Petite Bourgeoisie

A lot of the Trots here are getting triggered they too don't want to admit that they come from the same class background as Democrat Cops of America. The working class is poor, not as white, and won't spend their time reading hundreds of pages of theory in order to argue about their niche interpretation about what happened in Hungary 70 years ago.

A lot of leftists are cosplaying and do not care about actually helping the working class. They are just broke college educated white people with a savior complex.

On a somewhat unrelated note, say a married couple own a pharmacy but don't employ anyone and it's only the two working and selling shit there, what are they? Petite-bourgeois? Labour aristocrats?

Whatever they are, they aren't working class.

If you are not contracting people to work for a wage, you are not bourgois of any sort. In that case, if it is jointly owned I guess it is a very vulgar form of a cooperative.

Tbh i have a petit bouj backround(tho i am a prole)
But you can be a socialist or an anticapitalist without particural love for the masses
(Tho maybe we all care about the common good so deep down we love them or some shit)

Socialists are not inspired by love of the masses, but by their desire to overthrow capitalism. They view that the only way to overthrow the exploitation and terrible conditions under capitalism is to empower the working class, even if they themselves come from a petite bouj background.
Lenin was not working class. Engels was not working class. Most of the people in Occupy Wall Street were not from the most vulnerable sections of the working class.

Attached: whitepeople1.gif (456x257, 14.98M)

I did not know they were a party of artisans and the self-employed.

The more you know!

Attached: 9e5f277f9374f830ffa8cd0bb327305a.jpg (600x400, 73.58K)

Neither Artisans or self-employed are petit bourgeois…

But based Che said to be a revolutionary a great feeling of love is needed.

They pretty much are. Every other member is a white guy with glasses and a beard who is a programmer, journalist, or a grad student.

It weakens capitalism? Maybe so, but there absolutely cannot be stasis, which has been the death knell of all revolutionary social-democratic movements to date including that of the Bolsheviks. It is not that the measures which you specify are necessarily wrong, but that they can never be enough. Yes, we need democratic institutions and grounds upon which we can rally workers and weaponise their discontent so that we can overcome the system which produces that discontent and begin the next stage of history, but stopping halfway will always lead to disaster and the darkest reaction. More demands must be made, and it must be clear that Communism does not demand an end to history and unlimited fun beyond this, but as a doctrine it instead yells at us that we must use our knowledge and responsibly own up to the problems which we have and keep sorting it all out while always finding ways to take care of bigger things rather than cowering behind superstition and self-irony. Social-democratic measures can only be thought of as a stepping stone and bloodsuckers from all over the fucking planet will be trying to remove that stone from beneath our feet.

THAT'S NOT WHAT PETIT-BOURGEOIS MEANS YOU FUCKING DOLT, THIS IS BASIC SHIT

"Being a worker is when you do real work like mining or trucking or working as a chimney sweep. Being petite bourgeois is when you make even less than a trucker but it's not real work because you work in an office."
-Carlton Marskism

Membership in the working class entails
1. Needing to survive on a steady salary. You may have capital from investments such as a 401k, but unless you can quit your job and survive off passive income, you are a member of the working class.
2. You must be in a subordinate position. You cannot be a manager.
3. You must be in a precarious position. If you make a ridiculous high salary like a top programmer or doctor, you are not a member of the working class.

Keep that up, and you might get reported by the likes of

Attached: popcorn.png (471x292, 35.2K)

What happens if I'm an architect and my boss tells me to design some blueprints for some shit and I put a lot of time, work, and effort into it and get paid a high salary? Does that mean I'm not a member of the working class? Just cause of my salary? That sounds awfully un-marxist.

There are a lot of gray-zones and Marxists argue within themselves what the boundaries are.
But no, suddenly getting a paid a bit more for a project does not remove you from the working class. Don't be petty.

If you thought about this for five seconds, you'd see how dumb it is. Imagine that there's a programmer who makes $100k/year at a steady job. That's a lot of money. By 3, he's not working class. Now imagine he can't live off of his passive investments. In fact, he lives in San Fransisco, so he hasn't even saved much. By 1, he must be working class.
The working class isn't a secret club available only to those that have suffered sufficiently based on some metric you pulled out of your ass.

kill yourself revisionist scum

By definition $100k is not a lot of money if you live in San Franscico, or any part of the West.

$250k on the other hand means that in about ten years of savings, you are a millionaire and your interests with a teacher making $60k a year are markedly different.
There is a reason why trade unionism never spreads to the "workers" who make nearly a magnitude more than the average worker.
We cannot ignore this difference and must be part of our analysis when organizing workers.

Someone should make a synthesis of Marxist categorization and organizational theory. The question of whether you're employed in an organization and your hierarchical position in it, seems to matter a whole lot when it comes to social relations. An architect who is freely employed by someone, as opposed to one working for a company on the one hand, or as part of a company of architects, will all have implications for their material interests.

Attached: DjzM7RMUwAIVUiR.jpg large.jpg (640x724, 70.65K)

The other guy was saying that, not me.

Well one term I think should be used is "voluntariat" or some such: people who are genuinely self-employed and rely on "volunteering" their labour instead of being paid a wage or extracting surplus value.
I would say such voluntariat is at-least not counterrevolutionary, purely because they thrive on economic stability, and support a welfare state. They do, however, have other conflicting interests: for example they tend to be against bank holidays because that restricts their income.

< Marxism doesn't mean anything, fellas. It's just words and bunch really vague ideas. Trust me, I'm a Marxist
Glorious.

You are deliberately missing his point.

NB: Marxists don't use term "working class" (it's too vague) to differentiate revolutionary strata of workers from Petit-Bourgeois. The term is "Proletariat" (which is not 100% synonymous with "working class", as Petit-Bourgeois also clearly work).

The Petit-Bourgeois can be revolutionary. As was Comrade Lenin.
The point is that different sectors of the proletariat have conflicting interests. And we should be analyising why the most well off workers are joining Democrat Cops of America instead of those who would benefit the most from even the tepid reformism which Democrat Cops of America represents.

what the hot fuck are you talking about? do you know what the word volunteer means? if you're able to subsist off of volunteering gigs, then you're 100% a trust fund baby not some hyper woke class of prole

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanquism

That is literally Leninism.

I forget which work it was in but there's a segment of something Engels wrote where he talks about "democratic socialists" and their relationship to the communist movement in germany (i know the definition of democratic socialism he'd be using is a bit different from what the Democrat Cops of America generally means when they use it but the point still stands in regards to OP's quetions)

He basically says that people who tend to join the Democratic Socialist parties are petit-bourgeois sons and daughters who have become class conscious (basically the inversion of lumpenproles) either through education or through having their position in society threatend/taken down a peg by the crisis of capitalism. Therefore, instead of seeking to reproduce the class relationship they were born into (starting a small business, becoming a craftsman of some kind or another, becoming a banker or whatever other sector of the petit-bourg their paents belonged to) they seek socialism in one of two ways 1) in the sense of "old school" social democracy which Engels himself supported for a time (ie seeking to capture the State through democratic purposes and then using it to abolish the capitalist system through legislative means, the closest modern day figure I can think of who might represent an old-school socdem is Melenchon) 2)or in the sense of what now represents social democracy and what at the time Marx and Engels often referred to as "bourgeois socialism" (class collaboration rather than a resolution of class war being its main goal and achieving this through more wealth redistribution, liberal trade unionism, perpetual regulation of the economy, using the State strike deals with monopoly capital, constantly promoting more "equality" in an abstract sense, Social Democrats in Sweden in the 80s were probably the peak of this style of Social Democracy and its been in decline ever since then) see pic related for Marx's criticism of this latter style of "democratic socialism"

The point here is that Engels said that those Democratic Socialists who were in the former category would often seek the aid of the Communists and that it would behoove Communists to temporarily form critical relationships with them in order to achieve more legtimacy and greater numbers. He and Marx warned against being too trusting of the latter half because they had no revolutionary potential and instead were only interested in establishing a style of "socialism" which only was concerned with maintaining their petite-bourg lifestyle through safeguarding it against both the crises inherent to capitalism but particularly bad when its not regulated or expected to provide a robust welfare state and against the attacks of the radicalized workers and their sympathizers within their own class (this is why modern succdems have such an autistic obsession with creating a "Middle Class" in their respective nations rather than saying literally anything about the WORKING class)

The Democrat Cops of America, in my experience and study, has a handful of legitimately radical chapters but the majority of them subscribe to the organizational line provided by the leadership which is that Democratic Socialism isn't communism and that American "socialists" should only focus on building a welfare state like those of Europe within the USA, albeit with perhaps more trade unions and stronger worker co-op sector

Attached: lenin.jpg (1083x359 32.12 KB, 72.15K)

I don't think electoralism is the way to go for socialists in the US, but I admit it can be useful in limited circumstances. However, even if you want to make electoralism your primary strategy, why the FUCK would you run Democrats? Even in countries where socialists or at least social democrats came to power through elections, they joined actual socialist parties or started their own. Imagine if Salvador Allende joined whatever the main center-left party in Chile was.

I don't mean literally volunteering as in working for free, I mean working in a sense where you are employed on a basis where you "volunteer" your labour as a service, opposed to signing onto a contract to provide your labour for a period, or producing a commodity for profit independently.
There are two examples that come to mind in my head: first is the white-van-man that fixes your roof, or a language tutor that is employed by various schools to teach a few hours a week. All of these own their own means of production, but are still employed under wage labour. I'd be open to other names.

In my experience, the radical chapters tend to be the larger ones since they tend to be located in larger cities where other leftist strands have a fundemental influence in how these chapters developed in the past two years.
Smaller chapters are usually isolated politically and only have Democrat Cops of America propaganda to rely on.

All of the radical political education is coming from cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.

This is so annoying. Lenin advocated for the vanguard to form a mass base through organizing the workers directly and using the State post-revolution to aid workers in achieving a democratic restructuring of formerly bourgeois institutions to suit the needs of the working class.

This is fundamentally different from Blanque's conception of the vanguard which should be a secretly elite of highly-educated radicals who work behind the scenes to capture power and then lead through a supreme dictatorship of these "enlightened" elites (not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which Lenin and even Stalin fundamentally agreed with and tried to create in the USSR as best they could) until socialism is achieved (which Blanque formulated in an ineherently utopian rather than materialist fashion)

Lenin himself refuted the "Blanquism is Bolshevism" meme 100 years ago btw, it's incredible to me that people still fall for it

DSA are a bunch of revisionists.
This is a recent political education packet given to their members:
drive.google.com/file/d/0ByDn7a3Vm__FdF9LMUZfQmtBc05xa1ZnblRuTGdONVExdDNj/view?fbclid=IwAR2pelJ7pTXJFZrL7eNMF53HQhdbYxgQZtbpCXoiaBv1eYwliRv99vN2J6s

It is just a bunch of succdem drivel.

Attached: dsa marching gay.jpg (720x540, 89.16K)

Eh, I see what you're saying, but there's a difference when urban hipsters larp as "radicals" and when they actually understand theory and try to work to dismantle capitalism or when working class is actually radicalized and do the same

No matter how much chapters of the Democrat Cops of America in those towns call think themselves radical I haven't seen any of them actually do anything that an old school DemSoc would do except perhaps be slightly anti-imperialist. The New York chapter's biggest achievement was getting Ocasio-Cortez elected showing that they're still perfectly revisionist even if they larp as commies. You can quote Marx and even Lenin 24/7 but if you don't understand or you aren't serious about anything they've said you are still a liberal at the end of the day.

The Democrat Cops of America still advocates shit like what posted and Ocasio-Cortez said pic related in a recent interview when asked what she thinks of other socialists expecting her to have a basic grasp of theory before defining herself as a socialist

Attached: bougie.jpg (1024x710, 87.11K)

They are also anti-firearm which is fucking retarded if you hate guns and live in a country where guns are everywhere and reactionaries/police/military have wet dreams about gunning socialists down

Hey I know some of these people. That's my chapter.

At least I think it is. There are some faces that are from other chapters so this might have been part of a multi-chapter get-together.

Well ask me anything I suppose.

It is not inherently revolutionary as a class.

Then analyze. Which begins with collecting information and clarifying situation. Not making guesses.

Is there a lot of liberal tendencies in your chapter or is mostly comprised of class conscious muh real socialist individuals?

What chapter is that?
What is the class makeup and political orientation as a whole?

It looks like a bunch of tumblr and reddit edgelords who fight for identity politics.

Pic related

I think the only American socialist party post-Red Scare that had a model worth actually trying to emulate or update were the Black Panthers tbh. They had the right idea of going directly to the working class and even to lumpens (homeless, drug addicts who had lost their job, etc) and converting them through practical direct action such as soup kitchens, providing free quality healthcare directly to communities, hosting events to promote solidarity and friendship between members of working class communities, and having quite a clever conception of what identity politics' function should be and when and how they should be used I obviously mean the majority of the Party here, not the hardline nationalist wing led by Eldridge Cleaver and others which was involved with COINTELPRO and birthed a lot of the "Kill all wypipo" bullshit idpol of today by using IdPol when it made sense but also working with Leftist groups among other sectors of the working class (Such as the Young Patriots) and even working to a degree with the petit-bourg of the 60s counterculture and student movement through their efforts with the SDS.

At the same time they participated in electoralism to spread their agitprop and strengthen their numbers. There's a reason they were at the top of COINTELPRO's list of targets and its because what they were doing was getting dangerously close to actually challenging the bourgeois State.

Does your chapter have any sort of system in place to combat alphabet soup infiltration and ultraleft wreckers or do you just kind of not worry about it and hope for the best?

Attached: cointelpro.png (960x960 2.78 MB, 79.67K)

I meant Stokley Carmichael not Eldridge Cleaver wew, sorry comrades its a bit early for me

Yeah, I think the Democrat Cops of America won’t really lead to any socialism. A better question we should be asking ourselves is: “How do we form a vanguard party that doesn’t consist of like 2 members?” Right now in America there is no real big Marxist party. We need to start with trying to build it.

Attached: D537743B-C11F-4611-9111-6045D580C860.png (673x750, 49.42K)

Not one thing by Lenin or Trotsky, and one tiny excerpt by Marx.

DSA truly is garbage.

Attached: dsa women members.jpg (389x547, 93.39K)

Reading is classist my dude nevermind the fact that Marx and Lenin deliberately tried to write their pamphlets briefly and directly so that the average worker would have the time to read and understand them :^)

Instead they would support 232 pages of liberal reformism?
That makes zero sense, ☭TANKIE☭.

see pic related in

Attached: joke.jpg (600x450, 31.25K)

Different Texas chapters
It's hard to say. I don't go around asking what everyone does for a living but it's a cross section of different people from working class to petit-bourg and some 'intellectuals' or 'creative-class' types. I've met scientists, delivery drivers, tech people, econ students, writers, clerks (of the punch-numbers-into-a-computer file clerk types), and one bar owner. Maybe some schoolteachers I dunno. Average age seems to be in late 20s / early 30s, though I've seen some old guys in their 50s and 60s show up wearing Karl Marx t-shirts.

Political orientation is likewise a mix. I'd say it's a mix of liberal-socdem to vaguely Luxembourgist types? Most of the peeps I've met don't think electoralism is good for much other than advertising. I know some folks into Mao and Tito; not in that photo though. I met one guy who was into Lenin. I've met one other Zig Forums reader. It's not really a party but more like a network with different people doing different things. There's no one to tell you what to do, but there's also no one to really tell you what not to do either.

I was anxious at first because I wanted to talk about Marx and they were like "fuck yeah" and one guy makes hammer & sickle buttons so there's your optics.

Self-crit time: I don't know anything about theory. Most people I've met are new to this. But I'm helping start up a more Marx-centered study group and we're going to plow through all the classics. The thing is, this is the only network / group / thing in town where organizing something like that is easy to do. I was basically just a liberal a year and a half ago.
I think that's a shallow line of criticism based on surface appearances.

I'd rather not answer that one. But ultraleft wreckers hate them so that hasn't been so much of a problem. We don't really have any of them in my city but they exist in Austin and they nail dead pig's heads to posts condemning the Dem Socs for being revisionists or something. It's hilarious. Mexican meat markets in Austin are doing a brisk business in pigs heads because of this group's need to condemn every other political tendency out there.

Yeah I would dig that. I hope you win. There are groups like that around but they are so small and rooted on college campuses.

But say you're a truck driver in your thirties, are you going to go hang out on a college campus with a handful of kids in their late teens and early 20s? Nah. Whatever you say about the Dem Soc's political line (or rather lack of one), what they do well is organize people and get them together consistently and they do it across age lines. I'll go to a Dem Soc meeting and there will be 80 people in the room and hundreds of members locally while the Leninist/Trot/etc. group is a half-dozen people. But I'm all about those groups, though. I don't have any problems with people on the left and they have organized events together.

Attached: marx_engels.png (407x550, 435.55K)

This would actually be based if they did it to bankers and all the neoliberal silicon valley faggots who have flooded Austin in the last ten years. Or at least threw one through a bank window or something downtown.

It blows my mind that the ultraleft actually thinks the first task should be defeating "false Leftists" but then shit on M-L's for trying to organize the 1st world working class or even doing anything at all because "muh labour aristocracy" and other such bullshit

Attached: 5686cb48d024bb4e020b8d9343136e59ac82db55c6726c8fe112ce46fde0835c.jpg (450x510, 46.46K)

Yeah they really hate the PSL too and try to disrupt their events. I haven't read much about their guru, Gonzalo, but it's my understanding his cultists would attack trade unionists in Peru so the shoe fits.

I met some PSL folks on one occasion and they seemed nice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My impression of the self-declared 'Maoists' (who don't seem particularly Maoist to me anyways) is that they are former anarchists who swapped out the black for red. I just get those vibes.

Well this is funny to me because some of the most radical Leninist types I've met IRL have been trans folks and others who dialed the queer knob up to 'June 28, 1969.' But then I go online here and I run into these Duterte leftists. Oh well.

Where I am from, the archetype of a Democrat Cops of America member is a queer non-binary tech worker who supports feminism and Esperanto and has never read Marx before.

Out of the D.SA, the Greens, Socialist Alternative, and the PSL, I am the most sympathetic to the PSL in terms of its theory and party line. I like that they still try to convert workers without being too apologetic about things that other Leftist groups in America worry will alienate them (such as their support for the DPRK)

However, I think Marcyism in general is kind of silly and pointless. They also apparently are currently run by people who have military and CIA ties which makes me a bit suspicious. It's still retarded for ultraleftists to attack them

This describes a lot of the american ultraleft nowadays, it's a weird fusion of different tendencies that are all pretty cancerous such as Anarchist adventurism, Maoism, egoism and all kinds of other shit. The irony is that they probably have the least coherent theory and least effective praxis of any modern movement in the American Left yet constantly shit on every other group for not being "tr00 leftists"

Yeah, that’s true. The main problem I have with the Democrat Cops of America though is while they are organizing people, each chapter only represents the particular interests of workers in the area where their chapter is based. Compare that approach to what Marx says. First, the activities of the proletariat:
Then, the activity of the Communist Party:
The Democrat Cops of America, in having many different chapters, all with their own autonomy, does not seek to form the proletariat into a class. It represents the interests of a small subset of the proletariat. While Marx does say that this has its own value, it is worthless unless we unite the entire proletariat and turn all local struggles into an all encompassing international struggle. Because of that the Communist Party must be a centralized institution which “clearly understands the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”. The Democrat Cops of America’s current structure is not conducive to this. There is certainly potential if they decide to change their structure, but if not then a new party is needed.

Attached: 38A9E297-270F-45B3-ABB3-BB06852D4094.jpeg (1000x786, 183.66K)

very nice, user.

Good post

If the D.SA's contradictions eventually prove too much to bear and the thing goes under, the PSL would probably benefit I imagine. People would go to join them. I have a whip-smart ML friend who expects this to happen.

But what the D*SA might be is a kind of pointy spear of a larger reformist trend in America. The other day I was listening to an interview with a reformist professor who teaches foreign policy at a big university here. I don't know if he's D*SA but wouldn't surprise me if so. He calls himself as "socialist" but not a revolutionary: i.e. socdem. Well, he described how back in the 1960s and 1970s while the New Left was burning out, the right was busy building institutions and corporate-funded think tanks training up a whole generation of future White House advisers and so on. There really hasn't (until recently) been any room at all in the upper-echelons of the U.S. 'institutional' system to advocate for anything outside of the post-WW2 framework of a national security state; even Bernie Sanders is still trapped in this to the point where has to call Maduro a "communist dictator." And there are billions of dollars in funding to ensure that it stays that way.

There's all these new 'socialists' here talking – and acting – like they need to do build their own institutions. They are thinking: we need people to staff a White House in 2032. Because the boomers are dying off and there is probably going to be a pretty sudden shift when the formative experiences of everyone under 40 are failed wars in the Middle East and the financial crisis. But the big disadvantage is money.

Is this worth it? It would be a big shift but still retain capitalism and whatever victories would come from it would likely be 'only for a time.' But America's bourgeois democracy is also 242 years old and has been in worse conditions than the present one.
You've said it better than I could. Reminds me of me when I was younger and arrogant and thought I knew everything, but I was a liberal shithead who thought he knew everything. It's really just their whole bad, cancerous attitude. Now, I've met people who have read a lot of Mao and they are some of the smartest people I know – they are way more advanced than I am – but they won't have anything to do with these ultra-left sects. (Not that many of them are big fans of the D*SA either but they have a more nuanced opinion on it.)

And also, what I mean by an earlier left framework for thinking about U.S. foreign policy, I'm referring to Henry Wallace. But there were a lot of people like him with a platform and in the government. Another name that is obscure today is Rep. Vito Marcantonio (look this guy up). The Cold War did not set in right away and there were a lot of voices in the U.S. that wanted friendly relations with the Soviet Union, but of course they all got purged.

Attached: vito_2.JPG (1195x1600, 450.89K)

Based Mao said the opposite

This is both the saddest and most naive thing I have read all day. You expect to be welcomed in to the the institutions of a system that exists only to undermine the working class and leftists, just because you have trained some staffers this time around? What a lark. Just the mere idea of building a socialism of staffers and think thanks is pure liberal thought.

If ever a socialist is president of the US, he won't be sitting in the white house.

If America ever goes socialist the White House will be a pile of ashes

I would say it makes sense to support doing this but it has to be done at the least in coalition with radicals and best-case-scenario being led by them (idk how realistic the latter is in America t the present time though) to ensure than an actual progressive period happens rather merely a rebranding of neoliberalism for the 3rd or 4th time now. The only reason social democracies in Scandinavia had any positive impact on the working class of those countries at all is because the USSR existed to pull them Leftward.

Basically, I'm not agains the D.SA and other Leftist groups participating in electoralism, I think any mature Leftist should understand that in the 1st world it's necessary for several reasons. However, I think if the D.SA is left to its own devices it will capitulate just like Syriza did and thus open up a space for an even more dangerous form of American fascism to take hold such as Syriza's failure in Greece has opened up the space for Golden Dawn to get so many seats in congress however even in this scenario it could still be a good thing for the American Left since Syriza's capitulations have turned just as many people towards the radical Left, with the KKE gaining ground for the first time in decades and I even have to git it to the Greek anarchist movement thats sprung up in the last few years for being pretty successful in organizing workers and keeping the fascists at bay

I pretty much agree with this and one of the things I do respect about the D.SA is that it is at least on paper anti-imperialist to some degree and most of the candidates they support are in favor of ending the wars in the Middle East even if they occasionally say some retarded shit about "ending the brutal dictatorships of Maduro/Assad/DPRK etc".

The thing is though, again, if you don't have some militants with you, then the Ruling Class will crush any anti-imperialist elements of your movement very quickly.
(1/2)

Attached: Ocasio.png (1299x615 286.2 KB, 414.4K)

cont'd from

Really my main problem with the D.SA isn't even the theoretical revisionism (even though I do think that's a problem and at the least is extremely annoying) but the fact that it does so little to build up a United Front with other Leftist orgs. It does work and sometimes support the Greens and Socialist Alternative sometimes but its always for bullshit tiny local positions, which isn't necessarily unimportant, but think of how much more power the Left could gain electorally if there was an org as big as the D.SA working outside of the Democratic Party?

I'm saying that if the D.SA was really serious about ending neoliberalism (since they obviously as a whole aren't too concerned about ending capitalism as such) and creating a welfare state, they would form a United Front and in city and state elections where a Green, SA, PSL, or some other actual socialist candidate outside of the Dems were running they could throw their support behind them the same way they do with left-leaning Democrats now (and of course still support the reformist Dems when there was no 3rd Party running)

Not only would this get more Leftists outside of the Dems into the US congress but it would force the Democrats to cede more control to the reformists within the party. THAT would be how to "move the country Left" which the D.SA claims is its main goal right now. The problem is that the D.SA, just like OWS before it, has this bizarre fetish for "autonomy" and "decentralization" and pats itself on the back for being more "democratic" than other Leftist orgs when really all this does is make it harder to do shit like what I described and thus actually challenge neoliberalism. If you get a shitload of candidates in congress who don't mind compromising with the neoliberal dems on everything because they want to be respected by the party and be in the good graces of its donors you've done nothing but fulfilled yourself by expanding your org. (2/2)

One can dream.
Climate change will probably send America into chaos and martial law before a socialist "president" ever takes power

Those posts were really good and this is also really good. I'd say first of all, we're in year two … really. Most of the people in the org have been in it for about that long – a lot of them less than that. I signed up a little over a year ago. Not saying the D*SA is going to be the Bolsheviks, but Lenin was involved in radical politics for nearly 30 years before the 1917 revolution. Things take time.

Personally I don't know much about organizing and just do my own little things here and there, but talking to people who do a lot of it, much of it is just showing up and doing a lot of unglamorous things that suck a whole lot, and sitting in on a lot of really boring meetings. Chapters really need dedicated people who will show up to every meeting that every other group has. If there's PSL in the area, why not have a D*SA member at every single PSL meeting? Same goes in reverse. That might not sound like much but you're not going to form a United Front without it.

This is something that a more disciplined organization would be able to do, but like I was saying, the D*SA allows a great deal of freedom for members to do what they want, but there's little if any direction. Members have to take it upon themselves to get anything done. And what also happens is that key members end up getting buried in work and they burn out – which is a problem.

They're not run by those kinds of people, but they do associate with them through various anti-war fronts like VIPS or through their programs on Russian media. I'd say Brian Becker's radio program is the most disturbing since the guy he runs it with, John Kiriakou, used to hunt communists in Greece and he has weird third-position/nazbol people on his show all the time because they're "anti-imperialists." Which isn't to knock on third world nationalism but its fucked up to be hanging out with Dugin people who are involved with american neo-nazis.

The problem with Leftists movements in the first world is that they fail to attract actual working class folk. Instead they attract college students, minimum wage workers, creative types, and those who live alternative lifestyles.

Revolution is impossible without the electricians, plumbers, mechanics, HVAC techs, welders, etc. The problem is that most of these guys can make anywhere from 70k to 120k. So you wont them protesting for 15 an hour.

Attached: ChapoMainBook.jpg (581x450 107.05 KB, 55.69K)

Attached: 0474b958a305b3ee5fa018c8ea850654d6db51a7c8c3c51caf8a4556305ee7ca.png (679x576, 471.07K)

Then you clearly don't know what will happen when such jobs become automated. Machine learning techniques are advancing and if it is true that they are being paid megabucks, they will be increasingly under threat from utter proletarianisation.

...

Russia
Yugoslavia
Weimar Germany
Cuba
China
Catalonia
Chiapas
Nicauragua
Venezuela
Bolivia
Chile
Vietnam
Burkina Faso
The US socialist and communist parties and IWW in the early 20th century
Old Labour
Corbyn's Labour

Oh well, still a retarded argument and I did include some firstworld countries
Fuck off ancap faggot

I see this kind of thing in the U.S. as well with the Green Party when they nominated Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Sort of the Gaddafi nazbol family.

lmao

google 'labor aristocracy'

Is a 18 year old student that goes to school on his parents dime, but works at starbucks for weed money, working class?

Automation for these positions is still way off. The level of dexterity and AI it would require would have to be as good as replicant clones from blade runner.

Also it is true. I started being a commercial HVAC tech 3 years ago and I'm making almost 60k now.

IWI is a joke.

Name a large union in the US and tell me which one has any sort of revolutionary aspirations. Im in a union and most of the guys i work with voted for Trump.

Attached: 644454b5ebb4b66fbbb775f3620c1152a90d1d6a_00.jpg (423x512, 32.69K)

Cringe

Incredible dude, does being a neo-fuedalist give you psychic abilities?

You could win them with M4A. Medical costs are so prohibitive in the states that the insurance is onerous even to those with those incomes.

Dont bully

Marxists still cant accept that some people are more valuable than others. Not Inherently of course, but a Doctor is tangibly more valuable than a burger flipper. Accept it.

Attached: 1539802557622.png (400x400, 163.35K)

Individual inequalities are not the same as societal inequalities. Of course a sweatshop worker will have less value than a doctor but it's not because of some embedded caste in the human soul that keeps people inferior or superior.

They already have medical insurance provided via union. I have full medical, dental, and vision. They also extend to your immediate family. Aswell as pension and healthcare till you die after retirement.

I can retire when I'm 50.

Attached: 1539787606297.jpg (692x913, 281.61K)

I agree.

Have fun when America flies off a cliff in a few decades

you are in fact not bullied enough

None of those promises matter anything if they are provided by the private sector. If your factory goes bust and your retirement savings fund bankrupts after the next crash, it'll be all gone. Salvation can only ever be found in the welcoming arms of the universal state and her for use provided beneficence.

Attached: b29257c053a631970f91604a0cfe8d79a2fd54968628796818c6c48c5086ac08.jpg (720x900, 45.18K)

I'll be in Honduras on my farm.

Attached: fqgl46nuov711.png (2518x1024, 563.15K)

70% of college students graduate with significant debt. 30% of workers earns minimum wage or near it. Some of the largest industries have median hourly wages under 15 dollars.

holy cow

seriously how will the proletariat win the revolution if they can not jog 100m without getting a heart attack

bye bye cows we don't need cows

those are milk cows. they will nourish the proletariat during the long years of struggle to come.

What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.[1]
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Attached: 8AD1E397-936C-46F1-ADA5-4752EB3D2432.jpeg (500x283, 250.71K)

Attached: moo.png (904x1004, 644.72K)