Class Struggle

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:15 am

Gloominary wrote:As the chasm between rich and poor deepens, civil unrest, like the yellow vests movement that started in France, will grow, more people will donate to, form, join and vote for 3rd parties, and even if they never get in, it'll put pressure on libcons and republicrats to change.
At least in rhetoric, the left and right are turning away from (crony) capitalism to socialism, the left to international, matriarchal, progressive class warfare socialism and the right to national, patriarchal, conservative class collaboration socialism.
Donald Trump's protectionism and rhetoric about illegals for example are forms of national, class collaboration socialism.

These are not necessarily bad.

The Standard-Of-Living in Western Civilization is still climbing exponentially.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:16 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Shit. 'Miscegination' is itself probably what has made the Jews the greatest people on Earth.

Wherever you go, whatever you do, a Jew does it better.

Race isn't real. Genetics doesn't work that way. Discrimination is real, and quite necessary. But attaching it to race severely limits its scope, power, effectiveness, and point.

1stly, Gypsies are also mixed race, so are Latinos.
2ndly, Jews have always been clever, even before they left Judea and became more miscegenous.
They wrote the bible, and while the bible is of course a work of fiction, it's still clever.
3rdly, Jews are clever, but not that productive, Marxism, the Oedipus complex, fractional reserve banking, usury, Hollywood, porn and progressive education and media isn't what I'd call productive.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:33 am

To further Gloom's point, Jews/Semites/Abrahamic ideology leads to Nihilism and Regressivism, not Progressivism.

Asceticism is the cure for Nihilism. Jews prey upon the Goy/Gentile/Host through various forms of parasitism.

If the relationship becomes too imbalanced, then bad things happen (Nazi-Germany, 20th Century Europe).
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:31 am

Culture and race are as real as body parts and geological features are.
There's no (precise) border between cultures and races.
There's no (precise) border between body parts like shoulders, arms and hands, or geological features like hills and valleys, deserts, forests and plains, doesn't mean body parts and geological features aren't wholly, mostly or in some important sense, separate, their own entities, doesn't mean it's not meaningful to give them names, think of and treat them differently.
Race is as real as dog breeds, more real in fact, in some cases human populations have been totally separate for dozens of thousands of years, according to scientific estimates, whereas some dog breeds have only been relatively separate for centuries or even just decades, but for ideological reasons, scientists don't have a problem with dog breeds.

Science doesn't operate in a political economic vacuum.
Science is big business and politics (as well as social mores).
If you look carefully enough, you can spot where big business and politics has contaminated science and separate the wheat from the chaff.
For example, you'll hear them say our existing racial categories are rough, insufficiently rigorous and systematic for science.
So what?
Do what you do with any other field of inquiry, refine the categories.

Planets are social constructs, there is no (precise) border between where asteroids end and planetoids begin.
They had a vote on the definition of a planet and recategorized Pluto as a dwarf planet, because they discovered too many other planets in the Kuiper belt for their tastes (shit we can't have dozens or hundreds of planets, right?), very scientific.
But that's how science has to operate, it can't separate itself from human cognition, customs and language (not at all and at least not fully respectively), which vary from person to person and people to people, which's why we sometimes find scientists believing one thing in one country and the contrary in another.
Practically everything is in some senses a social construct, and really they know that, but they still won't go any where near race.

Racial categories are sufficiently rigorous and systematic for forensic anthropologies to make use of, since they can tell a Negroid apart from a Caucasoid just by examining a single tooth, 98 times out of 100, which's why law enforcement employs them.

Take any two native Irishmen and lo and behold, they'll have significantly more in common with each other than a native Irishmen and a native Nigerian or a native Irishmen and a native Chinaman will have, who would've surmised?

While they're a minority, scientists like Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have done good work on race science.


All that being said, I'm not just a racist because of my interpretations of science, but because of my interpretations of my experiences and how I feel.
Race is instinctual, intuitive, we're born with a racial sense, a way of separating the (extended) self from otherness.
For example, some progressive mothers raised in progressive homes have mixed race babies and can't identify with or care for them, because they don't look, and presumably behave like them.
They feel terrible about it, but some of them can't get over it.
Even progressive blacks seek black friends and neighborhoods to live in, and the same is true of progressive whites, Hispanics and Asians.
And much to their chagrin, scientists are starting to discover that diversity in fact leads to social breakdown and decay.

Racism isn't (strictly) a social construct invented by white capitalists in the early modern period, many population groups from antiquity such as the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Babylonians had all sorts of theories about race.
They believed Africans, Asians, Mediterraneans and Nordics had certain physical capabilities and psychological characteristics.

And there's nothing, hateful about any of this.
Israelis want to go on being Israelis, Koreans want to be Koreans, Japanese want to be Japanese, not because of hate, but because of affinity.
White Americans and Canadians wanted to be white until 1965, when they opened the floodgates and let the 3rd world come pouring in.
And many of them still want to be white.
Many Europeans want to remain white, but their politicians had other plans.


Both culture and race, and class are important, not arbitrary.
They matter, and you don't have to focus on one to the exclusion of the other.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:09 am

What represents (Economic) class?

It's willpower, translated into the form of "Upward Mobility". Females are most attracted to males who are "moving up in the world", meaning, going from poor to middle, or middle to upper, or upper to wealthy. Most males don't necessarily want to move upward. Because "the system" is rigged against males. Males systemically suppressed and pushed down. This is the nature of human competition. People compete for jobs. People work for money. To raise yourself, is to struggle. Thus there are two main ingredients to "Class Struggle". Willpower and Cunning (intelligence). It's a matter of Motivation, Risk Taking, Luck, and Skill. The males who are highly motivated and diligent, will generally move up over time. The demand is always highest throughout business for hard-working and loyal employees. This is why I refuse to believe in generalizations.

Most poor are so, because they are unwilling to work, and unwilling to move upward. It is a lack of motivation. You can "blame education". You can blame almost anything. Most of the poor come from broken homes, broken families, and do not have structures in place, to motivate them. They are told from age, they are stupid, worthless, "will never amount to anything", and they eventually culled into it. They believe it. They feel rejected by society. And they are. People reaffirm this everyday. You can't, magically, make them care, or even really care for them.

The Middle Class would rather take in whipped dogs, off the street, than take a homeless person into their home. Why? Because homeless are less valued than stray dogs and cats.


Put that in your head, and let it sink in, before confronting the issue about "Class Struggle".
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 am

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:24 pm

watch this one Gloom

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:45 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Shit. 'Miscegination' is itself probably what has made the Jews the greatest people on Earth.

Wherever you go, whatever you do, a Jew does it better.

Race isn't real. Genetics doesn't work that way. Discrimination is real, and quite necessary. But attaching it to race severely limits its scope, power, effectiveness, and point.

1stly, Gypsies are also mixed race, so are Latinos.
2ndly, Jews have always been clever, even before they left Judea and became more miscegenous.
They wrote the bible, and while the bible is of course a work of fiction, it's still clever.
3rdly, Jews are clever, but not that productive, Marxism, the Oedipus complex, fractional reserve banking, usury, Hollywood, porn and progressive education and media isn't what I'd call productive.

I'm amazed by all the antisemitism here, really. Jews aren't productive. They've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes, they have a pretty strong history of inventing: lazers, stainless steel, the flash drive, drip irrigation, the flashlight, ball point pens, and jeez a hellava lot more, whatever we think of vaccinations in general and as produced today, I'm glad polio and some other diseases are gone.....They are well represented in medical positions. They created Christianity for that matter, also. I mean, shit, my sense of them, having grown up in a complex neighborhood was they tended to work their asses off academically, perhaps less than the Asian students, and then go into many productive fields. Hell, it's part of the complaint about them. That their culture pressures them to succeed, at least in the US.

Progressive education comes out of Locke and Rousseau, Christian Germans like Johann Bernhard Basedow, and the strongest formulater in the US and affecting also Canada would be John Dewey, I don't think these are Jews. If we are going to blame jews for Marxism, yes, I know Marx was Jewish, we then have a hard time blaming jews for porn. Jews certainly didn't invent porn, though they were overrepresented in the industry, now it's a free for all. And while Marx came up with Marxist theory with a nice Protestant boy, Engels, sure, but the biggest supporters of communism have been Russia and China, and while Jews had a role in the former they then faced more and more antisemitism by what is supposedly their production, communism. fractional reserve banking came out of Dutch Goldsmiths, perhaps Jewish goldsmiths were a majority. I dunno, but it was part of a system of relations that were accepted broadly by gentiles.

They are a people with a specific history and culture which lead them, in their diapora into certain fields and not others, also for reasons not just to do with their culture but due to the treatment of others and restrictions put on them. To call them not productive seems to me just silly.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:20 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Shit. 'Miscegination' is itself probably what has made the Jews the greatest people on Earth.

Wherever you go, whatever you do, a Jew does it better.

Race isn't real. Genetics doesn't work that way. Discrimination is real, and quite necessary. But attaching it to race severely limits its scope, power, effectiveness, and point.

1stly, Gypsies are also mixed race, so are Latinos.
2ndly, Jews have always been clever, even before they left Judea and became more miscegenous.
They wrote the bible, and while the bible is of course a work of fiction, it's still clever.
3rdly, Jews are clever, but not that productive, Marxism, the Oedipus complex, fractional reserve banking, usury, Hollywood, porn and progressive education and media isn't what I'd call productive.

I'm amazed by all the antisemitism here, really. Jews aren't productive. They've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes, they have a pretty strong history of inventing: lazers, stainless steel, the flash drive, drip irrigation, the flashlight, ball point pens, and jeez a hellava lot more, whatever we think of vaccinations in general and as produced today, I'm glad polio and some other diseases are gone.....They are well represented in medical positions. They created Christianity for that matter, also. I mean, shit, my sense of them, having grown up in a complex neighborhood was they tended to work their asses off academically, perhaps less than the Asian students, and then go into many productive fields. Hell, it's part of the complaint about them. That their culture pressures them to succeed, at least in the US.

Progressive education comes out of Locke and Rousseau, Christian Germans like Johann Bernhard Basedow, and the strongest formulater in the US and affecting also Canada would be John Dewey, I don't think these are Jews. If we are going to blame jews for Marxism, yes, I know Marx was Jewish, we then have a hard time blaming jews for porn. Jews certainly didn't invent porn, though they were overrepresented in the industry, now it's a free for all. And while Marx came up with Marxist theory with a nice Protestant boy, Engels, sure, but the biggest supporters of communism have been Russia and China, and while Jews had a role in the former they then faced more and more antisemitism by what is supposedly their production, communism. fractional reserve banking came out of Dutch Goldsmiths, perhaps Jewish goldsmiths were a majority. I dunno, but it was part of a system of relations that were accepted broadly by gentiles.

They are a people with a specific history and culture which lead them, in their diapora into certain fields and not others, also for reasons not just to do with their culture but due to the treatment of others and restrictions put on them. To call them not productive seems to me just silly.

Some Jews are very creative.
Some Jews are very destructive.
I'm just presenting the other side here, Pedro was coming off like a Jewish supremacist.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:49 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:As the chasm between rich and poor deepens, civil unrest, like the yellow vests movement that started in France, will grow, more people will donate to, form, join and vote for 3rd parties, and even if they never get in, it'll put pressure on libcons and republicrats to change.
At least in rhetoric, the left and right are turning away from (crony) capitalism to socialism, the left to international, matriarchal, progressive class warfare socialism and the right to national, patriarchal, conservative class collaboration socialism.
Donald Trump's protectionism and rhetoric about illegals for example are forms of national, class collaboration socialism.

These are not necessarily bad.

The Standard-Of-Living in Western Civilization is still climbing exponentially.

For whom?
Not for the middle and working classes.
Really there is no middleclass anymore, it's dead, but at least we've got some flashy phones and tablets to help placate us.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:34 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:To further Gloom's point, Jews/Semites/Abrahamic ideology leads to Nihilism and Regressivism, not Progressivism.

Asceticism is the cure for Nihilism. Jews prey upon the Goy/Gentile/Host through various forms of parasitism.

If the relationship becomes too imbalanced, then bad things happen (Nazi-Germany, 20th Century Europe).

Well, perhaps progressivism isn't all bad.
We're dealing with 3 primary ideologies here, matriarchal socialism (equality, hedonism), libertarianism (liberty, of course) and patriarchal socialism (equity, asceticism), sort of like how there're 3 primary colors, red, green and blue, and then there're different hues and mixes.
Each one can become corrupt and imbalanced.
We've had globalism and (crony) capitalism (and compromise) since the 60s and the 80s respectively.
They had a good run, but became very corrupt.
I think it's time for more nationalism and socialism (and conflict), the right emphasizes the former and the left the latter, but overall we're going to see more of both.
North America is going to be most resistant to these changes, because it's always been the bedrock of globalism and capitalism, whereas landlocked Hungary is pioneering them.

These things wax and wane.
History never repeats, but it rhymes.
I think we're going to see a rhyme of the early-mid 20th century in the mid 21st.
We had Pax Americana after WW2 for nearly a century just as we had Pax Britannia for a century after the Napoleonic wars, but we're headed for socioeconomic, political and perhaps even military upheaval, and we'll just have to wait and see who, if anyone, emerges victorious, maybe no one and nothing will.
Really the Anglo-American world has been dominating for a few centuries, but there's continental Europe, Russia, China, its reign isn't going to last forever.

Jews can prosper under red, green or some combination thereof, but they can't prosper under blue, especially a deep, dark blue, which's why they always resent and resist it.
Many Jews are red or green on the outside, but blue on the inside, or blue for themselves, red and green for everyone else.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:57 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:What represents (Economic) class?

It's willpower, translated into the form of "Upward Mobility". Females are most attracted to males who are "moving up in the world", meaning, going from poor to middle, or middle to upper, or upper to wealthy. Most males don't necessarily want to move upward. Because "the system" is rigged against males. Males systemically suppressed and pushed down. This is the nature of human competition. People compete for jobs. People work for money. To raise yourself, is to struggle. Thus there are two main ingredients to "Class Struggle". Willpower and Cunning (intelligence). It's a matter of Motivation, Risk Taking, Luck, and Skill. The males who are highly motivated and diligent, will generally move up over time. The demand is always highest throughout business for hard-working and loyal employees. This is why I refuse to believe in generalizations.

Most poor are so, because they are unwilling to work, and unwilling to move upward. It is a lack of motivation. You can "blame education". You can blame almost anything. Most of the poor come from broken homes, broken families, and do not have structures in place, to motivate them. They are told from age, they are stupid, worthless, "will never amount to anything", and they eventually culled into it. They believe it. They feel rejected by society. And they are. People reaffirm this everyday. You can't, magically, make them care, or even really care for them.

The Middle Class would rather take in whipped dogs, off the street, than take a homeless person into their home. Why? Because homeless are less valued than stray dogs and cats.


Put that in your head, and let it sink in, before confronting the issue about "Class Struggle".

Yea, but if we didn't have such a shitty, neofeudalist economy, more poor people would be able and willing to rise above their poverty.

A lot of these middleclass people wound up poor during the financial crisis, so a bit of karma there.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby promethean75 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:39 pm

The Middle Class would rather take in whipped dogs, off the street, than take a homeless person into their home. Why? Because homeless are less valued than stray dogs and cats.


That's only because homeless people will purposely pee and poo in places you won't know about... like behind the couch or end table. Dogs and cats on the other hand will pee and poo anywhere, and you're more likely to find it.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:48 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I'm amazed by all the antisemitism here, really. Jews aren't productive. They've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes, they have a pretty strong history of inventing: lazers, stainless steel, the flash drive, drip irrigation, the flashlight, ball point pens, and jeez a hellava lot more, whatever we think of vaccinations in general and as produced today, I'm glad polio and some other diseases are gone.....They are well represented in medical positions. They created Christianity for that matter, also. I mean, shit, my sense of them, having grown up in a complex neighborhood was they tended to work their asses off academically, perhaps less than the Asian students, and then go into many productive fields. Hell, it's part of the complaint about them. That their culture pressures them to succeed, at least in the US.

Progressive education comes out of Locke and Rousseau, Christian Germans like Johann Bernhard Basedow, and the strongest formulater in the US and affecting also Canada would be John Dewey, I don't think these are Jews. If we are going to blame jews for Marxism, yes, I know Marx was Jewish, we then have a hard time blaming jews for porn. Jews certainly didn't invent porn, though they were overrepresented in the industry, now it's a free for all. And while Marx came up with Marxist theory with a nice Protestant boy, Engels, sure, but the biggest supporters of communism have been Russia and China, and while Jews had a role in the former they then faced more and more antisemitism by what is supposedly their production, communism. fractional reserve banking came out of Dutch Goldsmiths, perhaps Jewish goldsmiths were a majority. I dunno, but it was part of a system of relations that were accepted broadly by gentiles.

They are a people with a specific history and culture which lead them, in their diapora into certain fields and not others, also for reasons not just to do with their culture but due to the treatment of others and restrictions put on them. To call them not productive seems to me just silly.

Ah yes, the ol' steal the White Man's inventions, discoveries, and science routine.

When Jews aren't stealing European/Whites' money, they're after our intellectual properties and achievements too.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:31 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:watch this one Gloom


Interesting video.
In 2016 you had run-of-the-mill neolibcon neofeudalists like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, libertarians like Rand Paul, some Christian fundamentalists on the fringes, some white nationalists on the margins, and then you had protectionists like Donald Trump.
In 2016 you had social democrat Bernie nearly overtake neofeudalist Shillary.

Protectionism is a form of national socialism.
Both the left and right are moving away from (crony) capitalism to socialism, but the left has the cajones to admit it, the right does not.
The left claims it'll go after the corporations directly, increasing taxes on the richest 1% and spending on the poorest 99%, whereas the right claims it'll go after them indirectly, after the blue collar (il)legal immigrants and refugees they hire and outsourcing.

Both the left and right are at least talking about putting an end to regime change wars for Israel, the oil and opium barons.
Both the left and the right are moving more to socialism, but the right won't admit it yet.
But the right is moving to national, paternalistic socialism, the left global, maternalistic.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:36 pm

I think the fundamental point was that the 2008 financial crash, then held the US and world economy hostage, bailed out by Obama and the Feds, bailed out by the US public, the bill fronted to the US taxpayer, has caused a deep resentment between Populace and Elitists. Thus led the charge for an Anti-Establishment candidate. Trump filled the slot, but as outlined, the US voter would have chosen anybody who called themself 'populist' and hit the correct talking-points.

Meanwhile, the Establishment is stronger than ever. Trump didn't hit the Wallstreet financers or banksters. Trump reversed, and pushed the US embassy in Israel.

He talks about Nationalism on one hand, but then pushes Internationalist agendas on the other. Now, the average voter has no clue what's going on. The DNC has no leadership nor platform. While the Republicans are simply riding the 'Trump' train, with no clue nor idea where it will end.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:07 pm

People are sick of globalism, and capitalism, not only crony capitalism but the utopian capitalism Rand Paul proposes, otherwise he would've been elected instead of DJT.
We've had the best, and worst of globalism and capitalism since Johnson in the 60s and Reagan in the 80s respectively.
People want nationalism, and socialism, the right emphasizes the former, the left the latter.
People want populism, they're sick of the elite on the one hand, and diversity on the other.

Right, Trump is pretty full of it, I've been saying that for years.
Hopefully more radical candidates will emerge, and be elected.

Now bureaucrats and socialism can be corrupt too, not just corporations and capitalism, but these things are cyclical, they usually start out good, or alright, and then get bad over time, so the pendulum always sways back and forth.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:18 pm

What it seems to me, is that what you want Gloom, is the exact-opposite direction of politics and Western society.

I don't think you'll get what you want until the system starts truly collapsing and imploding, which it might. That depends on how far the establishment can be torqued and shaken by Anti-Establishment forces.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:34 pm

I'm economically center-left and socially center-right.
If by western civilization you mean (the contemporary) Anglosphere, then yea, I want to move in nearly the opposite direction, but there's different factions of the west.
I think the Visegrad Group is heading in the right, or at least a better direction.

I guess you're more of a candidate DJT guy, but you're growing dissatisfied with president DJT.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:03 pm

I don't think it's just the financial crisis, the wall street bailout or the democrats/libs.
It's also 9/11, the senseless invasion of Iraq and the republicans/cons.
Bush started a lot of this shit and Obama just expanded it.
Bombing and subsequently importing refugees from the Muslim world is an absolute foreign/immigration policy blunder, or rather conspiracy.
We do need a change of direction, a near 180, no more bailing out and subsidizing wall street, instead bail out and subsidize main street, no more regime change wars and diversification.
And more freedom of speech/thought, we need to be able to criticize the corporations, government, mainstream media, science and minorities.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:07 am

Silhouette wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:classes aren't entities, and that entities sink and rise from one class to the other. Meaning class struggle is fundamentally impossible.

People struggle, not classes.

History has proven though that the class does not amount to a group.

Is this an objection to the notion that people can have anything in common?
Or just that they can't have "class" in common?

Dude please don't straw man me man.

Ive never said anything remotely of the sort.

Learn the about me: I only mean to say what I actually say.

One nurse is an entirely different person to another nurse, and yet if you got them talking they'd be all but guaranteed to have plenty to talk about - at least as far as work and types of interests go.
The same for fathers, the same even between all family members - they are a "group" of individuals by virtue of having things in common whether through one of many roles they each play in their life, genetics, or some other common ground.

Or lets say: suitors to a particular woman. Do they have natural solidarity with each other?

"Selling wage labour" as opposed to "buying it and the use of money as capital" each serves a different distinct function, even though they can overlap to different degrees for each individual person. A "working class" individual will be more reliant on selling their labour in order to remain qualified to participate in the economy, having too little capital to no longer have to do that - i.e. "earning" money from owning the property that other people work with and thus having claim over any of the profits "gained" from paying workers less than they earn you. It's a very broad distinction between the two roles, with every unique person having a different life experience of each of the two roles.

I'm not sure if it was Marx, but I think it was, who observed that a working class person would probably have more in common with another working class person from a far removed country than they would a capitalist from a nearby neighbourhood. Things overlap a little more nowadays with the "middle class", but the observation will still stand to an averaged-out degree.

Yes he did think that and I think I disagree with it.

I do not think workers have much in common at all. If they did, why would different unions spend so much time to destroy each other?
Ive never seen much proof of solidarity between workers as a class.

Same with wars.
If foot solders had so much in common, would it be so easy to get them to kill each other?

I really don't see how.

Such a claim would seem as broad as if you replaced the term "working class" with either "male" or "female" though. Mechanics or mothers have more specific experiences in common, and it's easy to identify them as a group even if each member is a very different person overall. But the same concept goes for gender and class simply by virtue of having a significant part of one's unique life in common with other people. The reasoning therefore goes that it's odd that "class consciousness" wasn't a particularly binding ground to say "you have something in common with a bunch of other people and thereby qualify as a distinct group", when other broad things like gender, job and family role always were seen as legitimate common grounds to substantiate a "group". Therefore wouldn't it be interesting to see if raising "class consciousness" went anywhere towards rethinking normalised economic strata and perhaps revolutionise economics?

In short, just like any other group can have common struggles by virtue of things they have in common in their life, why can't "broad economic role" be a common struggle by virtue of having that in common with separate/other/different people?

You approach it as if it is a theoretical question, which is generally the mistake Marx made. Humans aren't theory. They're humans.
Humans aren't Classes. They're individuals.

Like you say, any member of any "class" or "group" has as much to do with any one remember of any other "class" or "group" as with those inside his "own class" or "own group" - it is a wholly arbitrary mater of defining what now is a "class" or "group"

Its so silly.
And so many deaths occurred on account of it.


You can be sure that whenever people are being riled and mobilized in terms of a group, there are some individuals playing game getting rich off it. For whatever he tried to be, Marx was really a pawn for the most predatorial sorts of people. See what happened wherever some Revolution became successful.

I know Marx doesn't really like empirical proof, but thats really all Ive got for him.

The struggles of parenthood and jobs don't make you a victim any more or less than your economic role, even capitalists have their own common struggle by virtue of their common economic situation - even though they're all completely different people. Working individually or collectively to overcome these difficulties is what everyone does, so why is it particularly bad if the working class do the same?

Straw man again - my whole point is that... they don't.
They cant. Because they don't actually have the same interests. Unions kill unions, social democrats kill communists and vice versa. Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks. French workers vs non-French workers. Female workers vs male workers.

Its all bloodshed and no solidarity.

Solidarity occurs between friends, family.
Actual humans.

Not categories.

To categorize humans is not a good idea, as it makes it too easy to dispense with them.

It's funny that both political groups - for and against the notion of "class struggle" - each complain about the others complaining over nothing.
Where is the introspection, and impartial personal evaluation? Less hypocrisy would go a long way to resolution, in my opinion. But then, it occurs to me that that's the whole point - to not resolve things. People love to externalise their anger and frustrations upon a common "enemy".

Exactly. Always, and class-consciousness is just the ultimate form of such hatred, of enemy-forming

How idiotic is it to hate people merely because they own a factory, or have money?
Without knowing them in person or anything about their practices?

Marx made that too easy, to hate people you never met.

It's been a while, but I think this is a point Nietzsche made in "Beyond Good and Evil" - that "wrong" is socially defined by what the other tribe with whom they war does differently to them. We see the same thing on this forum all the time. I've still never read "Human, all too human", but it probably covers similar themes - at least the title rings true on this "very human" behaviour.

Id love it idk you read the book and made some comments in its context here.
There are a lot of poets about morality as a group phenomenon to be explored.

Personally I do not think morality exist anywhere else but in the individual. he only carrier of responsibility is the individual, because he is he only one who can actually suffer direct consequences.

A group is always a buffer for consequences. A group can act and not even perceive the consequences.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
valueontologyforsuperIQs - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10931
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Class Struggle

Postby Silhouette » Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:45 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Dude please don't straw man me man.

Ive never said anything remotely of the sort.

Learn the about me: I only mean to say what I actually say.

Not intended. Thank you for the response.
I merely meant to frame the arguments of the opening post in the best way that I could at the time.

Fixed Cross wrote:Or lets say: suitors to a particular woman. Do they have natural solidarity with each other?

So your point is that some "groupings" are competitive even though some are cooperative?
Accepted.

Fixed Cross wrote:I do not think workers have much in common at all. If they did, why would different unions spend so much time to destroy each other?
Ive never seen much proof of solidarity between workers as a class.

Same with wars.
If foot solders had so much in common, would it be so easy to get them to kill each other?

I really don't see how.

Are you not aware of phenomena such as the 1914 Christmas truce match in France between two warring sides?

It's more instinctive for humans to not kill each other on sight believe it or not, even if they've been persuaded to try their best to do so by their "masters".

Can you imagine the sadness it would bring to you to kill another man who was deemed to be a footsoldier for "the enemy"?
I apologise if such a thing is too "snowflake" for you - perhaps you've been convinced by whatever means that some people (footsoldiers) are okay to kill.
Such a thing is perfectly possible, which is exactly the effect that I was describing.
I believe modern army training is to act in very specific ways first and think later - at least in part resulting in an epidemic of mental unhealth for veterans.

Fixed Cross wrote:You approach it as if it is a theoretical question, which is generally the mistake Marx made. Humans aren't theory. They're humans.
Humans aren't Classes. They're individuals.

You're talking to one of the most solitary human beings that I think is possible to exist if I'd not heard about Christopher Thomas Knight who beats me by a significant margin.

Even he is only an individual to an extent - and even then with a certain social dependency. How dare he, right? How "Marxist".

Humans are social. I'm sorry.
Even in our confrontation over the internet, we're socialising to serve needs that we both share.
Gross. Gay. Not really.
We each exhibit a commonality that binds us all as humans in the plural.
And us besides - most other humans would wither away far faster than Lenin's Socialist State if they had no interaction. What is language? It's an interchange between individuals, no? Our very identities are embedded in socialisation.

Just how individual do you think/want humans are/to be?
We evolved to dominate the entire earth because of it, and you're trying to tell me that "too much of it" has cause so many deaths.

Too much of what caused so many deaths?
Be specific. Was it solely thinking socially? God forbid.

Fixed Cross wrote:You can be sure that whenever people are being riled and mobilized in terms of a group, there are some individuals playing game getting rich off it. For whatever he tried to be, Marx was really a pawn for the most predatorial sorts of people. See what happened wherever some Revolution became successful.

I know Marx doesn't really like empirical proof, but thats really all Ive got for him.

Basic game theory will tell you there's a statistical payoff to compete instead of cooperate and you might end up lucky.

I have no idea if Marx took this into account, nor do I care.
Ask Nash, maybe?

The question is whether to construct a system around the exceptions that "win" this lottery or the rule that "lose" this lottery to be born the right kind of person to be able to "have the strength" and gloat about it? - and all the other self-aggrandising attributes that "attribution bias" requires certain people to boast about because they had and others didn't?
Obviously such a system has had successful results - which begs the question of whether the payoff is worth it, and whether such a system can be improved...
Unless you're not the intellectually curious type, of course.

Fixed Cross wrote:Straw man again - my whole point is that... they don't.
They cant. Because they don't actually have the same interests. Unions kill unions, social democrats kill communists and vice versa. Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks. French workers vs non-French workers. Female workers vs male workers.

Its all bloodshed and no solidarity.

Solidarity occurs between friends, family.
Actual humans.

Not categories.

To categorize humans is not a good idea, as it makes it too easy to dispense with them.

Again, my deepest apologies if I straw-manned your argument. I am doing my best to understand it as fairly as I can and no doubt I will fail since I am not you.

You are absolutely right that people will fight furiously over the exact nature of which their exploitation, whether you deem it to exist or not.
The more astute question is over why they disagree, rather than whether their plight is valid in the first place.

Fixed Cross wrote:Exactly. Always, and class-consciousness is just the ultimate form of such hatred, of enemy-forming

How idiotic is it to hate people merely because they own a factory, or have money?
Without knowing them in person or anything about their practices?

Marx made that too easy, to hate people you never met.

I don't think fathers hate non-fathers, and mothers non-mothers, and nurses non-nurses etc. That's not what group-forming necessarily leads to.

It's a consciousness over one's economic role that you share with the vast majority of the capitalist world, or you don't.
If there's a valid reason for non-capitalists to hate capitalists, when there isn't for mechanics to hate non-mechanics, then maybe there is a problem with the fact that it's possible to group people in such a way?
Perhaps such a grouping could be dissuaded such that hate no longer need apply?
But on the other hand, maybe the working class love being subservient to the capitalists who buy their time? Maybe ask them?

At this point it's worth asking the question of whether it's best for the individual or the group?
Humans are a group, no? Maybe you think no.
Is the capitalist hierarchy better for all of them or just the few individuals who made it work far better for them than for the vast majority of other individuals?
I'm absolutely willing to consider the possibility that it's better for everyone for a structure to benefit people so unequally - I'm just more interested atm in the possibility that there's another, better solution.

I don't condone hatred for people because they have a factory and/or money - whether knowing who they are or not.
Such a thing seems stupid to me.
I condone exploring the possibility that maybe this isn't the best model, which just so happens to be horrifying for anyone who is currently relatively benefitting so hard from the current model. God forbid they lose out relative to the vast majority of the human race, which isn't even necessarily going to be the outcome - but "loss aversion" always crippled humans over "gain attraction".

Fixed Cross wrote:Id love it idk you read the book and made some comments in its context here.
There are a lot of poets about morality as a group phenomenon to be explored.

Personally I do not think morality exist anywhere else but in the individual. he only carrier of responsibility is the individual, because he is he only one who can actually suffer direct consequences.

A group is always a buffer for consequences. A group can act and not even perceive the consequences.

If you've read "Human, all too human" and recommend it that much, I'll surely look into reading it.
As for "Beyond Good and Evil", I've read that several times, just not recently.

Personally, I think morality exists beyond the individual - and I believe even Nietzsche described Master Morality as something that occurred throughout the group "masters". The group distrust of slaves for example - as characteristically "untrustworthy".
Not that you need subscribe to everything Nietzsche said...

I think it's worth dissecting one's assumptions over the premise that "morality exists nowhere else but in the individual" all the same.
What if it isn't? - is that the poorest of questions?
Certainly most humans suffer consequences enacted on others (at least when they know about such consequences...) good and bad.
That's just basic empathy.
Of course grouping works the other way as well - as a buffer. "The bystander effect" is a morally repulsive phenomenon, but does it alone rule out the moral possibility of any group dynamics whatsoever?
I circle back towards the beginning of this thread and my commentary on how solitary a person I am, and yet I still disagree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Class Struggle

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:36 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Personally I do not think morality exist anywhere else but in the individual

This cannot be true if the origin of morality is evolutionary psychology as that requires group consensus
Also laws which are the legal codification of morality could not work in practice without such consensus

What can be said with regard to the individual is that it is the smallest level at which morality can be manifested
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users