|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:37 pm
You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". "Rich haven't killed any workers," I wonder what world that person lives in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:46 pm
Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". The reason why we advocate a violent revolution is due to the fact that our enemy is armed and will fire upon us when we demand our liberation. And remember, it is not the 'rich' we hate, it is the bourgeoisie. One can be rich in the sense that he owns a lot of money, but if he does not own any capital then he is not a bourgeois.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:56 pm
Comrade Rob Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". The reason why we advocate a violent revolution is due to the fact that our enemy is armed and will fire upon us when we demand our liberation. And remember, it is not the 'rich' we hate, it is the bourgeoisie. One can be rich in the sense that he owns a lot of money, but if he does not own any capital then he is not a bourgeois. @Rob: Don't worry Im not as naive as I look wink . I was quoting someone else. @syntax: Ill have to look into that, I hear some aliens from Mars landed in my area not to long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:00 pm
Comrade Rob Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". The reason why we advocate a violent revolution is due to the fact that our enemy is armed and will fire upon us when we demand our liberation. And remember, it is not the 'rich' we hate, it is the bourgeoisie. One can be rich in the sense that he owns a lot of money, but if he does not own any capital then he is not a bourgeois. There is no demanding necessary if we simply refuse to acknowledge the idea that their capital has value. Our economy is based on trust and belief that our dollars have value. If we drop that, the money is just paper and the rich are just guys with a lot of paper. We win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:14 pm
Urg, thanks for that video. It really was very disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:21 pm
Comrade Kotka Urg, thanks for that video. It really was very disturbing. It's terrible. But it's coming to the point again where contradiction between ideology and material conditions are coming into play. It's s**t like this that is helping the American class struggle to become more and more open. But again I cannot stress this enough, there still lacks a revolutionary party. It's shame, The current parties are utterly failing to take charge here! ********
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:23 pm
divineseraph Comrade Rob Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". The reason why we advocate a violent revolution is due to the fact that our enemy is armed and will fire upon us when we demand our liberation. And remember, it is not the 'rich' we hate, it is the bourgeoisie. One can be rich in the sense that he owns a lot of money, but if he does not own any capital then he is not a bourgeois. There is no demanding necessary if we simply refuse to acknowledge the idea that their capital has value. Our economy is based on trust and belief that our dollars have value. If we drop that, the money is just paper and the rich are just guys with a lot of paper. We win. Whens the last time you bought something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:38 pm
divineseraph Comrade Rob Nokturnal Evisceration You know the other day someone told me that a violent worker's Revolution would be Immoral because "the rich havent killed any workers, yet you want to kill them anyway". The reason why we advocate a violent revolution is due to the fact that our enemy is armed and will fire upon us when we demand our liberation. And remember, it is not the 'rich' we hate, it is the bourgeoisie. One can be rich in the sense that he owns a lot of money, but if he does not own any capital then he is not a bourgeois. There is no demanding necessary if we simply refuse to acknowledge the idea that their capital has value. Our economy is based on trust and belief that our dollars have value. If we drop that, the money is just paper and the rich are just guys with a lot of paper. We win. Remember, the "paper" is backed up by some sort of metallic currency which happens to be gold. For every piece of money, a bit of gold backs that up. There is value to the money because of that gold.Some of the currency is still backed by gold, but it still holds value regardless of having any real value. No one will just spontaneously drop their faith in the dollar.
The only way to really get anything done is to liberate the proletariat so that we can turn the tables and take the power that the bourgeois had. Getting rid of the money won't solve that problem because it would change from 'who owns the most because of money' to 'who owns the most because of the paper'.
(Thanks for the info, Rob) 永远。。。(Yǒng yuǎn...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miza_Radioaktiv Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
