-
Website
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-left-celebrate-4th-of-july.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Go ahead, celebrate your position as kings of the mountain, just don't call yourselves "the left."
Go to globalrichlist dot com and type in the current US poverty level (about $11,000 for a single person): a "poor" American is in the top 13%, richer than nearly 6 billion other people. You can adjust for PPP, or whatever else you like, but it won't change the fundamental truth that Americans are incredibly well-off, financially.
"Poor" in America typically means living in a small apartment or trailer with full utilities, driving a rusty car, and eating food that is less than ideal for optimal health (i.e., junk/fast food), but being able to afford plenty of it (often too much).
"Poor" in places where that word has meaning typically means living in a grass hut or corrugated aluminum shanty, sleeping on the ground, barely finding enough food to maintain a weight that allows you to stand without fainting, and drinking from the same water source where you relieve yourself.
If there were any sizable proletariat here, there would be vast, sweeping changes to the very structure of America, given the freedom we have to make such change if we so desire (I'm talking about real change, not a change from Bushite imperialism to Obamanite imperialism). This is not happening, because there is no such desire. What is desired, and supported, is imperialism, because that's what benefits elites, which is what we all are.
But how far do you think Marxist ideas would have traveled if Marx, Engels, and other "founders" had made such comparisons between one country's "proletariat" and another's? The standard of living of the "poor" in each country will always vary (among countries and within each individual country), and each country will have its own "repressed" class. No country oppresses its oppressed in the same way. But wasn't the original aim of Marxism to unite oppressed workers everywhere?
American workers are well aware of the situation of the working poor abroad (or maybe I just like to think they are), but that doesn't change the fact that American workers are often being taken advantage of (comparatively speaking, of course). The poor in each country have to contend with an oppressor(s) of some kind. We should focus on what the working poor in each country have in common, and not pit them against one another based on what system happens to be oppressing them. Abused workers in EVERY country need to hear the message if progress is to be made.
Obviously, when I say there are NONE, I'm not speaking literally. But the genuine poor are a minuscule fraction of the population. Most of what passes for poverty in the US is, in actual fact, extravagant wealth. It's a case of Orwellian doublespeak. The "poor American" I described in my last post lives a life of almost obscene opulence. This is not mitigated by the existence of even higher degrees of it, nor is it transformed into something that it is not (poverty). The "comparative" disadvantage you speak of is in fact a comparative advantage, when your sample size includes the whole planet, as it should.
This doesn't mean Americans should be happy with their situation (as long as one person has a bigger slice of the pie than another, there is an injustice; I rail against the richest among us as loudly as anyone), but the solution isn't to redistribute America's imperialist wealth among Americans (which only prolongs and exacerbates the global injustice), it is to redistribute Earth's wealth among Earthlings. Most of the American "poor" who consider themselves on the "left" want to do it the other way around, because they happen to be alive right now and stand to benefit personally from doing it that way. This will of course be true for every generation, so that none will ever do the right thing globally unless it is forced on them.
I'm perfectly happy to have it forced on me, even if it means a radical downsizing of my lifestyle. Are you?
And you seem to be reading things into my posting (and Anthony's) that weren't said. I don't disagree with the fact that "American working poor" may be a bit of a misnomer when compared to the rest of the world's poor. But when what would be considered the protelariat make substantially less than the capital/means of production owners in ANY country, I would certainly consider that oppressed (yes, oppressed!) group to be "impoverished", regardless of how wealthy that country may be!
I think we need to define "poverty" before we go any further. I get the impression that there is some universal, planet-wide threshold that you have in mind for what would be considered to be a "poverty line". If such a threshold exists, what is it, in your opinion? And if you do reply to this post, please don't tell me (again) that the vast majority of the people in the USA (even if they're in what we consider to be poverty) are above that threshold -- you've made that perfectly clear already. You seem to think that I disagree with you much more than I actually do!
Alternately, I could pour all my energy into making as much money as possible, then give everything above the "poverty" level to "third world" charities, but that would mean taking greater part in the oppressive imperialist system, which would likely do more harm than my charitable "gifts" could offset. (Scare-quotes used because those "gifts" would have been extracted from the oppressed poor to begin with; I'd merely be giving back a fraction of what I had taken.) Still, I endorse this approach for those above the "poverty" level, and I recommend it often, although I've never gotten a response that wasn't negative -- some have bordered on violent.
I agree that there is an oppressor class in America; what I'm arguing is that we all belong to it. What difference does it make if only a subset of that class owns the means of production, when the entirety of that class supports what the owners do with it? Fighting for more control of it is to fight for a chance to actually pull the trigger on the "third world," instead of merely cheering as the firing squad pulls it.
I suppose if there were a universal poverty threshold it would be anything below the median global income, adjusted for the local cost of living. I haven't really thought about it in so much detail because it overlooks the forest for the trees. All it takes is a cursory tour of your mind's eye to see the disparity between the "first" and "third" worlds.
I'm still not sold on your premise that we are ALL (or even most of us, simply by virtue of being American citizens) part of a global oppressor class, and that there really aren't truly oppressed workers (i.e. a proletariat) in the USA, but I laud your desire (both in thought and practice) to live simply and free of the desire to maximize your consumption.
And best of luck finding a country (to which to emigrate) that isn't imperialist in at least some regard! I don't think you'll find what you're really looking for (although I would not presume to know exactly what it is you're looking for, so I'll digress), but I'd be interested to hear what countries are on your short-list (and why).
Conditions are ripe for a revolution/evolution in the United States due to its advanced system of democracy, capitalism and its final stage, imperialism which is prerequisite for the socialist revolution to take place.
We may be the "elite proletariat," but to the bourgeoisie, we are all the same: commodities to be exploited when convenient, and we all will share a similar fate in their system.
You're looking at it from inside the America box, rather than stepping outside that box and looking at the world as a whole. When you look at it from the proper perspective, you immediately see that America is a member of the global exploiter class.
Think of nations as individuals: America is a bully who beats up brown kids and takes their lunch money.
Your second paragraph is just you parroting back the Marxism 101 texts you've read.
Let me rephrase your last paragraph, in the voice of the "third world":
"To America, we are all the same: commodities to be exploited when convenient, and we all will share a similar fate in their system."
Understand yet?
You're missing the forest for the trees, and you're not taking into account that within each class there may be many levels or sub-classes which, however you cut it, still compose that same class: the international proletariat. Regardless of how well the American worker is doing in relation to other nations, they are still not doing nearly as well as the bourgeoisie to which they sell their labor-power. Furthermore, to confuse the two classes on the basis of material benefits is missing the entire point, as the American proletariat is the proletariat by virtue (or ill luck?) of the fact that THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OR THE COMMANDING HEIGHTS OF THE ECONOMY, which is the very reality that makes the class what it is. The exploitation of others in foreign nations may be worse; but in such a system, exploitation by means of unpaid labor is still the reality.
Or am I just "spewing Marxist 101 texts" if I happen to disagree with your opinions?
Let's try this: for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that the average American is a wretched, oppressed little worm, crawling on his belly through the discarded scraps of third world flesh and bone from his elitist oppressors' table, but taking no part in the feast whatsoever. Now tell me how that pitiable worm is not exacerbating the misery of his third world worm comrades when he fights for a seat at the table where their bones are ground to dust to make imperialist bread?
You see, it doesn't really make any difference whether there's an American "proletariat" or not; what's important to understand is that to rise up in America means to stand on the backs of the truly wretched poor of the world. The solution is not to squabble over our ill-gotten gains, but to bring the whole system down around our ears.
Now: how can I be "excessively viewing [the world] from outside the American box and within another"? The America box is artificially drawn on a map. When you step outside a national box, you're left with the only box that matters: the global box. That's the only real box, unless you know something I don't (have they colonized Mars already?).
"You're missing the entire point that a Socialist system can only be instituted within a fully developed capitalist and democratic system..."
"...am I just 'spewing Marxist 101 texts' ...?"
Yes.
There's no need to trot out the same old lines over and over. We've all read them. What matters is the reality all around you. Who gives a toss about "communism" or "socialism" anyway? It isn't about chest pins, it's about observing reality and recognizing that it sucks. Frankly, I think it's about time some political genius repackaged communism so we can drop that damned conversation-killer. Face it: McCarthy won. Say the "C-word" in America, and you're dead in the water. People's eyes glaze over. Go ahead, read the texts, they're brilliant, I'm not coming down on them. But if you can't say what you mean in everyday language then you're just another boring ideologue.
"You're missing the forest for the trees..."
This is simply farcical. I'm the one standing back and gazing at the forest. Remember when I stepped outside the box earlier? Yeah, that was the forest. Now I'm out here. Come join me, let's talk about global oppression and what we can do to end it, instead of how we can further benefit from it.
As for me spewing Marxism and the like... excuse me. What was I thinking, advocating Marxist and at times Trotskyist ideas? What is this, a Communist blog or something? LOL
You have your views (which are actually hypocritical and a bit annoying since you're likewise American and, by your definition, an oppressor), and I have mine. Let's simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways in trying to doing our part to try to bring about a more just world in which wealth is more evenly and fairly distributed.
The saying "can't see the forest for the trees" means you're focused on the details, or on a smaller segment of the whole. I'm stepping back to look at the broader picture. It's simplified by design: why focus on a multitude of intranational squabbles when the real problem is international?
"...it is impossible to point at America as a whole and say, 'Every one of you is guilty of oppressing the international proletariat.' Especially so when it is those owners of industry and economic forces that are the only ones capable of doing the oppressing."
I'm not going to repeat myself again after this because you are clearly trying not to understand. For the last time: If you benefit from imperialism, you are an imperialist. How can a person participating in an imperialist economy claim to be a non-imperialist? It's like suggesting that a member of CPUSA is a practicing communist, simply because that's their ideology, rather than the capitalist that they are by definition as Americans. To be American is to be a capitalist, imperialist oppressor. Not because you want to be, necessarily, but because that's part of what it means to be American.
"To say that the proletariat, working class or whatever phrase you'd rather use is agreeing to the capitalist oppression is ignoring the fact that most of the proletariat in this country is blisfully unaware of the negative aspects of capitalism, their role in society, and the role of the bourgeoisie in the devastation of the third world nations."
Ha! They need not have read Marx to be perfectly aware of their relative opulence, or to understand that the flood of Mexicans is an example of poor people scrambling for the lowest rung of jobs. Americans aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they can put two and two together; they know what time it is; they know how the machine operates.
"...unless they are the owners of the majority of capital and are part of the elite who actually run the machinery of industry which profits from their exploitation, they can't be said to be responsible for it."
We still have the vote in this country, don't we? When people keep voting for the same old Republicans and Democrats, that's an endorsement of the status quo. People are quite happy, indeed, to continue sucking the blood of the third world.
"It's like advocating the idea that the slaves who belong to the richest master are actually part of the elite slaveowners simply because they live in better conditions than some of the other slaves."
Terrible analogy. Slaves were regarded as little more than beasts of burden with opposable thumbs and the ability to follow more complicated commands than "Giddyup!" and "Whoa!" They weren't actively participating in and benefiting from the imperialist system.
"What is this, a Communist blog or something? LOL"
No. It's a Democratic Party blog.
"You have your views (which are actually hypocritical and a bit annoying since you're likewise American and, by your definition, an oppressor)..."
I am not hypocritical. Go back and read the thread: nowhere did I exclude myself from the oppressor class. I condemn myself with the same force as everyone else. The difference is that I am aware of it, able to admit it, and bothered by it. Small consolation to be sure, but I'm working on a better one.
"Let's simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways in trying to doing our part to try to bring about a more just world in which wealth is more evenly and fairly distributed."
Agreed! And good luck in your efforts!
No my friend, this is a blog for, quote, "Marxist analysis of the '08 Elections from the Communist Party USA leadership." Marxist analysis hosted by the Communist Party itself. Though one could argue that the CPUSA is inherently democratic, there is no denying it is Communist and Marxist/Leninist. ;)
Take care!
I haven't been to the movies in over 20 years, and I don't own a TV, but I'm familiar with the story. Schindler didn't set out to free Jews, but to get rich on their backs. I'm glad he had a change of heart, and I admire the clever way he manipulated what he understood -- business -- to do some good. Are you equating giving back a portion of the money one has extracted from the "third world" with saving Jews from gas chambers?
You refuse to buy my premise that most Americans are oppressors because you don't like being called an oppressor. But if you step back and look at the big picture with an objective eye, you can come to no other conclusion. Not because you go around intentionally oppressing people, but because you participate in an oppressive enterprise. The only Americans I can think of who don't have bloody hands are children, homeless people and subsistence farmers. Once you grow up and get a "real job" in America, you become an oppressor.
You're right: when I condemn the US, it's because that's what I'm most familiar with, but the same can be said of all of "the West," and most of the "first world." That leaves the "second" and "third" worlds, which are more dangerous neighborhoods, but I've taken nothing off the table except theocracies or places where I'd be killed on sight (which tend to be one and the same). I don't have a short list yet, as this is a fairly recent decision (in case you couldn't tell, I've lost the optimism I once had for America).
What I'm looking for is a country...
...where the people actually choose their government.
...where the government obeys the people, not the other way around.
...where if the government launched a war of aggression, the people would literally storm the capital and drag the perpetrators out of their offices and into the courts.
...where they refuse to trade with oppressors, even if that means going without until they can produce a product themselves in a humane and equitable manner.
...where they understand that wealth only exists because society exists, so they impose a "decency ceiling" on just how rich you can become before the rest gets repossessed by society and used to oil the squeakier cogs in that machine.
...where birthright privilege (monarchy, inheritance, etc.) has been abolished, because there's no such thing as "royal" blood, and because nobody should be allowed to give their children an upper hand from birth so that they succeed while less fortunate children fail.
...where they have gotten over their primitive superstitions and state funds are not wasted on supporting official religious institutions.
...where more people "believe" in science than in bronze age myths and this is reflected in government.
...where they understand that people are a product of their environment, which is often a matter of dumb luck rather than choice, so they focus on prevention of crime by improving conditions rather than punishment.
...where they understand that a life where more than half your waking hours must be spent as a wage slave in order to feed yourself is no life at all.
...where they refuse to allow one segment of their society to spend generation after generation toiling away in hopelessness while another segment is enriched by it and gets to enjoy their one shot at life.
...where those who merely shuffle money around with computers are not allowed to pocket the billions they skim from that manipulation.
...where they have big, bold dreams for the future: dreams of using technology to provide people with their basic needs free of charge, rather than using it to more efficiently extract profits from wage slaves.
...where they aren't inculcated with propagandistic mantras like "work ethic" to make them believe that they are only valuable if they are producing wealth for their wage slavemasters.
...where they value leisure time above yoke time and don't mock people who choose not to drive themselves like beasts of burden in order to pay their "fair share" to the war machine.
...where they are encouraged to engage in creative leisure activities where they might benefit society, rather than idle, brain-rotting "activities" like spectator sports, celebrity worship, compulsive shopping, flag waving and club-hopping.
...where they don't just talk about the children being the future, but they act on those words by making children the absolute top priority in every decision they make and show as much concern for their neighbor's children as their own.
...where they don't maintain the class system by ending free education after high school while making it impossible to do anything but menial work without an expensive college degree.
...where wealth is not an indicator of health.
...where gonads are not an indicator of income.
...where melanin is not an indicator of incarceration rate.
...where all of the negatives I've listed above are not cheered as virtues.
...where I'm free to say all this and more without fear.
I could go on, but I'll spare you. There is no utopia; I know this. I used to think the US was the least worst place, but I've finally broken free of that cycle of denial. America is a terrible, shameful, nightmare of a country. And it's actually getting worse, not better. I want to escape this sinking ship before I go down with it. This is a very real risk: I have recently found myself almost wanting to give up and accept the situation -- go along to get along -- CPUSA-style. This is only natural; I'm as human as the next person. I suffer from the same burnout and desire not to be hated every time I open my mouth, as any other person with a fringe ideology. As you can probably tell, I'm fighting that weakness with renewed vigor in my critique of this hellhole.
But I'd still like to know if you've found a country(ies) that might be a good candidate to which to emigrate. What places do you dislike least? What other sorts of solutions do you have (other than to emigrate)? Can nothing be done "from the inside"?
And I'd also like to know how you (the leadership of the CPUSA) respond to Phil's assertion that you're all just "going along to get along".
I really don't understand why you'd be reacting negatively or defensively to my comments unless they offend you somehow. All I'm doing is speaking my mind honestly and describing the situation as I see it. So what if I am "America bashing"? Does that bother you? If so, why? Do you identify yourself with America no matter what it does? I sure don't. You can take a dump on the flag and set it on fire in the middle of the street for all I care.
Forgive my paranoia, but I get the feeling you're asking for the CPUSA to chime in because you think I might be intimidated into falling in line if they disagree with me. I've never been a lackey for any party, so that won't happen. I'm paradoxically a radical individualist on matters of expression.
Anyway, it's not just me saying it, it's the CPUSA themselves. Watch their YouTube videos; they openly admit that endorsing Democrats is a means to an end. OK, so be it. I don't even disagree with it, since it is clearly their only realistic option. But that doesn't change the nature of what they're doing: going along to get along. It's not so much an insult, as a sad observation of where we find ourselves.
I'm going to duck the emigration question again, because I don't want to go where I suspect you want to lead me (into a comparison of Nation X vs the good ol' USA). I'm well aware that there are negatives no matter where you go; I'm not interested in being thrust into the position of defending actions and policies that I'm not responsible for and don't support. Maybe I'll send you postcard someday, and you can check the postmark.
I thought I did. You assume that my words are somehow "mocking" you. They are not, nor have they ever been. I'm using the words without their traditionally negative connotation -- I LOVE a good rant! Now which one of us is reacting defensively? I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who can completely and concisely defend their opinions (whether I agree with them or not).
..."I really don't understand why you'd be reacting negatively or defensively to my comments unless they offend you somehow. All I'm doing is speaking my mind honestly and describing the situation as I see it. So what if I am "America bashing"? Does that bother you? If so, why? Do you identify yourself with America no matter what it does? I sure don't. You can take a dump on the flag and set it on fire in the middle of the street for all I care."...
Again with the psychoanalysis!!! You read WAY too much into what I'm saying. What gives you the impression that I'm reacting defensively or negatively to what you said? Why would you assume that I'm offended by America-bashing? I've burned many a flag, and defended many a flag-burner in my life! I'm merely collecting opinions (which is why I wanted the CPUSA to chime in, and why I keep asking you for more opinions/clarification of your ideas). Who here couldn't use a good kick in the ol' complacency?
I'm really not the semantic pugilist that you seem to think I am, and I would never claim to be at the current state of knowledge of most everyone else here. I'm just a garden-variety dullard sticking a toe in the red water here. You might find this hard to believe, but I am genuinely interested in what you have to say! I'm very sorry to hear that many people have reacted negatively to your ideas/views in the past (as indicated in your eariler postings). I assure you -- your "paranoia" isn't warranted (at least not with me). You assume I have an ego when it comes to discussing these ideas -- I don't. If I "needle" you with the occasional strong word, it's (usually) only to get you elaborate -- there's no malice or ulterior motive involved. If I were truly offended or annoyed by anything you said, I probably would have left this thread a LONG time ago.
And I'm not trying to lead you down the "comparing country X to the good ol' USA" path, either. Honestly, that never even dawned on me (until you brought it up)! I actually want to hear what you've learned in the course of your "research" in this area. I'd love a postcard, too! :)
Hey now, that was unfair. You admit they have a certain connotation, then suggest I should have known you weren't using it.
"You might find this hard to believe, but I am genuinely interested in what you have to say!"
Well then, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
Point taken. Sarcasm doesn't come off well in print. You think I would have learned that by now! My apologies.
I really liked your America-bashing rants -- they've given us all something to think about. I just didn't want you to use one to answer ALL of my questions. And I STILL want to know about your emigration research (out of pure curiosity)!
I'm curious: where do you think Marxist ideas were challenged? Do you mean inconsequential little ideological details, or the underlying premise that oppression sucks and must be snuffed out?
Twarn't my post! If it was, it probably would have ended with one of my dreary pleas to get you to elaborate on your emigration research (again).
I'd also like to know exactly where (and how) basic Marxist ideas were necessarily "challenged".
Tell that to my wife, who died at age 43 because we couldn't afford health insurance. Maybe she lived a little better than someone in the poorer third world, but she's still just as dead, and it was totally preventable and unnecessary.
As for poverty in America, it's on the increase, and we may ourselves be "third world" in a few more decades.
I'm not defending the slavery, or the imperialism, exploitation both at home and abroad, or any of the ugly parts of U.S. history. The communist goal is transformation and change, but if things continue as they are, the U.S. will likely destroy itself eventually.
I would agree that U.S. workers have not developed a revolutionary consciousness due to their priviledged position relative to workers in the rest of the world. As long as "the American Dream" was still seen as within reach of the white male majority, then there was enough contentment to not seek drastic change. For Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and other oppressed groups, however, it was a different story altogether.
After many years of rule mostly by the right wing in recent decades , the CPUSA has adopted different tactics, it seems, aimed at reworking its image to offset all the years of anti-Communist hysteria and propaganda that began with the McCarthy era. Most Americans still have a knee-jerk hysterical reaction even at the mention of the name "socialist" or "communist."
I don't think we should fight and divide ourselves over these tactical questions, as we have the same overall goals, but are taking different approaches to reaching them.
If we always are saying, "I'm more pure," or "I'm the true revolutionary here, and you're not," then that is not helpful in the end. We can agree to disagree on tactics, and still keep our eyes on the prize.