Welcome to Gaia! ::

Varies what branch of service, and what region of the United States for cops. Polices budget's are dependent upon town funding, or city or federal. Most don't earn enough, they are payed average prices like normal people. Also military members aren't payed a lot either unless your in the navy, air force or coat guard. Cost Guard is payed the highest by ratio of rank, then air force and navy. Most aren't in the service expect for a good looking thing on there resume, as most jobs have polices to help x-military people. Same with getting to college cheaper.

even coast guard pay is pretty shitty compared to civilian jobs requiring the same education skills and a knowledge.

law enforcement is definitely underpaid. to be honest being a cop in the U.S. has to be one of the worst jobs in the world

We do care about the UN, or rather we care about the people that make up the UN security council because the minute any of the major powers suddenly falls under any threat (much less one of radical leftists taking over) they will immediately step in.

Now that's not an argument against violence, that's an argument against being stupid and trying to take on the major powers. A good way to sum it up as trying to take on any nation considered the G8 is stupid and just asking for your movement to be dealt with.

This makes sense in a sense that we consider the elections Bourgeois run and thus the bourgeois parties will. But in some areas this is not that case. The media of the United States runs our elections this is true, but in some other nations do you think the same applies? I mean Maoists took over in Nepal through the legislation (albeit, ewww Maoists) so obviously there are some gains to be found in the Legislative systems. So don't be so close-minded as to never look at the possibilities there.


It may be, however parts of it can indeed be applied to parliamentary reform. Again, be less dogmatic and narrowminded Gracchvs! Flexiblility dammit!


While I do like this I don't see it quite right. There should be a mutual alliance perhaps between the mass of the workers and the vanguard party, not either gaining and superiority over each other. I still believe that there should be both a house for workers and a house of elected party officials, thus no way for either to subvert the other to their whims.

I agree here, defense is is not wrong at all, however active belligerence is bad and as I said in that last argument over violence we should not be recklessly belligerent. We are not antagonistic in our views but necessity and we should try to make sure we're not seen as thus.
WTF mate? You're promoting making a worker's state armed with Nukes? That's not something Marxist at all I feel. What are nukes now except something to promote status quo among superpowers? With Nukes you are given the choice of either status quo or mutual destruction, not of possible revolutionary progress.

Nukes are the tools of the Bourgeois to keep themselves in power and are Bourgeois tools of destruction only. There is no role for the worker with nukes. There is no revolutionary gains to be made with Nukes. Nukes are not a tactical weapon as well.

If you arm a worker's state with nukes you perhaps may assure that state's safety if it simply stays. However, in the process you assure that this state will not be able to make any gains in spreading the revolution as any belligerent action by them will carry the threat of other nuclear states retaliating.

Even Gracchvs, do you really want a state going through internal turmoil and upheaval to have nukes? That's just a terrible idea regardless of aims.

Probably that he does not support the Chinese oppression of Buddhism. You might but I myself can see no counter-revolutionary ideals to come out of people being Buddhist.


Oh and also, the game...everyone just lost it.

I really fail to realize why everyone is so reluctant to be antagonistic and violent as a class. The bourgeoisie would shoot us at the first sign of upheaval and then just like in France, they would shoot us again to remind them who is boss. These people are monsters and exploiters and you want to show them mercy? Even though they themselves wouldn't show mercy to us? Don't kid yourselves here, peaceful revolution is not possible, why boast about it? We would all love it to be peaceful but it wont be. Marx said it, Engels said it, Lenin said it, Stalin said it Trotsky said it and practically every other Marxist revolutionary..

All bullshit. Such a stance denies the impact a successful revolution would have on the international working class, who we would have the opportunity of calling to our defence. The social-democracy would oppose us taking power there, but would put on a left face, and would channel struggle into 'anti-intervention' s**t.

This is the key point: THE ******** WORKING CLASS!
We are not some putschist group seeking a coup, but a proletarian revolution. We must keep that perspective at all times. Bukharin and Stalin argued that the SU needed to refrain from intervention elsewhere to avoid military action against the SU by iperialism. But that ignores the working class: If the working class refuses to load planes and trains and ships, the imperialist military will have severely reduced capacity to project force.

This is what we need. To ake a revolution, and encourage wrkers elsewhere to make revolution there as well.

That is the ONLY way the workers' state will survive.


And all they have done is make a democratic CAPITALIST republic...
That wasn't a revolution. If they ttry to make any more decent laws and are opposed by the military-monarchic state, then there is a chance for a revolution or the maoists to give up power completely (or join the capitalists parties).

I am not close minded. I am open minded. The problem for you is, I do not agree with your pet radicals, but have a consistetly communist-revolutionary world view.


When did I deny the usefulness of parliament in revolutionary propaganda? Never. In fact I have consistenly aid that is the ONLY use for parliament, as far as communists are concerned.


Not at all. The soviets represent the will of the working class, the party represents the interests of the working class. If there are free elections and the party wins, what is the problem? The workers support us.
The key is to stave off bureaucratism.

What you want to do is institutionalise it with a 'senate.'


You would be supprised to note that I would not advocate opening fire on the police, right now, because it would be a huge PR disaster in the working class for us.

In a revolutionary situation, on the other hand...


To defend against nuclear armed imperialism, every country, workers state or not, needs nukes. Only when threatened will the imperialists stand down. So not just Workers' state, but Iran also!


Nukes are a weapon, nothing more. They are a deterent against attack, while you propagandeze to their working class.


This assues that the bourgeoisie would not resort to nukes if the workers didn't have them.

Without the threat of retaliation, the boutrgeoisie would use everything.

-----
So yeah. Grace might be hot and you like her and all that, but this sort of POLITICAL compromise is bad. Serioously, learn to seperate your affections from your politics. Agreeing not to talk about it together is one thing, but to comproise the revolution itself? Too ******** far.
-----

OH s**t YOU MEAN ALL THE DIFFERENT SECTS OF COMMUNISM STOPPED FIGHTING NOW?!

Anything depending on international working class alone in the beginning is bound for failure. Right now the working class of many nations feel their environment and context differ from those of another. Otherwise Americans wouldn't see Mexicans who take jobs as a problem.



No, the worker's state will survive by a combined advantage of those workers smart enough to realize the plight of one worker is the plight of all, the ability of those in charge, tact, and clever creative strategy. Think as Thrawn would my dear Gracchvs.

And achieved an aim. By any means possible Gracchvs...


Such statements however do not fit so well with Dogmatism my dear Gracchvs.


Much in the same way the politicians of all states represent their constituents? Unacceptable, an instrument under DIRECT control of the working class must exist to insure they do and never stray. If you are against what is basic insurance that we don't descend into the very deformed Worker's State you despise then you deal with the consequences of setting up a state that may fall into such categories easier.


What I want is a check on the party, not to let the party run rampant and dominant while justifying everything they do with the proclamation of "They represent the worker". A whip does not feel any better if it is called the people's whip Gracchvs.


If they've already fired once then they need not fire again, their stance has already be given. It takes only one shot and after that the idea of revolution made clear.

They ceased to become "Just weapons" once another country developed them. When MAD became a possibility they became a bourgeois policy. Whether Iran see it as an idea to defend themselves against Imperialism is not the point when they still use their Oil to threaten the world, they are no less Imperialist than everyone else.

Lovely but what of the workers and their new state? They don't care and obviously no consequences will come if they attack the bourgeois? If the bourgeois stands to lose everything they will use everything then, you fail to realize this. Your solution to nukes is flawed and is dependent on a theory you yourself despise to be effective at all!

My feelings for Grace do not cloud my judgment dear Gracchvs. I've known Grace and I, though similar in many regards, differ in many places. What perhaps you may perceive is completely untrue and is in fact a very below the belt hit.

I don't care if Grace wants a peaceful revolution at all costs and I advocate a revolution that if possible will be peaceful but prepares for what I feel is the eventuality of violence. I don't care if perhaps Grace adds more humanist ideals to Marxism and the Radical Left than I do. In fact I rather she does, that is her and those are her opinions and I like the fact that she has them, in fact I think because of that she sometimes will keep me in check with her ideas and comments.

Just because they're different doesn't mean I've compromised mine own. No Gracchvs that's completely wrong. I don't think her ideas are wrong, they're different ideas for the same thing. I think she is better for seeing peace as more possible than myself. I would like sometimes to think as she does. But that does not mean I have comprised my ideas Gracchvs. Do well to remember that.

Well if i say everything out front there's no room for my works to be horrible misinterpreted!



Oh, well in that case. If everyone is well aware that capitalism is bad, they will have no problem landing the first blow.


Indubitably


This is one for the history books ""What is a communist but a Sith in the eyes of the bourgeoisie?" D.S.Robson



i find it strange that you've avoided the orginal question...