Juneteenth and the "political eras"

discuss here because jeiro likes ruining political discussion and then calling it his "job"

Watermelon wrote:

well the late 1800's was extrem fre market era
which had a lot of problems sparking the progressive era. by that time
usuallly slavery is gone. they already celebrated juneteenth. they dont
need to celebrate anymore.

wrong thread?

and the there was no progressive era.

After
the pull back of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments and the freedmans
bureau then the "progressive" era was merely an attempt to get those
freedoms BACK.

The civil war signified the last progressive act of the bourgeoisie

dud .you said that over there. i responded over there.

Watermelon wrote:

dud .you said that over there. i responded over there.

this is the appropriate thread

move it.

plus i am pissed jeiro closed the topic

im not saying its progresive. thats what its called. they regulated industries and stuf and made meat packing places be sanitary instead of puting rats in the meat.

Watermelon wrote:

im not saying its progresive. thats what its called. they regulated industries and stuf and made meat packing places be sanitary instead of puting rats in the meat.

but at the same time this era was marked with a massive increase in the exploitation of labor. Finance Capital was being exported like no bodies business and so marked the first division of the world amongst the world imperialist powers and marked the prelude to WWI.

i mean i get your point, people call it the progressive era but every "progressive era" is marked with great reactionary happenings. Are we gonna start calling the deformed workers states communist because our books say they are?

I try to consciously reject ANY form of bourgeois idealism down to little things like vocabulary.

Like my friend Nic, whenever he talks about america and criticizes it he says "WE". As in "WE" went into iraq with no grounds. I ALWAYS ask him "who is we?". It's important for marxists to recognize and reject any form of bougeois illusions.

Well, at least you guys are having a real discussion here now. Keep it like this. Thanks.

hey man i know that capitalism is not good even if they regulate stuff. im not a reformite. but so far capitalism is the most progressive mode of preoduction. betar than feudalism. not as good as socialism but that doesnt existed yet. the bourgeois are progressive because they make technological progress. mark even said that the bourgeois is a revolutionary class.

NO!!!

RELT I HATE YOU YOU ASS HOLE

FIGHT ME YOU RACIST!

if you couldn't guess jeiro...

i don't like "benevolent" dictators

anyway the USSR was still in many many ways more progressive than capitalism. I mean look...they jumped centuries ahead technologically and without the damaging effects of the boom bust cycle of capitalism and competed in the space race within decades...Plus that isn't what makes it progressive. The bourgeoisie are progressive until the means of production have outgrown the capitalist economic system, which it has. America has the ability to go socialist.

The Bourgeoisie are only revolutionary in feudalist societies. They are not CONSISTENTLY revolutionary. Currently the bourgeoisie are backward and reactionary and opposed to the progressive forces of socialism.

why woudl i want to fight you il get my as kikked.

the ussr is capitalism. it went fast because the opresive bolsheviks party had a tight grip over the economy.

the bourgeoisie are still progreesive just in a diferent way they progres the tecnology.

america is not ready for socialism yet. there is no crisis. ples dont tel me this is crisis. this is notheng.

Watermelon wrote:

america is not ready for socialism yet. there is no crisis. ples dont tel me this is crisis. this is notheng.

Tell that to the over 65% who have low income.

My father told me our family was middle class. Surprisingly, "middle class" in America comprised of just 20ish percent. Rich of course, was 5.

Some "free country" America is, huh?

its always like that. they never do anything. there is no serius crisis.

Ah, now I see your point. Because they do nothing, it is kept under wraps. And because it is under wraps, their ignorance is nonexistant.

Thus, no crisis.

Watermelon wrote:

why woudl i want to fight you il get my as kikked.

the ussr is capitalism. it went fast because the opresive bolsheviks party had a tight grip over the economy.

It went fast because collective economies always go fast. It wasn't qualitatively high and it didn't focus on scarcity because it was a bureaucratic hold on the economy and didn't receive the proper soviet worker input and PLANNING according to the needs of the workers. The USSR was economically unaffected by the Great Depression (which affected all capitalist nations heavily) because of it's collectivized economy with no anarchy of the market/ boom bust cycle.

Plus how do you figure it was capitalist? The bureaucracy exploited labor and took the surplus value of their labor for their own purposes? Or did they merely use their societal privilege? If there is an abundance of a product in a shop then consumers feel comfortable coming and going whenever they please. If there is a shortage then people are inclined to stay in line. The Bureaucracy feels the need to place a policemen to maintain peace in the line and the policemen already "knows" who is going to get what and will make sure he gets his own. That societal parasitism is all that the bureaucracy was.

The bolsheviks underwent a purging of the left opposition i.e. the trots and others that were against stalin's policies once stalin came to power and by the late 20s stalin had effectively taken control of the bolsheviks and soviets which is why the left opposition had to go underground. Stalin knew Trotsky was directly counterpoised to his policy os Socialism in one country and his societal parasitism.

Despite his oppressive regime, he was not a capitlist. He and the bureaucracy still defended the collectivvized property forms against counter revolution. Proof of this is when the Kulaks were gaining immense wealth and power because of the NEP(New Economic Policy) which allowed the peasants and PEASANTS ONLY to sell their products on a realtively free market basis while still maintaining the collectivized industrialized property forms because the bureacracy had failed to produce enough manufactured goods to trade with the peasntry for agricultural goods-this meant that the bureaucracy could not effectively collectivize and plan the agricultural economy. This gave rise to the wealthy privilieged kulaks who then came close to the brink of counterrevolution-that is the abolition of ALL COLLECTIVIZED PROPERTY FORMS and a return to private ownership of ALL of the means of production. Stalin understood this threat and so ended the NEP and returned to military communism to maintain his bureaucratic position. Yes he did it for his own purpose but this effectively lays out his use of societal privilige that is only found in a workers state. He defended the workers state(the state which serves the ruling class as a whole) against the rise of the petty bourgeois kulaks which sought to lead a counter revolution and become the ruling class. If Stalin was part of an existing capitalist ruling class then why would he oppose capitalist restoration and defend the workers' collectivized property and economy?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Quote :

the bourgeoisie are still progreesive just in a diferent way they progres the tecnology.

They are not progressive because they do not use the industrualized means of production to their fullest extent. They focus on technology that reduces the cost of labor.

Quote :

america is not ready for socialism yet. there is no crisis. ples dont tel me this is crisis. this is notheng.

By "ready" i merely meant that the menas of production exist in such a way that they could potentially sustain a collectivized and planned economy today. I know the revolution is not coming tomorrow.

so it has the party pepul who perform no labor yet receive money, can you say surplus value?

they progres the tecnology . they dont use al it so?

Watermelon wrote:

so it has the party pepul who perform no labor yet receive money, can you say surplus value?

they progres the tecnology . they dont use al it so?

fuck it,

i put enough information to others to come to the conclusion that i am correct.

im never going to win you over but others that question will see

dfud. you talk about your letarature so much. al you read is spartacite propaganda. wel how about reading actual stuf? like das kapital. the source of ultimate truth about the world. or acumulation of capital. read some important things dud. then you wil be wise lik me.

you don't know what you're talking about

the majority stuff i learned from "Revolution Betrayed"

i usually quote books

hey isnt that by trotsky. do you read marx ever or luxemburg or pannekoek or bordiga or korsch or stalin. wel i have so.

plus have you read economics. aperently you know nothing about it. wel thats my impresion because you never tak about it. wel economics is the most important thing. you fail.

aha so... you're saying that if i read das kapital...i will be all knowing and agree with you? yes?

lol

dud. you read enough economics books and understand it then yes.

Watermelon wrote:

dud. you read enough economics books and understand it then yes.

i have no clue how economics makes up for shit politics and distortions of marx...

dud. wat distortien of marx. wat shit polotocs? fuk polotocs i have non. i hav onlye economocs

atleast you can admit it XD

wats so grate abot polotocs? fukk it. its idealist.

economocs is grater than you
you dont argue cos you know its true