. People here at the lounge may or may not fit the descriptions i've posted before. Dont know, or really care.