02-19-2021, 07:18 PM
(02-19-2021, 05:51 PM)Einzige Wrote: And what you endorse is the slow death of the proletariat via class compromise and Keynesian masturbatory cope. You want "a bourgeoisie without a proletariat".[color][size][font]
Voting for the Democratic Party is absolutely useless. There is a whole hidden history of anti-labor fuckery even from "progressive" Democrats - FDR, for example, deliberately placed all those Army bases constructed in the mid 30s in the South, the least labor friendly region of the country.
Also the poorest large region of the country. Also the weather had some cause; training bases in the North would have had problematic weather for at least four months out of the year due to snow interfering with military training. Southern pols wanted the bases because those would bring in soldiers with fat paychecks by the loval standard that might go into bars, restaurants, and dance halls.
[/font][/size][/color]
Quote:He also borrowed the rationale for Social Security from the Townsend Plan - that contented seniors would be unlikely to overturn the social order. Truman threatened to draft striking railroad workers. LBJ and the capitalist unions of the AFL-CIO supported 'Nam.
Have you ever thought that your much-beloved proletariat made a deal with the deal possible involving Big Business and the political system, that in return for the right to collective bargaining (the real benefit of union contracts? It keeps employers from seeking and exploiting the bargaining weaknesses of employees) that allowed a living wage by the standards of the 1930's (not too difficult, as real estate was incredibly cheap back then). It also prevents a Marxist revolution that capitalists dread because capitalists, large farmers, and landlords would be dispossessed and either exiled or murdered. Workers get a stake jn the System through consumerism, which is far safer for everyone than a revolution that can either fail (with mass executions of workers who do not 'voluntarily' choose permanent, hereditary serfdom only slightly more advanced formally than what Spartacus rebelled against in the penultimate Crisis Era (the Servile Wars) of the Roman Republic. Failure of a proletarian revolution would end perhaps with machi8ne-gun fire instead of crucifixions; on the other hand, its success might lead to the fraud that was the Soviet Union (the State becomes one giant plantation with the workers as serfs of the State. A proletarian revolution that fails can lead to fascist terror.
As has been noted, Karl Marx made the appeal "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" The workable compromise is that workers have sofas, stoves, cars, two weeks paid vacation, and the prospect of an inexpensive education for their kids should their kids have talent. Such was so in America until the 1980's, at which time the capitalist class and their politicians chose to pay people in debt instead of wages while eviscerating unions.
.... As for the AFL-CIO supporting the war in Vietnam... blunders happen. American leadership thought that suppressing Communism in Vietnam would be far easier than it was. Blunders must first seduce.
Quote:American liberals are garbage, not so much because they are compromises- they are not radical at all - but because their endorsed form of capitalism is more nefarious.You are useless to the working class. And in the event of revolution you and Classic X would set your differences aside and rally to the standard of the owning class.
Classic X'er sounds like the sort who would gladly take up a machine gun to mow down people that a fascist clique orders him to mow down.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.