The 90%

[Trotsky's Spectre]

The 1% called the bourgeoisie has its representative party, and the next 9% called the petty bourgeoisie has its representative party. Allied by necessity in a rocky relationship of mutually hostility, these parties, Republican and Democrat respectively, purport to represent the 90% while competing over the division of the spoils of their labour. The 90% needs its own voice and its own party.

No party can or will represent the 90%, which is the proletariat -- the working class. The working class IS its own representative. The International Committee of the Fourth International founded by the greatest political theoretician of the last century, Leon Trotsky, gives voice to and actively organizes the 90%.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[jackflash]

The 1% called the bourgeoisie has its representative party, and the next 9% called the petty bourgeoisie has its representative party. Allied by necessity in a rocky relationship of mutually hostility, these parties, Republican and Democrat respectively, purport to represent the 90% while competing over the division of the spoils of their labour. The 90% needs its own voice and its own party.

No party can or will represent the 90%, which is the proletariat -- the working class. The working class IS its own representative. The International Committee of the Fourth International founded by the greatest political theoretician of the last century, Leon Trotsky, gives voice to and actively organizes the 90%.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

Trotsky another lefty grounded in the religion of the statist left.

 

[Erinwltr]

The 1% called the bourgeoisie has its representative party, and the next 9% called the petty bourgeoisie has its representative party. Allied by necessity in a rocky relationship of mutually hostility, these parties, Republican and Democrat respectively, purport to represent the 90% while competing over the division of the spoils of their labour. The 90% needs its own voice and its own party.

No party can or will represent the 90%, which is the proletariat -- the working class. The working class IS its own representative. The International Committee of the Fourth International founded by the greatest political theoretician of the last century, Leon Trotsky, gives voice to and actively organizes the 90%.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

Interesting. Prove this. " No party can or will represent the 90%, which is the proletariat -"

 

[ReinyDays]

Both Poor and Middle Class dream of becoming Wealthy ... why would they vote to undercut their own dreams? ...

Marx wrote to a society where one had to be born to wealth and privilege ... it couldn't be earned ... no social mobility ... and so it sounds great to kill all the aristocrats and take their money ... it came to the Wealthy by the blood and sweat of the Commoners ... such was 19th Century Europe ...

The United States have never had an aristocracy ... it is prohibited by our Constitution to endow anyone with titles of Nobility ... I grew up a step above trailer trash, wound up owning a mess of trailers ripped off the poor with outrageous rents for decades ... the suckers ... now I tinker with an old Victorian Mansion and hunt a clowder ... as a good lord should ... at every opportunity I voted in favor of the One Percenters, that's my American Dream ... what's yours? ...

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The 1% called the bourgeoisie has its representative party, and the next 9% called the petty bourgeoisie has its representative party. Allied by necessity in a rocky relationship of mutually hostility, these parties, Republican and Democrat respectively, purport to represent the 90% while competing over the division of the spoils of their labour. The 90% needs its own voice and its own party.

No party can or will represent the 90%, which is the proletariat -- the working class. The working class IS its own representative. The International Committee of the Fourth International founded by the greatest political theoretician of the last century, Leon Trotsky, gives voice to and actively organizes the 90%.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

^^^^ This:

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.....and then we graduate to our junior year in high school and leave these foolish things behind.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Are you sure you meant to call the 1% " bourgeoisie" ?

 

[Pete7469]

You know why most people aren't commies?

They don't want to starve to death.


.

 

[Erinwltr]

Both Poor and Middle Class dream of becoming Wealthy ... why would they vote to undercut their own dreams? ...

Marx wrote to a society where one had to be born to wealth and privilege ... it couldn't be earned ... no social mobility ... and so it sounds great to kill all the aristocrats and take their money ... it came to the Wealthy by the blood and sweat of the Commoners ... such was 19th Century Europe ...

The United States have never had an aristocracy ... it is prohibited by our Constitution to endow anyone with titles of Nobility ... I grew up a step above trailer trash, wound up owning a mess of trailers ripped off the poor with outrageous rents for decades ... the suckers ... now I tinker with an old Victorian Mansion and hunt a clowder ... as a good lord should ... at every opportunity I voted in favor of the One Percenters, that's my American Dream ... what's yours? ...

You hunt a rat pack of cats??

 

[ReinyDays]

You hunt a rat pack of cats??

Very difficult ... very expensive ... about $50,000 per bluejay ... cats gotta be the STUPIDEST creatures on Earth ...

 

[Pete7469]

You hunt a rat pack of cats??

Very difficult ... very expensive ... about $50,000 per bluejay ... cats gotta be the STUPIDEST creatures on Earth ...

Liberals are the dumbest creatures on earth. My cat has more awareness of her surroundings and more cognitive skills than any of these bed wetters.

In fact cats are superior to moonbats in a variety of ways. They're individuals, you can herd moonbats into a slaughterhouse like a soviet gulag and they'll waddle right in. You can't "herd" cats.


.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you sure you meant to call the 1% " bourgeoisie" ?

He just learned a new word and wants to use it as often as he can. My own children were like that growing up as they acquired new vocabulary.

 

[Mindful]

Are you sure you meant to call the 1% " bourgeoisie" ?

He just learned a new word and wants to use it as often as he can. My own children were like that growing up as they acquired new vocabulary.

My kids and I are on the same page, can you believe. (except one’s a vegan. How did that happen?)

I feel like I’m living life backwards.

 

[ReinyDays]

Liberals are the dumbest creatures on earth. My cat has more awareness of her surroundings and more cognitive skills than any of these bed wetters.

In fact cats are superior to moonbats in a variety of ways. They're individuals, you can herd moonbats into a slaughterhouse like a soviet gulag and they'll waddle right in. You can't "herd" cats.

Check the ground connection on your tin foil helmet ... this exact same post is viral on the caternet ... it's a joke ... you need to stop letting your cat implant thoughts in your brain ...

It takes one hell of a lot of time, expense and dedication ... but cats can be herded ... where I failed was getting two cats to hunt co-operatively ... I had to keep the 11 in a sit/stay position while I took one cat around and take a bluejay ... it's a hobby strictly for the wealthy with enormous amounts of free time ... and a kitchen staff who doesn't mind cleaning up the blood off the kitchen floor ... and a lock on the front gate mental health professions can't break through ...

 

[MarathonMike]

Both Poor and Middle Class dream of becoming Wealthy ... why would they vote to undercut their own dreams? ...

Marx wrote to a society where one had to be born to wealth and privilege ... it couldn't be earned ... no social mobility ... and so it sounds great to kill all the aristocrats and take their money ... it came to the Wealthy by the blood and sweat of the Commoners ... such was 19th Century Europe ...

The United States have never had an aristocracy ... it is prohibited by our Constitution to endow anyone with titles of Nobility ... I grew up a step above trailer trash, wound up owning a mess of trailers ripped off the poor with outrageous rents for decades ... the suckers ... now I tinker with an old Victorian Mansion and hunt a clowder ... as a good lord should ... at every opportunity I voted in favor of the One Percenters, that's my American Dream ... what's yours? ...

Interesting I didn't see you as a capitalist, glad to hear things worked out well for you. I Don't know what a clowder is tho.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 370559

Try reading my post #5 again ... this time with comprehension ...

Plenty of analysis in this thread, from many of the posters ... and we haven't brought up the low end of the Proletariat Revolution; beggars, whores and thieves ...

<sarcasm> Josef Stalin makes Cecil Rhodes look like Mother Teresa ... </sarcasm>

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

View attachment 370559

...the low end of the Proletariat Revolution; beggars, whores and thieves ...

Analysis of the meaning of events begins by situating them in their historical epoch. Consider unrest in recent years.

At the very least that returns to 1989 – 1991. Utterly unforeseen by any think tanks, talking heads or partisan pundits, Dec 25, 1991 happened. The dismantling of Stalinist regimes and finally of the USSR was hailed by ruling elites as the ultimate, irreversible triumph of capitalism. As an alternative to Capitalism, the specter of socialism, it was confidently proclaimed, was finally vanquished. Fukuyama called it the end of history. So what followed?

The reactionary ruling class offensive dating back to the 80s was intensified. The 1990 – 1991 Gulf War began three decades of unrestrained imperial neo-colonialism and militarism with all its attendant miseries, including 80 million refugees. Since proclaiming ‘War on Terror’ in 2001, there has not been one day when the US was NOT at war.

But that’s the international situation; what followed history’s end domestically?

The principle feature of the past three decades in the US is the growth of staggering levels of social inequality. In addition to ending social programs, wages were slashed and entire industries dismantled to fuel the relentless rise of stock markets. The inevitable by-product is the breakdown of democratic forms of rule. Massive accumulation of wealth creates social tensions which cannot be reconciled through traditional democratic means. State violence against the poorest and most vulnerable of the working class assumes ever more brutal/lethal forms.

Why does this matter?

It matters because whereas some portray rising social unrest as the work of one or another partisan faction or of this or that well-funded ‘radical,’ the historical epoch indicates something very different. Protests of the past several years both here and abroad are but the initial emergence of global resistance to the economic, technological and class foundations of modern societies. The outrage behind unrest arises from the global experience of the working class. Failure or refusal to reckon with that drives much of the so-called ‘dialogue’ in the marketplace – or internet forums as the case may be.

History involves continuity and it is our actions across decades which brought us to this day. History is catching up with the United States. No blame-shifting, rationalizing, partisan caricatures, political maneuvering, bombing campaigns, flag-waving, cursing, conjuring or conspiracy theory can change that.

So is this thumbnail sketch what analysis supposedly looks like?

Not so fast!

Describing the historical epoch from which events arise and to which they events is but an initial step. This ‘history’ raises very many questions which must be addressed. A short sample of these may include:

1. What implications arise from epochal characteristics, conditions and policies? Are they inevitable?
2. Why so little to no resistance until now? What conditions persisting across those decades accounts for that?
3. What drove the stock market during this period? Where do these forces stand now? Are they effective?
4. What periodic or epochal changes are now underway? How do present conditions relate to this?
5. What changes develop as unrest moves form initial stages to political maturity?
6. What is the current ruling elite strategy for diverting the coming struggle?
7. What historical and political forces dominate unrest and the attempts to contain/repress it?
8. How do citizens regard ‘leaders’ and ‘institutions?’ What is the ruling class anticipating from this?
9. What means are at the disposal of the working class? What means are at the disposal of the regime?
10. To what point are these processes moving? What is emerging from it?

Doing with each of these among other questions] what I did with the ‘situational context’ moves toward what I call ‘analysis.’ Perhaps what I'm seeking might be sought more aptly on another forum. You know this place better than I do.

You are, of course, correct that the Constitutional document does prohibit the assumption of titles of nobility. Yet in its simplicity, that remark regarding the revolutionary rabble resembles nothing so much as the perspective of Louis XIV. But if the prerogatives of nobility are acceptable barring only the title, the Constitution is guilty of gross hypocrisy. If on the other hand it intended to bar the preogatives with titles, I gather from the antecedent remark by your hand that this constitutional 'word' is now a dead letter.

All the best!

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

 

[ReinyDays]

You are, of course, correct that the Constitutional document does prohibit the assumption of titles of nobility. Yet in its simplicity, that remark regarding the revolutionary rabble resembles nothing so much as the perspective of Louis XIV. But if the prerogatives of nobility are acceptable barring only the title, the Constitution is guilty of gross hypocrisy. If on the other hand it intended to bar the preogatives with titles, I gather from the antecedent remark by your hand that this constitutional 'word' is now a dead letter.

All the best!

-- Trotsky’s Spectre --

Thank you for this post, I kinda skimmed over the first part of it as perplexing ... I think of the past thirty years as having been quite peaceful, sedate, a time of universal prosperity* ... protests in the 1960's and 70's were generally deadly ... package bombs, water cannons, machine gun fire, oh God the lynchings were deplorable ... today, a little spray paint in Portland and everybody's soiled their pants ... no one's worried about where the next Charles Manson will come from? ... no, I don't get it myself, but then I've see a thing or two in my ancient of years ...

European history has several examples of complete and utter MORONS being ascended to king, just because they're the first-born son of the previous king ... Tsar Nicolas II of Russia comes to mind ... if John J. Rockefeller's oldest son was an inbred mongoloid, no way does the son become President of Rockefeller Enterprises ... everybody in the United States enjoys the "prerogative of nobility" owning their own home ... the common born can even buy fiefdoms, unheard of in feudal Europe ... the typical homeowner will not want to give up his property ... your Marxist Revolution is better placed where there are no homeowners, and you shouldn't have to look far for that ... Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua ... where the common born are no better than slaves, and little girls are safest in the brothels ... (c.f. United Fruit Company) ...

I thought my reference to Louis XIV was too vague ... nice catch ... I'm impressed ...

No, not a dead letter ... a big stack of $100 bills fell onto my monitor and I just kept typing blind ... I got to find better hiding place for my internet passwords ...

* = pussified ...