Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[Hammerskjold]

Now enjoy your ignore.

Perhaps you might consider just ignoring everyone, and un-ignoring specific cases. It would probably save you time, at this point.

-Jester

Jester, please seriously consider just who you're talking to here. This is someone who has trouble figuring out how the 'Ignore' function actually works.

Based on his uhm, reactions , it really looks like he thinks the 'Ignore' function is the same as Delete. And\or, it's a command for others to follow his 'Ignore' list as well.

While it is entertaining to watch you systematically tear apart Commie-dian rantings.

After a certain point it starts resembling a Monty Python sketch.


OMG! It's the Black Knight! That's racist! And there's a picture of a king there. King...? That's bourgeois! Borgia! Bourbon! Bieber!

Hmmm..what else is on my word of the day Commie Calendar. Gaah! I should've gotten 'The Far Side Cartoons: Best of Collection' calendar instead.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm curious FiT... Do you hold the same contempt towards the military? Aren't they the ULTIMATE in "bourgeois protectors"? I mean... They are Uncle Sam's Rottweiler, trained and ready to shoot first and ask questions only if you survive and are tortured, right?

[/sarcasm off]

The military has essentially the same role as the police do, just on a much larger scale of course. The role of both of them is to protect the interests of the ruling class, and uphold bourgeois law that legitimizes the existence of said ruling class, and allows it to retain and expand its hegemony.

Seriously. You are painting with an incredibly broad brush, based on shock inducing media stories and coverage. Every group has a bad apple or two, one that takes things to an extreme, pushes the limits too far, abuses the power that they have acquired. The Police are no different than any other group of people that you can apply that to.

Bad apples are one thing. But bad apples who are in positions of power are much worse. And it isn't just a bad apple or two, the type of stuff I posted in this thread are not simple isolated incidents - things like this go on every day, just much of it goes unreported though. Granted, these are exceptionally bad incidents perhaps, but that doesn't make "less extreme" crimes of the bourgeois state any less forgivable.

Are you going to say that every Lounge Member is a Communist because you are a communist? I mean. By your own logic, if every cop is some facist pig who actively works to do deplorable things, shouldn't you just go ahead and categorize all of the lounge as a bunch of Communists? Surely, we could paint with that big of a brush right?

Oh wait. That's right. You'd never do that. Because it's OBVIOUSLY False. Just like your non sensical notion that every single cop is out to get you.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here, or how its relevant.

Communism, capitalism, and fascism are ideologies and social-economic organizations of society. The loungers being communist (or capitalist) or not doesn't really matter.

The police/military are instruments of class society, whose objective purpose is to protect the capitalist or ruling class, and their interests. The ideology of loungers bears no relationship to this. Ideology is subjective (though it can have objective relations to class position, but that is a different matter altogether), the role of the State is not subjective. Many cops or military soldiers may not know or consciously understand this, but it is what it is. So yes, all police are bourgeois protectors, whether they realize it or not.

As a Marxist, I oppose the State on all levels, and in any form - whether it is a theocratic dictatorship like in Iran, a democratic republic as in the USA, a fascist police state as seen in Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, or a top down, bureaucratic State Capitalist nightmare that hid under the name of 'socialism' like in Stalin's regime, to justify its existence. Bottom line: If there is a State of any kind - that means classes exist, and where classes exist, one group rules and exerts its hegemony over another. I am fundamentally opposed to this. But if you think I am far left, you should talk to an Anarchist - they are even further Left than I am.

[Jester]

I am reminded more of Dennis the Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasant. Except that I always found Dennis' analysis rather sharp.

-Jester

[shoju]

In your opinion FIT, you said that they were all scum, because some of them did terrible things. I'm just trying to find out what you do and don't paint with a broad brush. So you paint all police, as scum (your words, not mine)

They are bourgeois protectors therefore they are scum regardless if I have met them or not. They are bourgeois protectors therefore they are scum regardless if I have met them or not. And yes, I've met a few cops, and almost all of them were worthless, arrogant, chauvinistic bigots that thought they were the shit just because they wore a badge. Tasering 10-year old kids who don't want to perform child labor seems to be their newfound activity of choice, when they get bored with racially profiling minorities, or pepper spraying protestors.

And now you say

The military has essentially the same role as the police do, just on a much larger scale of course. The role of both of them is to protect the interests of the ruling class, and uphold bourgeois law that legitimizes the existence of said ruling class, and allows it to retain and expand its hegemony.

So are you then saying that they are scum too? I mean. The military has done some pretty terrible things to people right?

I'm just trying to figure out who isn't scum, or an idiot, or some idealist in your eyes. Is it just the others who believe like you? Are you and your fellow "marxists" the only "smart" people? I mean, you seem to regard anyone with a contrary opinion to your own as wrong in some way shape or form. I'm just trying to figure it out.

[FireIceTalon]

Perhaps all is a strong word. I will reduce it to most. Happy? I know it sounds fucked up, but it is true man. I truly believe in that saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", although I believe distribution of power is more important than the power itself. Many of the police and military may not be aware of what their actual role is, and I am sure they think they are just doing their jobs, which to some degree is true. I doubt many of them think of it as "Yep, I gotta protect private capital and ruling class interests no matter what", but that is their purpose all the same. And they both certainly have committed many atrocities in doing their "jobs", even if some of these instances are done in the name of personal egoism rather than in the direct interests of the State (though egoism itself has a very strong correlation with capitalist culture and psychology, that can result in deviant and undesirable behaviors) - this is because many police and soldiers are very reactionary, ideologically speaking, as a result of being raised in a capitalist society. Yet, a small part of me has some sorrow for them also, because they serve a greater power that generally cares little about them. At the end of the day, I guess I just have to remind myself they are a product of the system they live under, and even I am to some degree (however small). I was pretty pissed about that cop tasering that boy though, probably the most enraging article or news I have seen in a while.

Me saying Marxists are the only smart people would be wrong of course, not to mention extremely elitist. Hitler is quite possibly the most hated individual of all time, and certainly by Marxists, he undoubtedly is - not just because of his actions, but as a fascist he was ideologically our opposite on essentially every level. That being said, he was quite intelligent - that much I will merit him. He was however, a horrible horrible human being (yes, I know I am being subjective here, but from a humanitarian perspective there is no question about it). Obama is extremely intelligent and articulate, though he is also extremely bourgeois and reactionary. In short, there are plenty of people who aren't of my views that are intelligent. But just because they are intelligent doesn't mean I agree with them.

To be sure, there are a number of non-Marxist thinkers and activists that have helped shaped my political and ideological thought to some extent as well - Rawls, Chomsky, Mill, Emma Goldman, Howard Zinn, Thomas Paine, Malcolm X, and even the post-modernist Foucault all have at least one or two things I find of value. Kandrathe is wrong when he says Marx (or Marxists) hates philosophers - Marx himself was a philosopher, in addition to being a social scientist and economist. Indeed philosophy is extremely important for developing critical thinking skills and for understanding values, belief systems, ethics, culture, morality, and foundations of political ideologies. Not to mention, it is generally an interesting subject. The two major branches of philosophy are Idealism and Materialism, the latter of which is central to Marxism, though not exclusive to it. When he stated "philosophers interpret the world, but the point is to change it", this isn't bashing philosophy, it is just saying that we need to go beyond it if we are to change society.

[shoju]

Most? No. I'm still not happy. Because even at "most" being bad, you can't prove your belief as true. You are taking your obviously prejudiced opinion, and painting a very limited picture of an institution that you feel serves no purpose but to oppress you. You have made a caricature out of them, because they "protect the ruling class" or they are doing it for egoism, and not you. None of those men and women decided to be a civil servant because they wanted to keep their homes, their towns, their cities safe. It's all about being some ego bound chauvinistic bourgeois protecting mindless toadie, that has no idea what their job "really" is.

In your eyes, you're right. Police never do anything to protect you. They don't look to get dangerous people (and I'm talking the gun toting shoot you in the face to steal your wallet, or creepy perverts creeping on little kids, or drug kingpins) off the street. They don't actively look to investigate crimes against you, only crimes against the "ruling class". They have never put themselves in harms way to save anyone that wasn't part of the ruling class, or that will make them look better.

In my eyes, I'm saying that you are using an incredibly misguided ideology (yes. ideology) to villainize people that you haven't met, that you've already made a biased pre-judgement about. You spout off about things, and make wild off based claims that you can't possibly rationally back up, and then you claim that it is all part of the "science" of your communist beliefs. You insult people because you have already decided that your beliefs are right.

My best friend growing up lost an older brother to the shitbags who roamed the street to the south of ours. He became a cop. He didn't do it because he wanted to be a hero. He didn't do it because he wanted to "Protect the ruling class". He didn't do it because he had a power complex. He did it, because when we were 7 years old, his 9 year old brother was riding his bike and got run over by a car fleeing the scene of a drive by. They ran him over and didn't even stop. Today, he is one of the hardest working cops in town. He is working to make sure that the community is safe. That the kids are safe. But to you? You'd just lump him in with the rest. He's just another bourgeois protecting pig scum out to protect their interests, and serve his own ego while he's at it.

You already come off as elitist. You've stepped up lately here at the lounge and decided that you somehow are right, and that others are wrong. Your posts in debating others read as though you think you are the smarter one in the conversation. Not confidence though. That you indeed have somehow achieved a higher level of superiority. (Remember when you so eloquently said "was a pleasure destroying you"?) You believe that you are the one who has the intellectual high ground. Your condescending posts towards others (hell, even posts in conversations that I almost agree with you on) ooze the idea that you think you have one up on others because you believe that somehow, your ideology is better than theirs.

[FireIceTalon]

There is just one problem for you, I CAN back it up. In addition to the incidents posted in this thread, along with the who knows how many that don't get reported that occur each day, we get statistics like this that completely confirm my "beliefs" as having truth to them. Read it and weep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16...88378.html

Bottom line: Cops racially profile minorities, and not at just an individual level, but also police their communities more. One doesn't have to be a communist to see this, these are just observable facts within our society that you want to deny, and I'm not going to let you. In addition to minorities being more racially profiled, the sentences against minorities are harsher than they are on whites (especially if it was a minority who committed a crime against a white person), and two-thirds of people in the American prison system are minorities, with about 40% of that demographic being African-American. The 'war on drugs' is a huge program designed to target minorities and their communities, and the police and ATF do wonders to enforce it. Such policies as the possession of crack cocaine carrying a much harsher sentence than powder cocaine is a racial policy, because minorities are more likely to sell the former because the latter is more expensive to get, and is used in middle class white communities more. This is a perfect example of bourgeois law at work.

Laws are made by the predominantly white ruling class, and the job of the police is to uphold those laws. Racism and capitalism go hand in hand, because racism is profitable for the system, and this dates all the way back to the 1670's from Bacon's Rebellion when a division of labor between whites and blacks (based on a 'superior race and a 'inferior race') was created to protect white privilege and develop a cheaper labor force. The form of the racism has changed much since then, but the goals and purpose are the same. First it was slavery, then it was Jim Crowe, now it is mass incarceration and Symbolic Prejudice. Your anecdotes squander in the face of empirical evidence and history.

As for cops protecting everyone else, of course they have to, otherwise the true intent and processes of bourgeois law would become obvious, and people wouldn't stand for it - Look at the Trayvon Martin case: it took extensive public outrage for George Zimmerman to be booked - had the circumstances been reversed, I guarantee you that wouldn't have been the case. You, like most, fail to look at the context of the laws, and who they have were made historically by and ultimately for. Capitalism has done a marvelous job wrapping itself up in the guise of things like 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'equality' to hide its true nature. You can try to deny it all you want, but facts are facts. Tell me, did you ever take a sociology class before?

If the charge is me being elitist for observing all of these facts, then I stand guilty as sin, nor do I make any apologies about it. If I recall correctly, one of your idols was George Orwell. I'm gonna provide you with two quotes from him:

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act", and

"Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past"

[shoju]

Considering my first major was in fact related to Sociology, yes. I've taken plenty of Sociology. I just don't look at the information and draw the same conclusions that you do. The laws were made and written by a white "ruling class" as you call it, because... SHOCKER it has been predominantly a white man's world in politics in the U.S. for.... Oh...... 236 years now? I think it's safe to say even with the advances that are made in each election cycle, we have a ways to go before we can truly say that there is a "level playing field" so to speak.

It's part of what doomed the Republican party in the most recent election. Look at the exit polls. They were were utterly destroyed by the "Non White Male" vote.

Congratulations, you found a Major City's police force that has been caught doing something terrible. You've done it! There are the facts, the entirety of the Police Force in all the land of the United States are corrupt and dirty! They are all Facist Pig Scum! THEY ALL DO THE SAME THING. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Let's go ahead and lambaste them all based on it. Hell, while we're at it, let's toss Sheriff Joe in the mix of proof, along with the police officers from San Fran, and the idiots from New Orleans after Katrina, and the ones that started this whole thread, and draw wide sweeping conclusions. Let's go ahead and look at my home town. about 10 years ago, a group of three cops got busted with illegal cell phone scanning devices. About 5 years before that, in a Police Raid on a home that contained a group of men cooking, packing, and distributing Crack Cocaine, a kid got shot during a raid, just because they were running away in the dark with something in their hand. a tragedy, but an accident.

Surely, my police force is just as crooked and corrupt now as it was when This book was published. The push to clean it up, and get it right was all an illusion. My childhood best friend does his job, purely to keep up the illusion that they care about everyone.

Surely, those cops in my home town, and the few cops from the post Katrina Bridge Murders, and the corruption in San Fran, and Sheriff Joe, and the Cop who killed the kid that started this whole thing speak for every last cop.

Yep. Good job. You're still painting with a huge brush, because it is what you need to do to prove that the Police are solely there to oppress, and keep the laws that protect the ruling class.

In short, it's what you need to do to keep your opinion looking good.

Corruption exists. It happens. You can point to it, and you can build a fantastically flimsy argument about how it proves that ALL COPS ARE PIG SCUM. You can further bolster this argument by bringing up "all the stuff that goes unreported!" as you have. That claim, does little to further move forward your idea. It doesn't prove it. Not even hand in hand with stories of corruption. For someone who wants to deal with "Facts" and "Observable things" you sure are doing a lot of finger pointing at some "Phantom statistic of the amount of police corruption that goes unreported" in an effort to paint them all in the negative light that you need so that you can prove a point.

Or, you can look at the data, and you can realize that corruption happens. You can realize that there are times when what you say is really what happens. But you can understand that by finding the corruption, you can't paint the entire landscape that way. You work to remove the corruption. Be it in the Government, or Business, or the Police, or even a church. You don't paint them all as Scum because you found corruption. You've essentially lined up 706,886 people, and decided to judge them by the actions of the worst of the worst, because it fits your notion.

I'm pretty sure I could line up 706,886 people who fit some criteria, and then find a healthy portion of that number that are horrible, awful people who cast negative light on the rest of the group.

Wow... I could make several hyperbolic comments here about how that is a type of profiling, but I think most rational people can look at what you've done here, and see it for what it is. A desperate attempt to label over half a million people based on the publicized and sensationalized actions of a minority. Huh. Sort of like what Ashock did to Muslims.

But what you haven't realized, is that even if we do get to your classless society that you so desperately pine for, there will still be those who are tasked with keeping the peace. There will still be those who enforce the laws. Because there will always be people who reject the notions of the society that they are in.

I'm not denying that racial profiling exists. I never have. Don't put words in my mouth. What we disagree on, is that I don't look at the fact that racial profiling exists and Say "OH MY GOD THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE WHITE MAN IN PLACE!" It's a flawed idea that started out with good intentions (EDIT: The idea to reduce crime being the good intention), and went straight to hell from there.

Racism isn't as profitable as you think. If it was profitable, and it kept the ruling class running, Then why didn't Virgil Goode fair better? Why are people blaming him for costing Romney Virginia? Surely, this racist fits right in with your idea of how things work. Why did he lose his race for re-election to Congress? Oh right. Because this isn't the 1960's, and Racism is not really good for business anymore.

And for that matter, if Racism and keeping the "White Ruling Class" in power is what "the Police" and the Bourgeois are tyring to do, HOW IN THE WORLD did we elect a black president? Not once, but TWICE. And the second time, was a rather sound beating of a "White Man" who would represent your "Bourgeois".

[kandrathe]

...
Racism isn't as profitable as you think. ...

Case in point, Denny's

Hope for financial improvements was offset, however, by disturbing news on another front: African-American customers at Denny's restaurants in California began to complain that they had been discriminated against and denied service. Specifically, the customers alleged that some Denny's restaurants either refused adequate service or forced them to pay in advance for their meals, while white customers in the restaurants were not asked to do the same.

...Flagstar also hired its first African-American executive, a human relations administrator who vowed to tackle the problems at Denny's.

One month later, Flagstar announced an ambitious minority advancement program developed in conjunction with the NAACP. To demonstrate its good faith in its effort to stamp out racism, Flagstar announced that it would double the number of Denny's franchises owned by minorities to 107, hire 325 African-American managers, and pledge $1 billion to be earmarked for goods purchased from minority-owned contractors over a seven-year period. Moreover, the company promised to maintain a policy of designating 12 percent of its purchasing budget, ten percent of its marketing and advertising budget, and 15 percent of its legal, accounting, and consulting budget, exclusively for minority-owned firms.

Then, after at least five years of structural changes and financial issues...

Not only was Advantica in a more hopeful financial position in mid-1998, it was receiving recognition for its dramatic turnaround in race relations. Fortune magazine named Advantica the number two best company in the country for Asians, African-Americans, and Hispanics. With a rejuvenated balance sheet and image, Advantica hoped to complete a solid turnaround by the end of the decade.

Whatever people feel is immoral, like sexism, or racism, is ultimately bad for business.

FIT points at the free ownership and free exchange of goods (capitalism) as the problem, where I would say that it is when injustice is institutionalized into law that we have problems. Liberty suffers when our system of laws is corrupted for special interests, whether they be vile or puritanical.

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

The whole letter is worth reading...

[Jester]

Your anecdotes squander in the face of empirical evidence and history.

Your vocabulary squanders in the face of the definition of the word squander.

Perhaps you mean flounder?

You are on very solid ground to say that institutionalized racism is a serious problem with police forces, not only in the US, but around the world. They are seldom representative of the communities they police, and reproduce privilege and power.

You are on shaky but perhaps defensible ground to say that the police act, when push comes to shove, as the protectors of capital and property rights, and therefore of owners' rights more directly than those of workers.

You are on thin ice when you claim that this is, basically, all the police does.

And you are being downright bigoted when you take it to the level of the individual policeman or woman. And it's no use saying "oh, there are some exceptions," because nearly every bigot is willing to make exceptions, either for their friends, or for cases that don't quite fit their preconceptions. It's why we cringe when we hear "Some of my best friends are gay, but..."

-Jester

---

Whatever people feel is immoral, like sexism, or racism, is ultimately bad for business.

Chick-fil-a seems to think otherwise. Markets are segmented, and you don't have to sell to each and every person. Sometimes it's more profitable to carve out a niche of loyal customers.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Considering my first major was in fact related to Sociology, yes. I've taken plenty of Sociology. I just don't look at the information and draw the same conclusions that you do. The laws were made and written by a white "ruling class" as you call it, because... SHOCKER it has been predominantly a white man's world in politics in the U.S. for.... Oh...... 236 years now? I think it's safe to say even with the advances that are made in each election cycle, we have a ways to go before we can truly say that there is a "level playing field" so to speak.

Right, but this just proves my point: you cannot reform racism or other identity politics out of a class system - they merely change in context, not in actual existence. There will never be an equal playing field for whites and minorities in a capitalist system, EVER. The economic and social laws and structural forces of the system prevent this. Gains are, at best, cosmetic, and those themselves are never guaranteed to stay intact. The ultimate interests of private capital are what determine policy, action, behavior, and such. The State acts in the ultimate interests of the ruling class based on current circumstances, whether it is discriminatory policy or some form of concession to those who are subjugated. Furthermore, you know very well, this extends well beyond the political arena into the daily lives of everyday people.

It's part of what doomed the Republican party in the most recent election. Look at the exit polls. They were were utterly destroyed by the "Non White Male" vote.

So, you think the Democrats are any less subservient to corporate interests than Republicans are? Well, let me tell you, they aren't. Obama has done a wonderful job for keeping it business as usual. Minorities will almost always vote for the party that seems to have their best interests in mind. One party losing badly means nothing, when both of them are almost the same thing. For the 1%, it doesn't matter - they win either way. And so does capitalism. The GOP losing is because they pander to their most extreme faction, the Tea Party, not to mention the chauvinistic war on women. Racial and gender inequality are good for capitalism, but being explicitly and open about it, is not so good for one personally - especially in the political arena. Right now, the Latino community is growing rapidly and plays a very important role in the labor force - Romney wanted them to self deport, and this isn't in the interests of the current conditions of American capitalism, therefore this (among other things) cost him the election.

Congratulations, you found a Major City's police force that has been caught doing something terrible. You've done it! There are the facts, the entirety of the Police Force in all the land of the United States are corrupt and dirty! They are all Facist Pig Scum! THEY ALL DO THE SAME THING. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Let's go ahead and lambaste them all based on it. Hell, while we're at it, let's toss Sheriff Joe in the mix of proof, along with the police officers from San Fran, and the idiots from New Orleans after Katrina, and the ones that started this whole thread, and draw wide sweeping conclusions. Let's go ahead and look at my home town. about 10 years ago, a group of three cops got busted with illegal cell phone scanning devices. About 5 years before that, in a Police Raid on a home that contained a group of men cooking, packing, and distributing Crack Cocaine, a kid got shot during a raid, just because they were running away in the dark with something in their hand. a tragedy, but an accident.

They do this type of stuff all the time man - whether it is profiling, planting or withholding evidence, using excessive force when making an arrest, lying in testimony to protect their fellow officers even when they are wrong, and just acting like jerks whenever the opportunity presents itself. I'm not making generalizations, this stuff happens a lot more than you think. Cops in general have a shaky reputation at best even among non-radicals, and it is well deserved.

Surely, those cops in my home town, and the few cops from the post Katrina Bridge Murders, and the corruption in San Fran, and Sheriff Joe, and the Cop who killed the kid that started this whole thing speak for every last cop.

I'm not interested in individual personalties though, I'm interested in objective systematic conditions and processes. Besides, cops have a tendency to be very reactionary. If a revolution took place tomorrow, whose side do you think the cops would take, the side of the revolutionaries, or the State's? Think we all know the answer to that question. We saw what happened when just a few "left-leaning" Occupy protestors, who were far from being radical revolutionaries, expressed their opinions. They were met with batons, pepper spray, and police brutality.

Corruption exists. It happens. You can point to it, and you can build a fantastically flimsy argument about how it proves that ALL COPS ARE PIG SCUM. You can further bolster this argument by bringing up "all the stuff that goes unreported!" as you have. That claim, does little to further move forward your idea. It doesn't prove it. Not even hand in hand with stories of corruption. For someone who wants to deal with "Facts" and "Observable things" you sure are doing a lot of finger pointing at some "Phantom statistic of the amount of police corruption that goes unreported" in an effort to paint them all in the negative light that you need so that you can prove a point.

Again, considering about 2/3rds of the prison population are minorities, I'd say that is pretty empirical and observable.

Or, you can look at the data, and you can realize that corruption happens. You can realize that there are times when what you say is really what happens. But you can understand that by finding the corruption, you can't paint the entire landscape that way. You work to remove the corruption. Be it in the Government, or Business, or the Police, or even a church. You don't paint them all as Scum because you found corruption. You've essentially lined up 706,886 people, and decided to judge them by the actions of the worst of the worst, because it fits your notion.

Institutions are a product and reflection of the social organization of society - the fact classes exist will always lead to corruption. They are not independent of the system, they in fact have a complex, reciprocal and symbiotic relationship. In a class society, it is primarily the ruling class ideas, values, morals, and overall culture that are represented in the institutions - this is one significant way they retain their hegemony. This includes business, the State, church, education system, and of course, the media.

Wow... I could make several hyperbolic comments here about how that is a type of profiling, but I think most rational people can look at what you've done here, and see it for what it is. A desperate attempt to label over half a million people based on the publicized and sensationalized actions of a minority. Huh. Sort of like what Ashock did to Muslims.

They aren't a minority. Most cops are indeed extremely reactionary, no matter how nice the ones you know may be. Yes, even the "nice" ones are, at the end of the day, reactionary in some way, because they protect bourgeois laws that legitimize the ruling class hegemony and ideology. Comparing my analysis to Ashock's lumping of Muslims as terrorists can't even begin to compare - Islam is a religion, some of them are radical and some aren't. ALL cops, however, have an objective duty to protect and uphold the laws that legitimize the interest of capital.

But what you haven't realized, is that even if we do get to your classless society that you so desperately pine for, there will still be those who are tasked with keeping the peace. There will still be those who enforce the laws. Because there will always be people who reject the notions of the society that they are in.

No, there won't be, because in a classless society everyone's economic interests are essentially the same - since the means of production are no longer privately owned by some parasitic class. Personal interests may and probably will differ because we all have different personal circumstances, but that is a completely different thing entirely from objective class interests. Besides, in a classless society, the laws, if any, are made in such a context that they are democratically put into place by ALL of that society (likely through Workers Councils), and apply equally and fairly to that society, since there isn't a ruling class or State anymore. This is far from the case in the current order. In socialism, yes there are still elements of the old order within society (there are still classes, some markets perhaps, bourgeois law, and the exchange of currency and goods, the State still exists even though we control it now, etc), and it will be during this stage when the proletarian will have to be careful - those who wish to re-establish the previous order of things will be present still.

Communism is a later stage of history than socialism, when virtually all elements of capitalism are non-existent at every level. Our descendants in a communist society would have a very different set of values, belief system, culture and outlook on life than we do, because they didn't grow up in bourgeois society. As radical and class conscious as I personally am, even I still have bourgeois influence to some extent, because that is the society that I was born into. This isn't going to happen overnight - the transition from the dictatorship of the bourgeois (capitalism) to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to socialism to full blown communism would easily take decades, if not a century+. Capitalism has inflicted a terrible amount of atrocities onto the planet, and humanity, and a changing of the social order is by no means an easy or short process - it will take a very long while to undo and/or reverse all the damage it has done. But probably much to your delight, I will be honest and say I am not sure it is possible at this point - there is MUCH that has to happen first before revolutionary circumstances are even possible, and as Lenin once said, revolutionary situations do not always result in revolution. Capitalism has become so deeply entrenched in the fabric of culture and contemporary psychology, to the point of it being a religion - the religion of apathy, consumption, selfishness, greed, exploitation, individualism, privilege, and competition. These are all very destructive, anti-human values. I am hesitant to subscribe to catastrophism, nevertheless the situation is very grim at the moment. I absolutely loathe this system, far more than Marx himself ever did; and thus even for a Marxist I am probably considered exceptionally radical.

I'm not denying that racial profiling exists. I never have. Don't put words in my mouth. What we disagree on, is that I don't look at the fact that racial profiling exists and Say "OH MY GOD THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE WHITE MAN IN PLACE!" It's a flawed idea that started out with good intentions (EDIT: The idea to reduce crime being the good intention), and went straight to hell from there.

Racial profiling is definitely an extension of and correlated to white privilege. Who is more likely to get stopped while they are walking down the street, a white man in a business suit, or a black man in jeans, a t-shirt, and sneakers?

Racism isn't as profitable as you think. If it was profitable, and it kept the ruling class running, Then why didn't Virgil Goode fair better? Why are people blaming him for costing Romney Virginia? Surely, this racist fits right in with your idea of how things work. Why did he lose his race for re-election to Congress? Oh right. Because this isn't the 1960's, and Racism is not really good for business anymore.

The fact it is even profitable at all renders this pointless.

Besides racism is good for business, it is open racism that isn't good for business. As I said before, the State will act in preserving the ultimate interests of the ruling class, even if that means altering a lesser interest. In the 1950's, Jim Crowe laws were profitable for the ruling class, today they are not - now it is symbolic racism and mass incarceration that is necessary to retain divisions of labor and white privilege among the working class. Blacks WITHOUT a criminal record still have to work harder than whites WITH a criminal record in the job market - statistics show that whites with a criminal record have about an 17% chance of getting a call back for employment (35% w/o a record). Blacks without a record have about a 15% chance of getting a call back. What that translates to is this: Being black in America is the same as being a criminal. Employers view whites with a criminal record as being no more dangerous than blacks without one. And compared with whites who have no criminal record, blacks have to apply to more than twice as many jobs to have the same equality of opportunity. This is institutionalized and symbolic racism man. And if you are black with a criminal record, forget it, your chances of getting a call back for employment are less than 6%. Even before the application process has begun, studies show that blacks are more likely to be asked up front if they have a record, than whites are. Again, institutionalized racism. Plus, blacks with similar qualifications and education are still paid less than whites are, and less likely to be promoted and more likely to be fired or laid off. Just because the blatantly racist and extreme GOP of today lost an election doesn't mean racism isn't profitable - it still very much is.

The truth is, many so-called progressive Democrats are also a very racist bunch, at least at the laymen level. I used to live in CA, and I cannot tell you how many middle class, white Democrats I met that opposed immigration, the Dream Act, and thought that Latino's were stealing their jobs, or that they were all lazy welfare queens who were sucking up our tax dollars. This has a very racist and reactionary, nationalistic ring to it. Not to mention, many Democrats also opposed Affirmative Action back in the day - this is a form of symbolic racism. Granted, this may not be the extreme blatant racism of the KKK or neo-Nazis, but it is racism nonetheless. My little brother is a democrat, and is extremely reactionary - he uses words like "fag", "bitch", "beaner", "bros before hoez" type stuff all the time.

And for that matter, if Racism and keeping the "White Ruling Class" in power is what "the Police" and the Bourgeois are tyring to do, HOW IN THE WORLD did we elect a black president? Not once, but TWICE. And the second time, was a rather sound beating of a "White Man" who would represent your "Bourgeois".

Ive only heard the Obama excuse a million times now, and its played out. So because we elected a black president finally after 230+ years, suddenly all racism has just disappeared and that we are finally becoming a non-racist society. It isn't just the bourgeois who are racist, white workers are just as racist as well, because they have been influenced by ruling class ideology that helps spread false consciousness. My bourgeois? Ha! And besides, the election of Obama has actually strengthened racism in some ways, even though Obama himself represents and is part of the bourgeois:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/arti...986183.php

Interestingly, a lot of conservative whites see his election as a threat to their privileged status somehow; the ideology and wishes of the Tea Party not withstanding, it hardly is.

Not every cop is racist, but capitalism is a very racist system, and their duty is to uphold the laws that legitimize it, even if they aren't personally racist. But one doesn't have to be racist to be a reactionary either. Their job is to serve and protect - in particular serve and protect private property.

Anyway, if my comments about cops being scum offended you that much, I apologize. I still stand by my analysis on their role in protecting private property and ruling class laws, however. Don't know what else to say bro. It is what it is.

[kandrathe]

Chick-fil-a seems to think otherwise. Markets are segmented, and you don't have to sell to each and every person. Sometimes it's more profitable to carve out a niche of loyal customers.

I believe that injustice has it's price (ultimately). Also, this case is more complicated than outright bigotry and more of a matter of what Dan Cathy does with his beliefs and money, and not a case where Chick-Fil-A discriminates against their employees or customers.

It seems also a case of trial by media. Do we hold up all private foundations and donors to causes the same scrutiny? This is a part of a deeper social dialog involving religious freedom and the commonly held belief that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The private non-profit Winshape Foundation donates to religious organizations which exclude gays, just like the bulk of the Catholic Church and many protestant churches as well as the Boy Scouts. What does it mean for religious freedom if individuals or non-profit religious groups cannot support what are in their belief systems? Are we really to the point where we label the worlds major religions as hate groups?

Moreno says he's satisfied with LGBT statement of respect.

[Jester]

I believe that injustice has it's price (ultimately). Also, this case is more complicated than outright bigotry and more of a matter of what Dan Cathy does with his beliefs and money, and not a case where Chick-Fil-A discriminates against their employees or customers. It was a clear case of trial by media.

I don't have any difficulty calling what Chick-Fil-A - both the company and its founder - have done to be outright bigotry. This is not a misunderstanding. Nobody's position is being misconstrued, and no, this is not just a private matter for Dan Cathy.

And it has had the desired effect. Supporters of gay rights have boycotted, opponents have rallied in support. Mike Huckabee declared "Chick-fil-A appreciation day." This was not just the media cooking up some wacky story. Chick-Fil-A actually does, as company policy, support "traditional marriage," or whatever euphemism they're using for the suppression of gay rights these days.

Do we hold up all foundations and donors to causes the same scrutiny?

We probably should, no?

And, then, what good is religious freedom if individuals or non-profit religious groups cannot support what are in their belief system? Should we call out Catholics who support anti-abortion causes?

Absolutely, yes, they should be called out. Freedom of religion is freedom from federal and state government interference, not freedom from people calling you out on bigotry. Nobody is suggesting religious groups "cannot" to XY or Z. But everyone else is free to react as they please.

As for the link, apparently the company, and Mike Huckabee, disagree.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Chick-Fil-A actually does, as company policy, support "traditional marriage," or whatever euphemism they're using for the suppression of gay rights these days.

Because Mike Huckabee is in charge of what and a spokesperson for whom? Being pro-X, doesn't make you automatically anti-Y. Not all things are reflexively black and white in this world. Is being pro-gay the same as being anti-traditional marriage?

The position on "traditional marriage" is the same as Federal Law. And, I see hypocritical outrage on this when it was Bill Clinton who signed the Federal DOMA into law. What a bigot!

Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996

Here is The Civil Rights Agenda for another statement.

But everyone else is free to react as they please.

I just see this as a part of the recent liberal big hammer Alinsky approach. Catholics get hammered with the same pro-/anti- arguments. If you are religious and believe in "traditional marriage", then you are an anti-gay bigot. If you are against abortion, then you are against women's rights. If you don't support Obama, then you are a racist. If you support Israel, then you are a Zionist.

[Hammerskjold]

Your anecdotes squander in the face of empirical evidence and history.

Your vocabulary squanders in the face of the definition of the word squander.

Perhaps you mean flounder?

Hah! You capitalist scum, what does a fish have to do with anything we have discussed!

In all super seriousness, that reminds me of one of my favourite movies. 'A Fish Called Wanda'. Someone's recent rantings reminds me of the character Otto.


Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up.

And you are being downright bigoted when you take it to the level of the individual policeman or woman.

Wrong! Communists can never be bigoted! If they are, they're not -TRUE- commie-ists. God, (by that I mean Marx, praise be his commie-ism) can't you or anyone else here follow simple logic?!111

[kandrathe]

Wrong! Communists can never be bigoted! If they are, they're not -TRUE- commie-ists. God, (by that I mean Marx, praise be his commie-ism) can't you or anyone else here follow simple logic?!111

I saved this link for just such an occasion.

[Jester]

Because Mike Huckabee is in charge of what and a spokesperson for whom?

He is one of the leading advocates for exactly the group I'm talking about - the self-identified "bible believin'" Christians, who would eat out *more* at a fast food chain that *opposes* gay rights.

Being pro-X, doesn't make you automatically anti-Y. Not all things are reflexively black and white in this world. Is being pro-gay the same as being anti-traditional marriage?

It's code, and widely acknowledged to be; surely you are not seriously contesting this. If I said I was "pro-life," I would mean I was anti-abortion. If I said I support "traditional marriage," I mean I'm against gay marriage. But, of course, saying you support something that sounds like family, tradition, and apple pie, is much better branding than saying you're squicked out by the queers getting hitched, and would prefer to keep using the power of the state to prevent them doing it.

The position on "traditional marriage" is the same as Federal Law. And, I see hypocritical outrage on this when it was Bill Clinton who signed the Federal DOMA into law. What a bigot!

It was outrageous, yes. One of many things I found odious about the Clinton administration. If there was a viable party in the US that wasn't *even worse* on these issues, I would have been cheering for it. Indeed, in 2000, I was rooting for Nader. (Which was an epic mistake, but for other reasons entirely.) And not that I give him much in the way of points for changing his position *after* his time in power, but Bill Clinton now supports gay marriage, which is much more than I can say for the other side of the aisle.

Here is The Civil Rights Agenda for another statement.

This is precisely the same event that your link was originally referring to, and to which the response "we haven't changed our stance on anything" was given. Here's CNN on the resulting confusion, which the company has apparently not cleared up.

I just see this as a part of the recent liberal big hammer Alinsky approach.

I prefer to think of it as more of an abolitionist approach. Or a suffragette approach. You don't compromise with intolerance, you don't make mealymouthed excuses about how the other side has fair points, and you don't give in to political games. You keep fighting, because everyone deserves the right to live their life how they please, in full equality under the law, so long as they aren't harming others.

Catholics get hammered with the same pro-/anti- arguments. If you are religious and believe in "traditional marriage", then you are an anti-gay bigot. If you are against abortion, then you are against women's rights.

I would agree with both of those statements.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

Catholics get hammered with the same pro-/anti- arguments. If you are religious and believe in "traditional marriage", then you are an anti-gay bigot. If you are against abortion, then you are against women's rights.

Your claims above about hammers are missing an important nuance - choice.

Religious people can believe in "traditional marriage" all they like as long as they don't try to decide for others what kind of marriage is acceptable. And if they do try to decide for others, then they are anti-gay bigots.

People can be against abortions and therefore choose not to have one as long as they don't try to decide for others what choice is available. And if they do try to decide for others, then they are against women's rights.

And they are wielding a hammer to make it so.

[kandrathe]

Your claims above about hammers are missing an important nuance - choice.

I break it down to harms. No harm, no foul.

The difficulty with things like parental rights is that we as society need to protect citizens while they are children, against harmful parenting. With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen. We have set the bar higher than allowing parents to eliminate their unwanted children. The law is vague on feticide.

Basing it on viability is one option, however there are fully grown people who are comatose and sustained by technology (akin to an incubator), so I'm not sure viability is purely the gauge either. I would be happy if the government would define person and citizen clearly in the context of what we know scientifically.

[eppie]

Your claims above about hammers are missing an important nuance - choice.

Religious people can believe in "traditional marriage" all they like as long as they don't try to decide for others what kind of marriage is acceptable. And if they do try to decide for others, then they are anti-gay bigots.

People can be against abortions and therefore choose not to have one as long as they don't try to decide for others what choice is available. And if they do try to decide for others, then they are against women's rights.

And they are wielding a hammer to make it so.

And what we see then is that it is not about abortion or same sex marriage; religious people like to use religion to have power same as other people use money for example. It is not about the act of abortion, it is about being able to say to someone else, that they should not have one.

---

[/b].

I break it down to harms. No harm, no foul.
[/quote]

In this particular case maybe. But abortion is one in a whole line of things the christians don't and didn't want us to do.
Rights for people who are not white? Rights for gay people? Rights for communists? Rights for Jews? Rights for people who think the earth isn't flat? Rights for people who believe in other Gods?

It is not about harm to an unborn fetus of 6 weeks......because they cannot know if it is harmed or not because they don't care for scientific evidence. They just use this argument in this particular case.

(Probably the reason why you only quoted that one and not the one about gay rights).

It is all about fear of losing grip on society (which is a pretty human feeling if you live your life based on ideologies that don't contain much truth and evidence).