Philosophical anarchism, mk 2

[Noleaders]

It's nice that you think the opinions are scum, but WHY do you think they are scum?

I didn't say "scum".

They are representations of blatant liberalism. Things like "evolution not revolution" and "gradual change" and all that shit are liberal buzzwords and copouts from actually engaging in or promoting revolutionary activity. Hence they're petit-bourgeois since they pose no threat to the system itself, only an annoyance to those at the very top (the bourgeosie).

Im sorry but your misrepresenting us here. The objective of the evolutionist strategy is to build alternative institutions first, bring down the state second and only when there's enough supporting institutions for it not to dissolve into chaos or another state. There is no reformism involved.
In fact it promotes "revolutionary activities" far more than revolutions themselves because its consists of encouraging everyone to immediately start acting against the state in any way then can, even if its just something small, as long as in the early stages its peaceful enough to not get suppressed by the state. Whereas with a revolution you have to wait until you have huge support before you can do anything or it would just be a mild terrorist incident that scared away the public.

[Noleaders]

No. Essentially it refers to small business owners, the self employed, artists, artisans etc. In some cases it can be applied to people like managers (though that's less often).

Yes but the connotations behind these classes have all changed now, lets face it everyone here could probably be considered bourgeois to some, and its inconsistent with the rest of marxist theory.

According to marx as capitalism progressed society would become ever more visibly split into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the petit bourgeoisie dissappearing as they all became part of one of the two main classes. Then because of the so called "iron law of wages" the proletariat would be driven to subsistence level standards of living as the bourgeoisie made more and more profits until class antagonisms caused the system to collapse on its internal contradictions.

However workers in highly developed capitalist countries have in fact had the real value of their wages go up, we all now have higher standards of living than the rich used to while the two classes rather than becoming distinct and antagonistic have if anything done the opposite becoming much looser allowing much more mobility.

Therefore the workers cant be proletariat, since they didnt suffer the fate the proletariat were doomed to, so are either bourgoisie or petit bourgoisie except the petit bourgoisie were meant to be dissappearing.

It makes no sense and has nothing to do with the reality of modern life. However revolutionary it may have once been to support it now shows an inability to progress and an unwillingness to let go of old ideas, it is nothing more than dogmatic and reactionary.

[Francois Tremblay]

What is hard to understand? When you can't suppress something, you co-opt it. That's how the capital-democratic system deals with its enemies. That's how you deal with us.

[jack]

According to marx as capitalism progressed society would become ever more visibly split into two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the petit bourgeoisie dissappearing as they all became part of one of the two main classes. Then because of the so called "iron law of wages" the proletariat would be driven to subsistence level standards of living as the bourgeoisie made more and more profits until class antagonisms caused the system to collapse on its internal contradictions.

However workers in highly developed capitalist countries have in fact had the real value of their wages go up, we all now have higher standards of living than the rich used to while the two classes rather than becoming distinct and antagonistic have if anything done the opposite becoming much looser allowing much more mobility.

Marx wasn't some kind of all knowing deity, we take the good and leave the bad. He also underestimated how much of a role the state would take in the economy, such as giving tax breaks to the petit bourgeoisie. He was right about the peasantry disappearing though, as they nearly have (excluding a few dozen nutty redneck farmers) in the industrialized world.
At first Marx beleived that the condition of the proletariat would get worse, but he later changed this to saying that the overall condition would get better, but the gap in wealth would become more extreme, he was right in this regard.

Therefore the workers cant be proletariat, since they didnt suffer the fate the proletariat were doomed to, so are either bourgoisie or petit bourgoisie except the petit bourgoisie were meant to be dissappearing.

"Proletariat" refers to relation to the means of production, calling me or anyone I know bourgeois or petit bourgeois is fucking ridiculous.

[jack]

Im sorry but your misrepresenting us here. The objective of the evolutionist strategy is to build alternative institutions first, bring down the state second and only when there's enough supporting institutions for it not to dissolve into chaos or another state. There is no reformism involved.
In fact it promotes "revolutionary activities" far more than revolutions themselves because its consists of encouraging everyone to immediately start acting against the state in any way then can, even if its just something small, as long as in the early stages its peaceful enough to not get suppressed by the state. Whereas with a revolution you have to wait until you have huge support before you can do anything or it would just be a mild terrorist incident that scared away the public.

Sounds stupid. The Communist Party of Germany and Social Democratic Party before Hitler took power had their own newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs etc. Then in a matter of days all that was gone as Hitler decided to crush it. If you actually pose a threat to the state, your attempts at "evolution" can easily be twarted.

[patrickhenry]

Sounds stupid. The Communist Party of Germany and Social Democratic Party before Hitler took power had their own newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs etc. Then in a matter of days all that was gone as Hitler decided to crush it. If you actually pose a threat to the state, your attempts at "evolution" can easily be twarted.

About as stupid as the two examples you used. Communist and Nazis. Hitler came to power through state politics. not a revolution. Your statement makes you sound statist.

[Francois Tremblay]

1. I didn't write what you quoted. The english is not good enough.

2. Evolution does not work with "newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs." An evolutionary organization might use these things, but they are not the primary aim. The primary aim is to restore sanity.

[jack]

Sounds stupid. The Communist Party of Germany and Social Democratic Party before Hitler took power had their own newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs etc. Then in a matter of days all that was gone as Hitler decided to crush it. If you actually pose a threat to the state, your attempts at "evolution" can easily be twarted.

About as stupid as the two examples you used. Communist and Nazis. Hitler came to power through state politics. not a revolution. Your statement makes you sound statist.

You didn't understand a word I said did you? I was talking about the state completely destroying all the evolutionary programs that the KPD and SDP had.

[jack]

1. I didn't write what you quoted. The english is not good enough.

2. Evolution does not work with "newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs." An evolutionary organization might use these things, but they are not the primary aim. The primary aim is to restore sanity.

What the hell do you mean by "restore sanity", and what gradualist concepts can't be repressed?

[Francois Tremblay]

I don't know how it can be any clearer.

[Noleaders]

Marx wasn't some kind of all knowing deity, we take the good and leave the bad. He also underestimated how much of a role the state would take in the economy, such as giving tax breaks to the petit bourgeoisie.

Good, but you wont be left with much.
Also on another thread you dissmissed proudhon because of his bizzarely inconsistent views on women and jews, as if that had anything with his theory. Why do you criticise me for doing the exact same as you are doing here?
Besides the state helps big business FAR more than the "petit bourgeoisie".

He was right about the peasantry disappearing though, as they nearly have (excluding a few dozen nutty redneck farmers) in the industrialized world.

Oh yeah like thats hard to predict...
An obsolete mode of production will get replaced by a more modern one, nice one Marx!

At first Marx beleived that the condition of the proletariat would get worse, but he later changed this to saying that the overall condition would get better, but the gap in wealth would become more extreme, he was right in this regard.

But then he refuted his own theory! Since the proletariat's condition won't be reduced to subsistence wages and in fact will be getting better then the workers wont feel the need to rebel. Which explains why communist revolutions have all happened in more backwards countries and not in the most developed capitalist countries, the exact reverse of what marx believed, where the two rigid antagonistic classes are if anything dissappearing as there is more mobility now than when marx was writing.

"Proletariat" refers to relation to the means of production, calling me or anyone I know bourgeois or petit bourgeois is fucking ridiculous.

I didnt call you anything, just pointing out the inconsistencies of this theory. Its not applicable to modern life, the classes arent antagonistic, they arent distinct, they have lost all the connotations they once had.

Marx’s Class Theory failed to see that those workers classically??
considered proletariat would become growingly obsolescent. In North??
America, unionized skilled workers are in??decline??, being absorbed by??
new entrepreneurship (franchising, independent contracting and consult-??
ing), the service industry, scientific research and development, increased??
managerial function??without?? human labor underneath for exploitation,??
and bureaucracy. Wrote SEK3:??
“The entrepreneurial problem is unsolvable for Marxism, because??
Marx failed to recognize the economic category. The best Marxists??
can do is lump them with new, perhaps mutated, capitalist forms.??
But if they are to fit the old class system, they are??petit bourgeois??,??
the very group that is to either collapse into proletarians or rise into??
the monopoly capitalist category. Small business should??not??
increase in the ‘advanced, decadent stages of capitalism.’ ”??

http://agorism.info/AgoristClassTheory.pdf


Like you yourself said, take the good and abandon the bad, its time for anarchists to embrace a new theory of class conflict - The state and powerful interest groups allied to it against everyone else.

[Noleaders]

Sounds stupid. The Communist Party of Germany and Social Democratic Party before Hitler took power had their own newspapers, social clubs, welfare programs etc. Then in a matter of days all that was gone as Hitler decided to crush it. If you actually pose a threat to the state, your attempts at "evolution" can easily be twarted.

Thats why you dont do anything drastic that they would notice until you have a supporting system in place. Besides revolution suffers from the same problem.

[jack]

When you say class isn't a factor, let alone class is nonexistant, I find it hard to listen to anything you say. Also, the "agorist blah blah blah" is the worst rag of shit I've ever read, and I really wish I had that time back. It acts like Marxists are the only people to acknowledge class, and that there is some mysterious "political class" that's seperate from the bourgeoisie.

[Francois Tremblay]

No one's denying class. All we're saying is that the Marxist model of class is outdated.

[Noleaders]

When you say class isn't a factor, let alone class is nonexistant, I find it hard to listen to anything you say.

This is a strawman because I never said this, i said i have a different theory of class.

Also, the "agorist blah blah blah" is the worst rag of shit I've ever read, and I really wish I had that time back.

Good, logical argument here.
Do you have any criticisms? Or do you just not like it?

It acts like Marxists are the only people to acknowledge class

Although today’s academics largely credit the doctrine of class conflict??
to Marx and Engels, historian Ralph Raico has for many years advanced??
the 19th Century classical liberal exploitation theory of Comte and??
Dunoyer as a much superior, more correct precursor to the Marxist class??
model. However, Konkin begins his examination of class theories much??
earlier than Comte-Dunoyer or Marx.

and that there is some mysterious "political class" that's seperate from the bourgeoisie.

If you actually read it or understood it you would know this is the exact opposite of what they are saying.

Almost all libertarians accept that the State divides society into two??
classes: those who gain by the existence of the State and those who lose.

Historian Kolko’s??Triumph of Conservatism?? detailed how “capitalists”??
thwarted the relatively free marketplace of the late 19th century and??
conspired with the State to become “robber barons” and monopolists.??