Foros de Aporrea.org

[Jose009]

Cita:

Why Do the Poor Cheer for the Rich? by DAVID MACARAY Evidence that things are far, far worse than we ever dreamed can be seen in John Q. Public’s resentment of labor unions. Twenty-five years ago people who argued with me (and I had these arguments every day) about the contributions of organized labor used to maintain that unions were “badâ€� because they were either (1) too anti-democratic and dictatorial, or (2) too “corruptâ€� (i.e., mobbed up or otherwise “crookedâ€�) But that was the extent of it. No one suggested that unions weren’t beneficial, or that they weren’t devoted to the interests of working people or, considering the stark alternatives, that they weren’t, in fact, “necessary.â€� Rather, their gripes were confined to the procedural, to the way unions were governed. Or to be more accurate, to the way they perceived unions to be governed (because, in truth, people often confused “corruptionâ€� with simple laziness and inefficiency). But that’s all changed. While you still hear the occasional grumbling directed toward “corrupt union bosses,â€� what people complain about today it that labor unions are “elitist.â€� It’s true. Shocking as that may seem, America’s working people actually use the E-word when referring to other working people—to people who, by virtue of a union contract, have managed to stay above water, who’ve managed to retain decent wages and benefits, and haven’t fallen victim to the biggest money grab since the Gilded Age. At first I thought this attitude was simply a manifestation of petty jealousy or schadenfreude. But the more I hear, the more I’m convinced the public honestly believes that working people who feel they’re entitled to decent wages and benefits see themselves as being somehow “above the rest of us,â€� and should, therefore, be knocked down a peg or two. Instead of a union contract serving as a model for the rest of us—something to raise our standard of living—they see it as an insult, a humiliation. When I try to explain that without unions maintaining decent wages and benefits, we’re all subject to the inevitable downward pull of market forces, which, given our surplus of labor, means that many of us will not only remain stagnated but will slide inexorably toward the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (which, incidentally, the Republicans find too generous and wish to abolish), people bristle. They bristle when they hear this. For one thing, they seem to trust unconditionally the restorative powers of the so-called Free Market. They honestly believe the rich won’t be motivated to exploit the rest of us, because, without explaining the specifics, such a thing would be “counterproductive.â€� For another, when you use the innocuous phrase “surplus of labor,â€� some people will scream, “that’s what Karl Marx said!!â€� Not to sound defeatist, but maybe the one-percent has already won this thing. With the poor now cheering for the rich, the plutocrats’ wildest and most ambitious fantasies have been realized. Not only have the rich succeeded in convincing workers to root against labor unions—the one and only institution dedicated to their welfare—they’ve convinced them to fight for the interests of the wealthy rather than the interests of their own tribe. Holy Mother of Jesus, this makes no sense. And it’s not simply politics. It transcends political ideology and voter booth privacy. Rooting for the rich is crazy. It’s not only illogical and impractical, it’s unnatural. Indeed, it’s tantamount to the chicken population of the United States naming Colonel Sanders its “Man of the Year.â€� DAVID MACARAY, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Laborâ€�), was a former union rep. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected]

[victorinux]

Cita:

... it’s tantamount to the chicken population of the United States naming Colonel Sanders its “Man of the Year.�

[Bilbo Baggins]

Jose009 escribió:

Cita: Why Do the Poor Cheer for the Rich? by DAVID MACARAY Evidence that things are far, far worse than we ever dreamed can be seen in John Q. Public’s resentment of labor unions. Twenty-five years ago people who argued with me (and I had these arguments every day) about the contributions of organized labor used to maintain that unions were “badâ€� because they were either (1) too anti-democratic and dictatorial, or (2) too “corruptâ€� (i.e., mobbed up or otherwise “crookedâ€�) But that was the extent of it. No one suggested that unions weren’t beneficial, or that they weren’t devoted to the interests of working people or, considering the stark alternatives, that they weren’t, in fact, “necessary.â€� Rather, their gripes were confined to the procedural, to the way unions were governed. Or to be more accurate, to the way they perceived unions to be governed (because, in truth, people often confused “corruptionâ€� with simple laziness and inefficiency). But that’s all changed. While you still hear the occasional grumbling directed toward “corrupt union bosses,â€� what people complain about today it that labor unions are “elitist.â€� It’s true. Shocking as that may seem, America’s working people actually use the E-word when referring to other working people—to people who, by virtue of a union contract, have managed to stay above water, who’ve managed to retain decent wages and benefits, and haven’t fallen victim to the biggest money grab since the Gilded Age. At first I thought this attitude was simply a manifestation of petty jealousy or schadenfreude. But the more I hear, the more I’m convinced the public honestly believes that working people who feel they’re entitled to decent wages and benefits see themselves as being somehow “above the rest of us,â€� and should, therefore, be knocked down a peg or two. Instead of a union contract serving as a model for the rest of us—something to raise our standard of living—they see it as an insult, a humiliation. When I try to explain that without unions maintaining decent wages and benefits, we’re all subject to the inevitable downward pull of market forces, which, given our surplus of labor, means that many of us will not only remain stagnated but will slide inexorably toward the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (which, incidentally, the Republicans find too generous and wish to abolish), people bristle. They bristle when they hear this. For one thing, they seem to trust unconditionally the restorative powers of the so-called Free Market. They honestly believe the rich won’t be motivated to exploit the rest of us, because, without explaining the specifics, such a thing would be “counterproductive.â€� For another, when you use the innocuous phrase “surplus of labor,â€� some people will scream, “that’s what Karl Marx said!!â€� Not to sound defeatist, but maybe the one-percent has already won this thing. With the poor now cheering for the rich, the plutocrats’ wildest and most ambitious fantasies have been realized. Not only have the rich succeeded in convincing workers to root against labor unions—the one and only institution dedicated to their welfare—they’ve convinced them to fight for the interests of the wealthy rather than the interests of their own tribe. Holy Mother of Jesus, this makes no sense. And it’s not simply politics. It transcends political ideology and voter booth privacy. Rooting for the rich is crazy. It’s not only illogical and impractical, it’s unnatural. Indeed, it’s tantamount to the chicken population of the United States naming Colonel Sanders its “Man of the Year.â€� DAVID MACARAY, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Laborâ€�), was a former union rep. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected]

No hope for the U.S.(and other Anglo societies):

http://www.stateofnature.org/darkLords.html
All the more reason, in order to protect itself from yank corporate greed, the rest of the world(especially Venezuela and ALBA) needs to:

http://www.boycottamerica.org/

[Jose009]

I know as a Marxist I’m supposed to promote working class solidarity, but honestly, I detest all Americans of all social classes and races.

It’s hard to relate to something as alienated and shut down as the American working class, maybe because they never learn anything, as in the Wisconsin recall vote, where they chose a tentacle of the Kochtopus, or a Globescan poll of two weeks ago which showed that 58% of Americans believe that rich people deserve their wealth. The kicker: it was up 1 point over the same 2008 poll.

People are always making excuses for the American working class, but Americans are really just the same bloodsucking human scum they started out as. They just go into hibernation for awhile, dormant like a retrovirus. Genocide, believing themselves to be superior to others, and stealing from people of color was kind of like their first love — they never got over it and they are always trying to replicate it with new humanitarian pretexts. Like Bilbo-Baggins said: There is no hope for the U.S. (and other Anglo societies).

[victorinux]

Jose009 escribió:

... or a Globescan poll of two weeks ago which showed that 58% of Americans believe that rich people deserve their wealth. The kicker: it was up 1 point over the same 2008 poll...

I bet they would have answered differently if the question was "do you believe that the Wallstreet banksters deserve the bailout of the Fed?".

It is not only that the bourgeoisie managed to degrade the workers' economic struggles with their degenerated Unions and cultural hegemony. It is also that the bad end of the socialist experiments of the 20th century sent the communist movement to the 19th century situation, when Marx was grasping how to bring about a socialist society.

[Jose009]

victorinux escribió:

Jose009 escribió: ... or a Globescan poll of two weeks ago which showed that 58% of Americans believe that rich people deserve their wealth. The kicker: it was up 1 point over the same 2008 poll... I bet they would have answered differently if the question was "do you believe that the Wallstreet banksters deserve the bailout of the Fed?". It is not only that the bourgeoisie managed to degrade the workers' economic struggles with their degenerated Unions and cultural hegemony. It is also that the bad end of the socialist experiments of the 20th century sent the communist movement to the 19th century situation, when Marx was grasping how to bring about a socialist society.

Victor, you know your right about the polling question. In fact, it has been proven that poll results vary significantly depending on the way the same question is asked.

And yes, the legacy of Stalinism doesn't help our credibility. But there is more to the problem than just that. If you ask the average american worker about socialism and the history of socialism or statism (stalinism), you'll find a ton of ignorance and little willingness to learn. But if you ask that average american worker about his fantasy football league or the silicone tits at the local strip joint, you'll find that he's a motherfuckin' genius!

On a more serious note, we must always bear in mind that the United States is a young country that lacks the defining historical experiences that forment the existence of a conscious class vanguard.

The United States is undergoing great changes in its economic structure as it becomes a neo-feudalist society where debt-peonage is becoming the new material basis of social organization. Financial capital, in other words the rentier bourgeoisie, conducts the central planning for the economy, and as the dominant class, exercises its class dictatorship through its preferred political structure: Bourgeois Democracy.

Of course, the retrograde subjective conditions in the US are the natural corollaries of the degenerate economic structure of the US.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Jose009 escribió:

victorinux escribió: Jose009 escribió: ... or a Globescan poll of two weeks ago which showed that 58% of Americans believe that rich people deserve their wealth. The kicker: it was up 1 point over the same 2008 poll... I bet they would have answered differently if the question was "do you believe that the Wallstreet banksters deserve the bailout of the Fed?". It is not only that the bourgeoisie managed to degrade the workers' economic struggles with their degenerated Unions and cultural hegemony. It is also that the bad end of the socialist experiments of the 20th century sent the communist movement to the 19th century situation, when Marx was grasping how to bring about a socialist society. Victor, you know your right about the polling question. In fact, it has been proven that poll results vary significantly depending on the way the same question is asked. And yes, the legacy of Stalinism doesn't help our credibility. But there is more to the problem than just that. If you ask the average american worker about socialism and the history of socialism or statism (stalinism), you'll find a ton of ignorance and little willingness to learn. But if you ask that average american worker about his fantasy football league or the silicone tits at the local strip joint, you'll find that he's a motherfuckin' genius! On a more serious note, we must always bear in mind that the United States is a young country that lacks the defining historical experiences that forment the existence of a conscious class vanguard. The United States is undergoing great changes in its economic structure as it becomes a neo-feudalist society where debt-peonage is becoming the new material basis of social organization. Financial capital, in other words the rentier bourgeoisie, conducts the central planning for the economy, and as the dominant class, exercises its class dictatorship through its preferred political structure: Bourgeois Democracy. Marx did not foresee this degeneration into pre-capitalist forms of exploitation. Of course, the retrograde subjective conditions in the US are the natural corollaries of the degenerate economic structure of the US.

Which is why, once again, for the rest of the world(especially Venezuela and ALBA alliance) to defend and protect itself from U.S. style economic degeneration via U.S. "full spectrum dominance" foreign policy, it must economically contain and isolate it as much as possible.

Spread the word.

http://www.boycottamerica.org/

[rararoadrunner]

I agree with Bilbo on this one, with one exception: we must foster the growth of union cooperatives as quickly as we can, so that, just as the Mondragon Cooperatives provide an alternative to the workers of Spain, they can likewise show the way out of the current mess the USA is in.

With the "threat of a good example" incubated right in the US and A, as the economic isolation tightens, a light at the end of that long, dark tunnel can be clearly shown to US workers...one that don't have an oncoming train attached to it (or if it does, our cooperatives put US workers solidly on the platform so they can board that train straight outta capitalism!)

[Bilbo Baggins]

rararoadrunner escribió:

I agree with Bilbo on this one, with one exception: we must foster the growth of union cooperatives as quickly as we can, so that, just as the Mondragon Cooperatives provide an alternative to the workers of Spain, they can likewise show the way out of the current mess the USA is in. With the "threat of a good example" incubated right in the US and A, as the economic isolation tightens, a light at the end of that long, dark tunnel can be clearly shown to US workers...one that don't have an oncoming train attached to it (or if it does, our cooperatives put US workers solidly on the platform so they can board that train straight outta capitalism!)

BOTH need to be done-shut down capitalism while we build global economic democracy(Socialism) through union cooperatives.

[Jose009]

Ironically enough, the “oppressed� 99% that the Occupy Wall Street movement claimed to represent may not be that far from the ideology of the upper 1%. There has been much discussion, on the part of sociologists, as to why socialism never managed to take root in the United States, and the general consensus boils down to a remark once made by John Steinbeck:

“In the U.S., the poor regard themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.�

In ideological terms, the only difference between rich and poor in that country is that the latter don’t have any money. The interest of the poor or the middle class has not been to have the sort of civilization that Occupy Wall Street activists talk about, which would include concern for the environment, the welfare of society, the fairness of institutions, and so on— not at all. Their goal is, and always has been, to get into that upper 1%.

[victorinux]

Jose009 escribió:

Ironically enough, the “oppressed� 99% that the Occupy Wall Street movement claimed to represent may not be that far from the ideology of the upper 1%. There has been much discussion, on the part of sociologists, as to why socialism never managed to take root in the United States, and the general consensus boils down to a remark once made by John Steinbeck: “In the U.S., the poor regard themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.� In ideological terms, the only difference between rich and poor in that country is that the latter don’t have any money. The interest of the poor or the middle class has not been to have the sort of civilization that Occupy Wall Street activists talk about, which would include concern for the environment, the welfare of society, the fairness of our institutions, and so on— not at all. Their goal is, and always has been, to get into that upper 1%.

Paraphrasing Engels

"Therefore I think also the Occupy a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the communists there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes ("only true-making") dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible."

from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htm

Cita:

1886 Engels to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky It is far more important that the movement should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines. There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than "durch Schaden klug tererden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole large class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own. Therefore I think also the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.

[Jose009]

victorinux escribió:

Jose009 escribió: Oculto:  Ironically enough, the “oppressedâ€� 99% that the Occupy Wall Street movement claimed to represent may not be that far from the ideology of the upper 1%. There has been much discussion, on the part of sociologists, as to why socialism never managed to take root in the United States, and the general consensus boils down to a remark once made by John Steinbeck: “In the U.S., the poor regard themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.â€� In ideological terms, the only difference between rich and poor in that country is that the latter don’t have any money. The interest of the poor or the middle class has not been to have the sort of civilization that Occupy Wall Street activists talk about, which would include concern for the environment, the welfare of society, the fairness of our institutions, and so on— not at all. Their goal is, and always has been, to get into that upper 1%. Paraphrasing Engels "Therefore I think also the Occupy a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the communists there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes ("only true-making") dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible." from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htm Cita: 1886 Engels to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky It is far more important that the movement should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines. There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than "durch Schaden klug tererden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole large class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own. Therefore I think also the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.

Victor, the fact is that many revolutionaries are simply not prepared to discuss why it is that revolutionary consciousness has been steadily leaking out of the American Proletariat since Engles wrote that letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, and why after one hundred fifty years of revolutionaries 'speaking the workers' language' this drift has not been reversed.

It is interesting to observe how those who argue for the 'transmission of consciousness' model do not practically escape from the confines of their milieu and do not reach the working class; they seem content to exhort each other to be more realistic, speak in a language the workers will understand, etc etc. But nothing ever happens. If the "transmission of consciousness" was possible in the United States, revolutionaries would surely be locally recruiting five or more new adherents every week, particularly in the midst of the current political and economic circumstances.

We need to bear in mind that that extreme greed, and the free-market ideology, showed up on the American continent in the late sixteenth century, when what would later become the United States started to be colonized by a particularly aggressive and entrepreneurial segment of the English middle class. America is a “fragment society,� i.e. one that took a particular immigrant strand from the mother countries — in this case the mentality of hustling, of go-getting, of unlimited economic gains — and made it into the whole of the new country. This social fabric is not going to be altered by the infinitesimally small number of American Revolutionaries, and in all seriousness, these extraordinarily dedicated comrades would be better off donating their efforts to the working class of other countries, since their personal sacrifice for the US working class is, sadly, like to sowing seeds in the sea.

[Jose009]

victorinux escribió:

Jose009 escribió: ... or a Globescan poll of two weeks ago which showed that 58% of Americans believe that rich people deserve their wealth. The kicker: it was up 1 point over the same 2008 poll... I bet they would have answered differently if the question was "do you believe that the Wallstreet banksters deserve the bailout of the Fed?". Oculto:  It is not only that the bourgeoisie managed to degrade the workers' economic struggles with their degenerated Unions and cultural hegemony. It is also that the bad end of the socialist experiments of the 20th century sent the communist movement to the 19th century situation, when Marx was grasping how to bring about a socialist society.

Victor, you know your right about the polling question. In fact, it has been proven that poll results vary significantly depending on the way the same question is asked.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/127448/Banking-Reform-Sells-Better-Wall-Street-Mentioned.aspx

[RobertoRául.R]

No es por trollear... pero si todos ustedes son venezolanos porque se hablan uno al otro en ingles, es que este foro en ingles de aporrea tiene link hacia otro foro o que?, no se me llama la atencion...

[ernezcam01]

RobertoRául.R escribió:

No es por trollear... pero si todos ustedes son venezolanos porque se hablan uno al otro en ingles, es que este foro en ingles de aporrea tiene link hacia otro foro o que?, no se me llama la atencion...

Sencillamente es una sección del foro, donde se debate en Ingles, supongo que especialmente dirigida para los usuarios que visiten la página y no hablen español; solo eso Roberto, no veo cual es el problema, es como que se critique la versión en Ingles del Correo del Orinoco.

PD: disculpen la interrupción en esta sección y si quieres plantear el tema sobre tu objeción a esta sección puedes crear un post en el subforo de funcionamiento .