And @newtboy I agree with John Stewart and many others such as Karl Marx and people who know what they are talking about. We are consumerists, we fall for the bullshit TV ads, otherwise they would not be a billion dollar industry. We place our desktops and laptops and IPhones well above other considerations. We, and I mean Americans in case you obviously did not know I was talking about my own peeps, are consumerists.

Marx noted the bourgeoisie use these kind of trappings to placate the masses. He noted that for a reason that holds true even to this day.

Yet another 21st Century US movie where a bourgeoisie asshole belatedly realizes he's been prosecuting nightmares for the psychotic banking class but can heroically make up for it with yet more violence.

Can't we go back to muscle bound imperial troops slaughtering dirty little brown men and getting the blonde? Its no dumber and was much more fun.. Come back Arnie all is forgiven!!

Occupy isn't fighting the security state. It is fighting the corporate state that is enforced by the security state. Occupy, as I see it, would not have a problem with political coercion so long as it was upholding the right values. As they see it the state is defending the corporate interests rather than the interests of its citizens. Corporations try to convince us that they are one and the same and they do so with much greater success in the USA than anywhere else. Occupy is represents Marx's proletariat while those who oppose Occupy are either the bourgeoisie or think that they are the bourgeoisie. To paraphrase John Steinbeck, most Americans don't consider themselves working class (which of course they have to be by definition) rather they think of themselves as embarrassed millionaires.

Well, remember how we were talking about taxes? If we're going to play the fashionable game and tack dollar values of benefits onto people's salaries to pad the number for demagogic effect, then my effective tax rate is even smaller, more like 8% if you add the value of my health & retirement benefits to my income. You really need to consider doing your taxes yourself, clearly your CPA is doing something wrong.

So here's the thing, you say firefighters have such a sweet deal because of unions. I have an idea, how about instead of taking away unions from firefighters, why not get unions for everyone?

As for why you get flack from liberals for being a selfish fascist when you bitch about taxes, it's because you never give anyone a reason to think you're somehow being treated unfairly. There's one set of Federal tax laws, and most of us can fill out our 1040 or 1040EZ, grumble, and go on with life. You aren't running your business as a charity to help the unemployed, you're trying to make a buck. There's no blankfist tax, or anti-entrepreneurial tax. On the contrary, there are tax subsidies for small business all over the place, to the point where little middle class worker bees like me get fucking tired of hearing about it.

GE somehow paid zero taxes, and got a 3.2 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam. Instead of bitching about the insanity of that, all you want to do is fuck over all public sector employees all across the nation because you think they might be getting a slightly better deal than you.

Surely by now you've seen this:

A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”

That's what you're doing.

Oh, and by the way, student loans are subsidized by tax dollars. As was your K-12 education, I suspect. I bet you've also taken advantage of the services of countless thousands or millions of people who had their education paid for or subsidized by tax dollars. I bet the navy taught you some marketable job skills even (beyond the right way to use a glory hole). You were probably born in a hospital that was subsidized by tax dollars, and delivered by a doctor whose education was subsidized by tax dollars, and received vaccinations for childhood illness that were developed by research subsidized or wholly funded by tax dollars. You might even occasionally use this thing called the Internet, which is based on technology developed at DARPA as part of the defense budget.

Look, I have sympathy for anyone who's struggling to make ends meet, and I know running your own business is tough -- that's why I haven't tried it. But it's your philosophy that says people have to own their failures even if it's not really their fault. If you were working for, say, Blockbuster the last 15 years, did an excellent job, but then got laid off because traditional rentals got destroyed by Netflix, that's your fucking problem, and nobody else should have to help you out with your plight. That includes bailouts in the form of tax cuts.

Me, I want a safety net so that if you seriously fall flat on your face, you won't have to worry about having a place to sleep, and food to eat, and will still be able to go see a doctor for the STD you picked up from fucking farm animals. I think all life is precious, and that the markets are a fickle and harsh mistress, while the nanny state should always welcome you into her large, welcoming bosom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Okay, so LA has a problem. It's not a nationwide epidemic, the average pay for firefighters simply isn't that high. Members of congress get paid $174,000 a year, the President gets paid $400,000/yr. You probably shouldn't be paying the average firefighter more than a House freshman, and the Fire Chief more than the President.

As for your architect, I'm not surprised by that at all. If you want to tell that as a story about taxes, you're probably going to have to at least provide an example of how the math works out so that you make less owning your own business than working for someone else solely because of taxes. I bet it's mostly due to the fact that there's not really a big market for a mom & pop architect out there even in good times, and especially given the state of the real estate market right now. Running your own business isn't easy, and it's certainly not the way to get yourself a stable source of take home income in a depressed economy.

I'm of two minds about your last paragraph. Someday I think I'm going to write some big blog posts about my life, and how it shaped my political outlook. For now, I'll just say I did ultimately have a privileged life compared to most, but not by as much as you seem to assume. I'm no trust fund baby -- and I went to school with enough of those to know the difference. I have a shitload more in common with the poor working class people in the neighborhood I grew up in than I do with the trust fund set I went to school with.

The trust fund set generally felt like accumulation of wealth and status was the primary route to happiness. The more working class people in my neighborhood saw money as more of a means to an end. Happiness for them was being able to not have to worry about whether they could afford groceries, or worry about their car breaking down, or having to borrow to make rent/mortgage payments, or medicine for sick kids. They didn't really care about having the nicest clothes, a nice car, gourmet foods, or who had membership to the more prestigious country club. Those were things my rich friends talked about constantly.

I grew up constantly switching between class experiences. Over time it made me see pretty clearly that money isn't the key to real happiness. I saw lots of unhappy rich people, and lots of happy poor people. Their outlook on life had more to do with things other than money.

Anyways, it sounds like you think you're engaged in a class struggle to try to help the lower classes get a leg up on the rich. If so, great, you and I are on the same side then.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

[snip]

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

The police are hired guns of the state. Though they are exploited, they cannot be seen as members of the proletariat. They represent the state, seized by the bourgeoisie to protect their private property

Comrade,

Good to have a discussion. I'll try to keep this up with ya, but I'm kinda busy
Lets duel

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

Suppose that the leaders pay attention to scientific findings, and they realize that things have to change. Yes, the ‘insurance’ is a form of self-regulation for capitalism to increase industry and corporate markets. But, as is typical of a capitalist, they are trying to make a business out of saving the planet, at the risk of millions of lives.
My friend, Corporations are merely the bourgeoisie in a new form. Corporations are merely organized institutions to serve bourgeoisie interest, an interest in gaining capital.
The regulation is not a true regulation, however. What they are doing here is selling an idea of ‘regulation’. True regulation would be addressing all the points in our economic systems and finding the ‘open systems’ and making them a ‘closed system’, in the permaculture sense. Reduction of waste. Control of production to meet the needs, not the wants. We don’t need to produce thousands of cars that will never get sold solely for the insane and desperate hope that they somehow could.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?
Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

neo-capitalist? In what ways have we moved beyond the worker? Are you to tell me that an office worker is not alienated in the cubicle? Are you to tell me that the the sweatshop labor in china, Indonesia, India, etc are not workers? Are you to tell me that nowhere on the planet, workers are paid in slave wages with the boss reaping profit off surplus value? Are you to tell me that workers control their hours, control their pay based on labor and the value of the product?

I think you have some tarnished definitions. Corporations are the logical outcome of Capitalism. Corporations operate on capitalist principles. We do not live in a post-industrial society. Manufacturing and productive have increased substantially, less workers are needed for high-tech facilities, but in the United States and other developed Imperialist countries, we don’t see the worker. We are alienated from them, and we exist as fragmented consumers. We are needed to buy these products so this economy and corporations can continue to exist. Neo-capitalism? Perhaps, but capitalism nonetheless. The changes aren’t as substantial as it may seem. Things have just become harder to see in post-modernism.
So what’s growth?
Destruction of the natural environment, say, the Amazon, for cattle ranches. Increased production to meet an increased demand. This is unsustainable, because Capitalism favors the increased demand. What do corporations want Americans to do? Consume. BUY BUY BUY. This is all very obvious. We see it everyday. Hell, just look at Christmas. Where do the resources come from to make these products and where do they end? We take it from the earth and it winds up in a dumpster or landfill. The resources aren’t returned, there is no equal exchange, energy is wasted in the inefficiency of our system.
Paper pulp released into the rivers. Environmental damage of the Niger River Delta for the oil, with acid rain so powerful it eats the tin-roofs of the shacks were the local villagers live. People that live on that land that don’t get ANYTHING from the energy companies except the corporate hired gunmen to maintain a ‘favorable business climate'. How then, is this 'favorable bussiness climate' POSTIVE for the planet? Its not positive for the planet or for any of us.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?


But they aren’t trying to fundamentally change anything. They want the Maldives to go under so they can sell them the fucking life rafts! Capitalists/Corporations don’t give a shit about the mass amount of human suffering that will occur. They just want to maintain their profit margin, seize the planets resources, privatize everything, and maintain control over the worker. You are a worker, I am a worker. Even intellect and academia is a commodity that is bought and sold. We are the proletariat. We have a boss, we don’t control our hours, our labor is sold for surplus value, at the cost of our liberties and our security on this planet.

Ok monsieur regresso-Marx, I have some pretty fundamental problems with your thinking here.

First of all, I agree with Zizek when he says that we need to apply Marx to our current world, but you seem to be adopting a position that is untenable, MAINLY because of the ways in which you don't seem to be accounting for the ways in which capitalist ideology has radically changed. As a result, your well-found materialist charges against Zakaria's argument become insanely vulnerable (teetering on self-harming). For now, I would like to probe you a bit more on some of the points you bring up.

The reason why this is bullshit, utter, utter bullshit is because Capitalism DIRECTLY influences our carbon emissions, and thus, the human agency in Climate Change.

So I am unclear as to why this qualifies as an indictment. Are you sure it is capitalism, in and of itself, that is to blame here? You might think about industrialization as it occurs in the socialist context. It seems like what you are saying is merely this: capitalism is blind to its own violent core, and by trying to use its own means to clean up its own mess, its only acting in its own interest.

Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

What is the alternative for me (someone who is for the time-being beholden to the rules of capital) in going against the destruction of the earth? Fact is, CORPORATIONS, in view of something like 'growth' and self-preservation, have really changed the game here, and have really done a lot to work towards reversing this process.

Capitalism favors CONSTANT growth. No growth means no money gained. In fact, the very rise of the Bourgeoisie class came about from the opening of new markets from the Age of Exploration. New markets mean new demand, this increases production to meet this demand, this requires more factories, more resources used, further stress on the planet, more emissions.

Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?

Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

Spending money with a form of insurance is ultimately a short term goal. Yes, countries kept in poverty by imperialist powers need some $$$ to push them past unsustainable practices, but they could get there themselves if Imperialist powers didn't have interest there already. Think about where we get our resources, where most goods are produced and manufactured. Think where they go, to us. Capitalism wants us to buy more. I feel like the connections are very easy to see.

Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?

Environmental destruction will continue unless the actual system is changed.

Hmmm... i would usually agree with such a statement, had it not been preceded with such misguided nonsense. Tighten up your thinking, comrade.

I would down vote this video if I had me a damn bronze star!

Heres why:

Essentially, he is uttering rhetoric used by Green Capitalists. Throw money at it and things will fix themselves. The reason why this is bullshit, utter, utter bullshit is because Capitalism DIRECTLY influences our carbon emissions, and thus, the human agency in Climate Change.

Capitalism favors CONSTANT growth. No growth means no money gained. In fact, the very rise of the Bourgeoisie class came about from the opening of new markets from the Age of Exploration. New markets mean new demand, this increases production to meet this demand, this requires more factories, more resources used, further stress on the planet, more emissions.

Spending money with a form of insurance is ultimately a short term goal. Yes, countries kept in poverty by imperialist powers need some $$$ to push them past unsustainable practices, but they could get there themselves if Imperialist powers didn't have interest there already. Think about where we get our resources, where most goods are produced and manufactured. Think where they go, to us. Capitalism wants us to buy more. I feel like the connections are very easy to see.

Environmental destruction will continue unless the actual system is changed.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bluecliff:
i have no problem with the point that healthcare is a luxury. Rich people are darwinian winners, old wealthy families are an example of that. So why culling the weak and stupid is moraly wrong from a natural point of view is beyond me.

Then you advocate the French Revolution?


The french revolution onlykilled a verry few of the rich, the puppet king and queen.
And the aristocracy was partly in bed with the bourgeoisie.
edit: and it was their revolution, and not the peoples, i.e. workers.

" Communism (at least as in the form of China, Cuba, North Korea and the USSR) is not a “majority rule” government, but one where a small, self appointed, insular group at the very top controls everything. Majority rule is, however, a tenet of democracy."

You're mixing a lot of ideologies in your post. There's nothing about democracy that requires free speech, and free speech does not require democracy. Free speech can exist under a capitalist non-democracy, for example. Free speech (ie lack of regulation) is simply not democratic at all.

You also mention many American intellectuals/scientists of the past who would be pretty upset about modern day America's current situation. Most of those guys probably did not want to see democracy taken to the stage that it is at now. A lot of the Founding Fathers, for instance, were not very interested in giving political power to the common man.

As for communism being about majority rule, that's what it's supposed to be. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is inherently majoritarian since the bourgeoisie are always the minority. It's an ideology built for the largest group of people in the world.. the working class. Not the scientist class, business class, or religious class. So I'm really surprised that so many scientists of the past supported Communism.

Conservatives equate anything that doesn't agree with their fascist worldview with communism (or socialism), like if you support expanding a government program that has been proven a success, you must secretly be for genocide or something.

I'm for limited government (the non-magical kind that can't be everything to everyone) but even among Constitutionally-authorized government programs, let me know when you find one that works as it was supposed to and is efficient and fiscally accountable...

Your second response is pretty much the embodiment of why your favorite party is on the outs; you are so viciously hostile towards people who don't share every last facet of your worldview, you drive away people who might've been otherwise inclined to agree with some aspect of your philosophy.

The reason why Republicans are 'on the outs' (for now) is because this sorry-assed gang in DC are not conservatives. It's that simple. Drunk on their own power, they're trying to be like taxocrats, a deadly mistake because no Republican can outspend a taxocrat and shouldn't try.

Taxocrats are victims of what is called "bad becoming normal". The debate is no longer about how much money should be pissed away on Amtrak or Head Start each year, but stopping Obamarx and Friends from literally mutating the national DNA to suit their warped vision. Seriously, buying car companies, floating sht banks? The dickheads at the Fed, which should be abolished along with Fannie and Fartie? Get real. You may love everything Obama is doing, but rest assured, he doesn't care a whit whether you approve or not. Obama works for Obama.

Bush and his goddamned No Child, Medicare expansion, amnesty, etc. If Obama did all those things (and he is, only on steroids) he'd be praised by his media sycophants. Bush supposedly fcked up a lot of things he also gave the 'Crats most of what they wanted each fiscal year. And THAT'S why he's a failure.

Conservatism doesn't fail, it only gets overrun by parasites (both in DC and government housing) living off the working class the left pretends to love. If the left really gave a poop about the bourgeoisie, they'd let them keep more of the money they earn instead of trying to give all of fking Mexico "free" health care to buy votes.

I'm not waiting for socialists to agree with any or all of my philosophy: it's not worth sacrificing core principles for acceptance along the narrow, flimsy band between communism and capitalism.

I say again, Lefty, enjoy your hollow victory. For now, you've won. Libertarianism? Statistically speaking, no one's even heard of it.

The evidence that Big Guvmint socialism will fail and is failing is now all around you. Me. Us. They'll be no Bush to hide in this time.

If a Democrat pyramid graphic existed, it would start with the tax evaders at the top of the pyramid, somewhere in the middle I'd expect things like corporate wage imbalances and women's rights opposition, and at the very large base the bourgeoisie and upper class.

What is 'political religion'? posted by lenin

Michael Löwy has a lovely article on Walter Benjamin and capitalism-as-religion in the latest issue of Historical Materialism. I strongly recommend you get yourself a copy. But what Löwy doesn't say is that the final stage of capitalist religion, according to Benjamin, is Satanism. This is from The Arcades Project, composed between 1927 and 1940:

On Satanism: "When the puritans at the Council of Constance complained of the dissolate lives of the popes ..., Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly thundered at them: 'Only the devil in person can still save the Catholic church, and you ask for angels.' In like manner, after the coup d'etat, the French bourgeoisie cried: Only the chief of the Society of December 10 can still save bourgeois society! Only theft can still save property! Only perjury can save religion! Only bastardy can save the family! Only disorder can save order!" Marx, Der achtzehnte Brumaire, ed. Rjazanov, p. 124.

dystopianfuturetoday,

If it is true that you and blankfist have had many many discussions over and over as you say, why is it you still fail to even understand the basic framework surrounding his position?

I'll quote Mises as his "dusty, aged, cold-war tome" is once again, relevant:

"Thus Marxism protects itself against all unwel-
come criticism. The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as
a bourgeois.' Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who
think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the
bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to rehte their opponents
with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and
traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are
not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument
of the opponent, but always against his person."

I imagine you are going to try to deflect that by mocking the usage of the term Marxist, so I have included this as well:

"I hope that these remarks will convince even the cursory and
superficial reader that my investigation and criticisms do not apply
solely to Marxian Socialism. As, however, all socialistic movements
have been strongly stimulated by Marxism I devote more space to
Mamian views than to those of other varieties of Socialism."

"Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word "Capitalism" expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves "bourgeois" or "peasant"—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various "social-political" and "social-reform" movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism. [2]

The supporters of Socialism therefore are not confined to the Bolshevists and their friends outside Russia or to the members of the numerous socialist parties: all are socialists who consider the socialistic order of society economically and ethically superior to that based on private ownership of the means of production, even though they may try for one reason or another to make a temporary or permanent compromise between their socialistic ideal and the particular interests which they believe themselves to represent. If we define Socialism as broadly as this we see that the great majority of people are with Socialism today. Those who confess to the principles of Liberalism and who see the only possible form of economic society in an order based on private ownership of the means of production are few indeed."