[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

[pengdust at aol.com]

Yep, "all anarchists are socialists" [except the 'yellow and black' crowd, who are really 'libertarian capitalists' trying on some "radical" 'anarchist chic.' Talk about "self-styled!" Ha!!!] 

For most of us real wages have actually fallen vs. inflation and rising cost of living since the mid 70s, this is reality, and it has real affects on everyday life. In the US this is the 10,000 lb gorrilla in the room. Some Euros have studied this trend extensively, and the reorganization [class composition they refer to it as] of capitalism since then [ I suggest Negri and Autonomia and some Situationists, for an update ], but here there is none.... evidenced by the amerikan unfamiliariy with the notion of "precarity." 

I would argue that only 2 out of 3 are true though about the 20th century.... since there has been an actual decline in semocracy.




-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net>
To: pengdust at aol.com
Cc: ls1000 at live.com; jbw292002 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org; Socialist Forum <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 25, 2010 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?


You're right - the precarity article is interesting, with some good links. 
 
It's generally observed that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all 
socialists are anarchists." (That probably needs to be stressed today, with the appearance of self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists, who are at best confused and confusing, otherwise guides into a dangerous blind alley.) 
 
And the situation you describe is the great unmentionable in US politics: real wages haven't risen in 30 years. That simply becomes more apparent as inequality grows and accelerates, and the unemployment rate tops 20%, as it now does if it's measured as it was in the Reagan administration. 
 
Of course we've got the good Democrats to keep the lid on, as Obama advertised he would do in The Mendacity of Hope. What's maddening is to see self-styled progressives/socialists defend him frantically against quite appropriate if unfocused criticism - especially since our ideological institutions strain to unfocus the protest. 
 
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." 
 
And it's certainly up to us who are privileged to call things by their right names and not defend Obama's wretched corporate-friendly policies, at home or abroad. --CGE 
 
pengdust at aol.com wrote: 
> As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the 'grub-work,' I 
> take offense to this "individualistic libertarian anarchists" claim. We, 
> anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy university jobs with health-care, sick days, 
> vacations, living wages... or the time, privelege, and luxury for academic 
> debates. It is true, those of us who make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER 
> be able to afford the $200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking corporations 
> after paying some $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student loans, > $150 in other bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. Keeps me in my 
> boyish figure I guess /;-)/ ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing 
> battle... we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the $700 
> penalty on top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those who make 
> some $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but for many of 
> us who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay %100 of our 
> premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the ONLY improvement for 
> us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the table! [thanks to Both Dems 
> and Reps] 
> > So, please don't throw around sectarian epithets by calling "self-proclaimed 
> socialists" anarchists in a squabble over who's a socialist and who isn't... 
> I know many anarchists and almost every one of them are working-poor or 
> working class whose fate is intricately tied to the fate of others. 
> > I suggest 'bourgeois' not 'anarchist,' and you can bicker about the rest > amongst yourselves... here's an over simplified refresher for those who are a 
> little rusty, or a primer for the uninitiated: 
> > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeserving_poor ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work ] [ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Social_Christianity) cge may like 
> this one] 
 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100325/5f016aa7/attachment.html>