Three Cheers for "Class Warfare"

As I mentioned in the other thread, more than anything, it was good old-fashioned "class warfare" that sent Arnie down in flames in California.

From the very beginning, the unions were able to present the election as one of a pampered, Republican Movie Star wanting to beat up on school teachers, firefighters, and cops.


Hopefully this will help other elected Dems get back to embracing and announcing the truth that never went away:

Republicans are out to screw the working class.




Three cheers for class warfare:

Hip hip hooray!

Hip hip hooray!

Hip hip hooray!


:party:

Right on. Time to stick it to the man.

...and we aim to win.

However, let's be aware that Marx literally meant "class warfare" with weapons. That's not cool.

I'm talking more about the war of ideas.

Reminding ordinary people that elected Republicans are pack of blue-bloods out to feather their own nests is one of the best weapons we've got.

Unfortunately, too many Dem politicians are afraid to take this arrow out of the quiver.

but: are you sure about that? I don't think Marx ever said anything of the sort, myself.

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

There it is, the "violent overthrow".

In most of Marx's writings he only advocated violent overthrow in non democratic societies. In a democracy he advocated forming alliances with liberals and then subverting them when the time is right. Unfortunately for Marx, liberal democracy actually works as a political system. So a well run liberal democracy will not be ripe for his "peoples paradise", also known as a totalitarian dictatorship.

you have people saying that Marx called for violent revolution - when he was saying that violence is an inevitable part of revolutionary change.

You then get people saying that he advocated overthrow of 'non-democratic' societies. Which societies were 'democratic' when Marx was writing? I think it is true that he saw some hope for the German Social Democrats in reaching socialism via bourgeois elections, but that has been shown to be wrong. Generally speaking though, he had no illusions about social progress under bourgeois capitalism.

Also Marx is not responsible for the actions of later self-styled Marxists who were totalitarian. He was dead by then, so saying he advocated 'totalitarian dictatorship' is completely wrong.

he also expressed similar sentiments for America, the fact that he was wrong does not change the sentiment.

As for him not being responsible for Marxist-Leninism, I find that highly debatable, Marx was an architect and proponent of a political movement that that was obsessively focused with economic determinism, and took no account of human nature and its effect on the power locus (regardless of the economic system it operated under). Would he have been pleased with Totalitarian Marxism? Probably not. Could his system have led anywhere except to Totalitarianism? Again, probably not.

It is the sort of nonsense that is constantly talked about Marx, though.

If you think Marx was responsible for Marxism-Leninism (a concept which wasn't born until about 1929) then you must also accuse Christ for the Inquisition and witch burning.

Marx was not an 'architect' of anything, certainly not something that was 'obsessively focused on econonmic determinism', whatever that may mean, 'that took no account of human nature'. Sorry, but could you give me the correct interpretation of human nature?

You are displaying all of the cod wisdom of someone who has been convinced that Marxism equates with the crimes of Stalin and Mao. That it has nothing to do with either of those things (in the fashion of Christ and christian fundamentalists) is not part of your equation.

If you think that 'his system' (which, I repeat, he never mentioned himself) leads inevitably to totalitarianism, then Christ's 'system' must lead inevitably to Falwell and Robertson.

...

"If you think Marx was responsible for Marxism-Leninism (a concept which wasn't born until about 1929)"

Ummmmm...actually, the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917. Lenin died in 1924. "Marxism-Leninism," as a concept of politics-as-terror, was ushered onto the world stage in exactly that time frame.

And old Vladimir only took "Marxism," as a revolutionary philosophy, to it's natural conclusion, at that.

One good thing about a high-dollar University Education, as opposed to simply winging it, is that more often than not one knows what they're talking about. As I do here...

but you are just showing that you don't understand the term 'Marxism-Leninism'.

It was used by Stalin and his followers to somehow justify his crimes in terms of Marxism. His tactic obviously worked, as you demonstrate.

You will now find Communist Parties in India, for example, which call themselves things like CPI(M-L) - meaning that they are Stalinist parties.

I am proud of being a socialist and quite happy to discuss Marx - and like the vast majority of socialists in the UK I'm most definitely not a Stalinist, so you can see how your easy categorisation is irritating.

but why do you tolerate the years of ''violence'' that those who have inflict on those who don't?

i.e. katrina is a perfect recent example.

mind you, i count poverty as violence.

to calling for an armed insurrection.

Generally Marx expected there to be violence in a revolutionary situation and that those whose wealth and power were threatened would react violently. So for a revolutionary working class, if confronted with reactionary violence, the only response is retaliatory violence or surrender. It would be a strange Marxist who advocated revolution but wanted to stop as soon as their enemies used violence.

History bears him out pretty much in my opinion.

Of course this isn't restricted to Marxist revolutionaries - there are plenty of other sorts and violence is a necessary part of a revolution. You only have to consider your own, or the French revolution, neither Marxist, to see the generality of this principle.

and we are going to make the Puggies rue the day they started it.

IN!

you are a hard bargainer, but fair.

Sorry about that whole Stamford Bridge thing.

:-)

They started it and then complained if somebody talked about it. Well, that's not going to cut it anymore.

And it's like a real war, but without conventional weapons. Trying to deny people basic healthcare, unless they can pay for it, and all of the other things that go along with making poor people poorer does result in death and disease.

always tells me I'm for class warfare, I always reply, you're damn straight and that my 99% of the population is bigger and angrier than his 1% and that if they keep on - their gated communities aren't going to protect them and we'll soon look like a third world country.


By the way, look at France now and think Washington D.C. - they have high unemployment, many immigrants and NO REPRESENTATION in the Federal Government....

it. Why should people within a country be trying to destroy each other?

Let everyone do their part and not expect all laws to favor them. That is democracy. Oh - and that little thing that was so important for such a long time... mobility and a transfer of wealth so that the "class" are fluid and the barriers - well non-existant as it was meant to be in the USA from the start (unless you were not a white man).

This strategy WORKS! Why? Because it's the truth.

:kick:

Whenever I heard a rightee say "that's class warfare!" I know whatever it is is probably a good idea.

"If Republican's didn't want class war, they shouldn't have started one."

Remember that quote the next time you hear a Right-winger whining about how something is unfair because it's "class warfare".

Remember it, and throw it right back in their whiny, cranky-baby face.

You make your crib, you cry in it, po-widdy-baby-wepupwican-one.

Poor and middle class folks gettin' together is the one true horror of the Repubs. It's why they work so hard on separating everyone with the red state/ blue state shit.

It's why they work so hard to promulgate race, sexual and sex prejudices.

"If Republican's didn't want class war, they shouldn't have started one."

I could have used this 'short & sweet' one a couple of times in the last few months - cuts right to the point. TY!

She drives the point home like no other.

I'll never understand how such a polite and serene woman can make so many Republicans so mad. ;-)

Solidarity, brothers and sisters!

Told the story about the fed up peasants who stormed the lord's castle, hacked him to pieces, cooked him, then forced the family to eat him, then dragged them out and burned them at the stake. THAT, he noted, is class warfare, not arguing about tax rates.

then I know that the Dems have hit on a good issue.

issue. It wins because it is true.

we're just fighting back. I love to hear repub talking heads whine about class warfare. conservative/corporate interests have been waging war on the american working classes for well over a century. there mentality is of the "it all started when he hit me back" variety.

so, yeah, i'll echo your cheers for class warfare, and may we bravely struggle on ...

Rethug-light Dems are no better in real terms -as in jobs and wages.

DINOs may talk a good line or confront a neocon on TV, buy they vote FOR business and keep quiet.

DINO's sold us out by reforming the bankruptcy laws.
Traitors, one and all.