Latest users (2): akkere, Shiny, anonymous(15).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#42601 - roliga (07/23/2013) [-]
Group of hippies at the mall today with signs saying "Zimmerman is not a hero!" and "Zimmerman still has blood on his hands!" while all wearing hoodies and having Skittles/Tea. Meanwhile I was by wearing a Kel-Tec T-shirt (Kel-Tec PF9 is the gun Invader Zim used to ban TrayTray). Oh the looks, the dirty looks, I feel so dirty and I need to bathe in their tears.
User avatar #42609 to #42601 - pebar ONLINE (07/23/2013) [-]
I've heard the PF9 is a really shitty gun
I've heard really good things about Kel-tec, though, but apparently they don't produce enough of their guns to keep up with demand.
User avatar #42602 to #42601 - oxan (07/23/2013) [-]
We've moved on from the Martin case. No need to tell us how edgy you are.
#42655 to #42602 - anon (07/23/2013) [-]
It's unfortunate that America won't be moving on from the case for quite some time. Once the media makes a monster of something here, it tends not to go away any time soon.
User avatar #42656 to #42655 - oxan (07/23/2013) [-]
Commie friends and myself discussed it at length earlier on. One believed the case was a real race issue that highlighted current race relations and oppression under capitalism. The general consensus amongst us, however, was that the case is insignificant, and it was even suggested that it served as a distraction. The Bradley Manning Case, for example, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Snowden Affair.

I raised the theory that could very well be the bourgeoisie seeking to divide the proletariat further on race lines. I think there is a degree of Black racism because of the case, but it was just a thought.

Anyway, tl;dr: insignificant case, exaggerated, potential distraction, potentially increased Black racism, devoid of any revolutionary character.
User avatar #42694 to #42656 - pebar ONLINE (07/23/2013) [-]
I think you're making an issue out of something that is not there. Blaming the bourgeoisie for every single tiny thing that goes wrong in a society that just happens to be capitalist, regardless of whether it has to do with economics or not, is just plain demonization and IMO a cheap tactic to advance your cause.
User avatar #42777 to #42694 - oxan (07/23/2013) [-]
That's what we were trying to answer, if it served a purpose for the bourgeoisie or not.

We concluded it doesn't aid our cause, and could even harm it. For that reason, we're suspicious. We don't agree with the rest of the Left, because we don't see the case as a huge thing, reflective of race relations. Because of that, we didn't blame the bourgeoisie.

But the emphasis put on this case was definitely artificial. While the bourgeoisie didn't cause the shooting directly, they've probably manipulated it for their own ends.
User avatar #42791 to #42787 - oxan (07/23/2013) [-]
Indeed - just because the bourgeoisie are the same class does not mean they will always cooperate, just as members of the proletariat don't always cooperate with each other.
User avatar #42792 to #42791 - pebar ONLINE (07/23/2013) [-]
and it is on that mistrust and lack of cooperation that capitalism is built upon
User avatar #42793 to #42792 - oxan (07/24/2013) [-]
And capitalism intensifies that lack of trust. Divisions within the proletariat are perpetuated by the bourgeoisie, there's no doubt about that. Perhaps not the Martin-Zimmerman case, but in general racial divisions are unnecessarily emphasised, nationalism is encouraged, and collaborating with class enemies becomes the norm.

Common class interests between the bourgeoisie are highlighted, and the conflicts - which are the overwhelming majority of class relations - are ignored. Common interests among the workers of other nationalities are ignored, and the conflicts highlighted. Overreporting of race-on-race crime in the media, the fear cultivated through things like the 'war on terror'.

In Australia, the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat is a major issue. But why? They account for less than 1% of our annual immigration intake. More people overstay their visas after arriving in the airport. Racist terms such as 'boat people' become the norm, 'fuck off, we're full' becomes the racist rallying cry. People thinly hide their xenophobia with, 'oh, I just don't think we should let illegals in.' What illegals? Refugees are not illegal, and their mode of transport makes no difference. 'We shouldn't have to take them.' Why not? The highest number of refugees come from Afghanistan, a country we helped invade.

User avatar #42794 to #42793 - pebar ONLINE (07/24/2013) [-]
but you can't blame all owners of capital for what the media does
User avatar #42802 to #42794 - oxan (07/24/2013) [-]
Considering the owners of the media are the owners of the capital, and therefore the media serves the bourgeoisie's interests...
User avatar #42803 to #42802 - pebar ONLINE (07/24/2013) [-]
but only for the news industry
User avatar #42806 to #42803 - oxan (07/24/2013) [-]
Media is used to demonise socialism. Even if their main concern is the media industry, they still indirectly serve the interests of the bourgeoisie.

News Ltd is one of the largest media companies in Australia, and controls about half the market alone. It's agenda? Neoliberalism.
User avatar #42821 to #42806 - pebar ONLINE (07/24/2013) [-]
so you're telling me..... that all major business owners are secretly collaborating together behind society's back in order to keep themselves wealthy and to keep the masses poor?
User avatar #42785 to #42777 - pebar ONLINE (07/23/2013) [-]
You're implying the bourgeoisie have an altruistic interdependent relationship with each other; this not the case. For example, cartels are extremely unstable because people have a predisposition to be self-centered. Each party would be motivated to sacrifice their partners to maximize their own profits.
Imagine 2 cigarette companies each with an option to advertise; if one company advertises, they get way more customers, but if both companies advertise then they cancel each other out and it turns into a huge waste of money. The companies agreed to not advertise at all but eventually someone broke the arrangement. Eventually the companies themselves lobbied to ban cigarette advertisements because they kept screwing up. It's like a game of chicken.
I suppose this example would count as the bourgeoisie using government for their own gain but what you have in mind would be on such a massive scale that it borders on paranoia. People just do not have the ability to cooperate without some kind of government intervention; that's why things like taxes exist in the first place. But I think we both agree that the bigger the government, the more prone to corruption, either from influence by lobbyists or just the selfishness of politicians.
User avatar #42788 to #42785 - oxan (07/23/2013) [-]
If I was implying such a thing, it was not intentional. There are definitely conflicts within the bourgeoisie class. I have a good article on the matter that I'd like to refer to at the moment, but unfortunately it's saved on my personal computer, not what I'm currently using.

The problem with 'big government' is that it's kind of an undefined term.
 Friends (0)