Showing posts tagged Class Conflict
The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything else than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all oppressed and discontented elements. Sections of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will inevitably participate in it – without such participation, mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible – and just as inevitably will they bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors. But objectively they will attack capital, and the class conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a heterogeneous and discordant, motley and outwardly incohesive, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, to capture power, to seize the banks, to expropriate the trusts (hated by all, though for different reasons) and introduce other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which however, will by no means immediately “ purge” itself of petty-bourgeois slag.


maybe the most entertaining thing ever made

(Source: all-about-male-privilege)

(Reblogged from severalsomethings)
One persistent fact within this complex history of uneven neoliberalization has been the universal tendency to increase social inequality and to expose the least fortunate elements in any society—be it in Indonesia, Mexico, or Britain—to the chill winds of austerity and the dull fate of increasing marginalization. While such a trend has been ameliorated here and there by social policies, the effects at the other end of the social spectrum have been quite spectacular. The incredible concentrations of wealth and power that now exist in the upper echelons of capitalism have not been seen since the 1920s. The flows of tribute into the world’s major financial centres have been astonishing. What, however, is even more astonishing is the habit of treating all of this as a mere and in some instances even unfortunate byproduct of neoliberalization. The very idea that this might be—just might be—the fundamental core of what neoliberalization has been about all along appears unthinkable. It has been part of the genius of neoliberal theory to provide a benevolent mask full of wonderful-sounding words like freedom, liberty, choice, and rights, to hide the grim realities of the restoration or reconstitution of naked class power, locally as well as transnationally, but most particularly in the main financial centres of global capitalism.
[“Uneven Geographical Development”, A Brief History of Neoliberalism]
(Reblogged from synthpope)
(Reblogged from anticapitalist)
Money nowadays is a purely political instrument. Some people—central bankers, to some degree ordinary banks, and even the financial divisions of large firms—have the right to generate it, to make up money, relatively as they wish. Banks after all don’t mostly lend money they actually have, they lend money they just made up—if under certain constraints. So the rhetoric people use, that “there’s only so much money” is nonsense. Money isn’t like oil, it’s not even like bananas, you can’t actually run out of it. So the scam is to allow some people to just whisk it into existence and then, even more importantly, to say that other people can’t. In a way banks’ ability to make money is not so outrageous since money is basically debt—it’s an IOU, a promise, and in a free society everyone should have the right to make promises. In a way, that’s what being “free” means. The problem is in our society, the only really important promises are financial, and some people are granted the political right to make as many of these as they like, with little or no responsibility for keeping them, and others (the politically powerless) are not, and everyone acts as if the most important moral responsibility everyone has is to pay back money that others were allowed to simply make up. This is particularly ridiculous in the case of governments, who grant the banks the right to make up the money, and then act as if they have no choice but to honor their commitments to these same people. It’s all nonsense.
[David Graeber]


In part, I guess, the real problem is the middle class. These are the people who mostly don’t even like capitalism very much, but are obsessed with stability, and are endlessly taught that no alternative is possible. Therefore when capitalism starts breaking down, as it does every decade or two, they’re the people who have to effectively hold their noses and put it all back together again, somehow, even though mostly they don’t even like the system particularly. The moment it doesn’t seem like their only option, the moment other systems actually look viable, the fact that those other systems are more fulfilling will make a huge difference.
[David Graeber]


The business class – like any class – are concerned not with profits but with power; the former are merely a means to the latter.
[Phillip Pilkington, 'Does Capitalism Have a Future?']

I already liked this song, but coming back to it after learning a thing or two about how the world works is quite the experience.