[A-List] Romantizing working classes: One worker romanticizing himself

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	From: Waistline


It is true that some remaining workers who have watched others  lose  their
jobs due to plant movement overseas . . . might . . . become  militant  and
then what?

^^^^^

CB: ". . .  build new plants and provide jobs for these  workers."


Reply

Please justify fighting and advocating building new plants in America so
that workers can have jobs. Please.

Jobs . . . you want the laid off workers to have jobs. Tragic thinking.
Thank God I am a communist.

Now you understand the difference in approach. Why do we need to build new
plants in America?

^^^^
CB; No, I don't.  you haven't really said what the difference is yet. You
have just been exclaiming and sort of himming and hawing.

^^^^^^

So that the workers can have jobs.

I understand your meaning and feeling. This is so sad that an American
Communist or rather American Marxist - I am definitely a communist, would
advocate building new plants to give people jobs. I am extremely aware that
I am  alone in my communist strivings.

I advocate economic communism or society providing socially necessary means
of life outside the value relations. In the most simple terms this means
distributing people socially necessary means of live even if they have no
money  and especially no money and no job.

^^^^^
CB; I support decent jobs or decent income for all. So I don't see the
difference between what I am saying and what you are saying , unless you are
saying you don't see anybody having a job.

For me to support more jobs, doesn't mean I don't support income for all who
do not have jobs.

^^^^^^


 I do not advocate that America build new
plants. I do not advocate that poverty stricken and poor workers take any
job  that is available. I cannot advocate for jobs and building new plants
in the  21st century.

^^^^^^
CB; So, you do not support more jobs. Yes that is a difference. I wouldn't
say the difference is that I don't support income for all who don't have
jobs.

^^^^^

Yet, when I call this kind of thinking and political projection reeking of
bourgeois imperial logic, and housing an obvious national chauvinism, you
declare that I have slandered you. What you have advocated is the program of
the
Democratic Party. CB . . .

^^^^^
CB: No, the Democratic Party doesn't advocate what I am saying here. You are
slanderer.  You think carelessly about what I say, thereby attribute things
to me that I haven't said, and categorize it as political.  There is nothing
of imperialist logic in it or national chauvinism. I guess you got caught up
on that misrepresentation because you thought I meant give the plants to
Americans not other countries. But I didn't say that. But you have to keep
pretending like I did, because otherwise you would have to admit that you
slandered me. So, you have to keep trying to mischaracterize what I am
saying.

^^^^^^^


 over and over I insists that all this crap about
industry - factories, running away from the U.S. national territory is going
to run he who mouths such an approach into the most brutal white and
national  chauvinism and you feel that I have wronged you and I have no
interest in  wronging you.

^^^^^
CB: Well, mainly you have not yet in all this over and over made an argument
as to why it will run into white chauvinism. You just assert the conclusion
over... And over and over and over...but without justifying it. Really, you
do no wrong to me , because this is just talk. I refer to it as slander as a
way to try to make you make an argument. Then I can consider your argument.
But when you just make a delcaration - this is chauvinist or white
chauvinist- without justifying it, at that point, point blank , you are a
slanderer. Sometimes it is just best to counter a groundless declaration
with another declaration, call it out, put the burden on you. Why is it that
your statement is not slander ? And that's being nice about it.

You are also treating me as if I have no awareness of the actually
chauvinism and racism in this area, which I am very much aware of. Part of
the reason what I am saying is not chauvinist is that I am aware of the
chauvinism.

I imagine you have some argument behind your conclusion that this is
chauvinist, but you choose to just state your conclusion without the
supporting argument. What you should say, if you had comradely sense , is
"Might this be chauvinist because of X,Y and Z ? " Then I could say "No ,
because of A, B and C." Instead , you just keep repeating the obviously
confrontational "this is chauvinist". Basically, my response to that is
"take a flying leap"

^^^^^^



You are my brother and comrade, but I come from a different tradition and
political polarity. I am a communist and not a socialist. I do not advocate
socialism. I advocate economic communism for today. I cannot demand jobs for
the
people. I'm sorry and here is the bottom line juncture and why I reject
American  Marxism or what some call Western Marxism as a whole. American
Marxism has been  the left wing of the bourgeoisie for basically all of its
existence.

^^^^
CB: You have said most of this many times. However, just declaring that you
are from a different tradition or political polarity or that you are a
communist or don't advocate socialism are not adequate arguments for calling
what I say chauvinist. So , calling me chauvinist is uncomradely slander.
Best I can do is rebuff it as slander from time to time.  Eventually, what
it has to mean is that I just don't pay attention to you. It just becomes
"yes you are",.."no I'm not"... "Yes you are"... I'm really coming to the
end of such with you. I'm not really going to deal with anything but your
explanations of why you make the claim that it is "chauvinist" . I am
reading the latest posts of yours fairly completely.  I am responding and
compiling the fundamental issues of discussion between us over lo these
several years...as I have before. But I 'm not going to keep responding to
you hurling slanderous conclusory epithets and political names.  That you
are "from a different tradition" is not an explanation as I mean it here. I
already know you are from a different tradition. That doesn't have to be
repeated again.

^^^^^

I advocate economic communism . . . for today . . . this moment in history
.
. . right now and you put forth a call to build new plants so that the
workers  can have jobs. I cannot support this kind of classical Marxism. I
strongly feel  it is wrong from every standpoint.

^^^^^^

CB: So, are you saying there are no jobs in economic communism ?

^^^^^^^^^

I advocate welfare and giving people socially necessary means of living.

^^^^^^
CB; How are you proposing that the socially necessary means of living be
produced ?  Who is it you advocate "give" it to people ? Where do they get
it from ? How do you advocate that use-values be produced ?

^^^^^^^


And
I stood on this ground even as a union representative of some of the best
paid and most stable section of the working class in the history of our
country.  And the most of the very people who elected me, disagreed with me
on this issue.

^^^^
CB: For one thing you seem to purposely state in a mysterious way as if
there is no need to do any work to produce these socially necessary means of
living.  It is disingenous of you to pretend as if the way you say this
doesn't really make total sense , since you don't bother to say anything at
all as to how something other than people working in jobs will produce the
socially necessary use values.  It's just hoaky the way you say it. It
sounds like you mean everybody would be on welfare,not working, and somehow
everything socially necessary would just fall out of the sky. And you are
dishonest if you pretend like it doesn't sound like that.

^^^^^

Over 3 billion people on earth live off of less than one dollar a day and
you advocate for the American workers, that our government ensures the
building  of new plants so that American workers can have jobs . . . I could
break right  down and cry. Tragic thinking.

^^^^^^
CB: You express this phony and nonsensical lamentation for 3 billion people
living on on dollar a day. The way you say it suggests that somehow U.S.
workers getting jobs will harm these 3 billion  people, as you have
repeatedly, but not yet all these times you have said this have you given
any kind of argument as to how U.S. workers getting jobs will harm the 3
billion people.

You also give no explanation of how US people all living on welfare will
help the 3 billion people, so your own political program  does nothing for
the 3 billion you lament.

Like I say, the best I can come up with to describe this "argumentation" is
dishonest, dishonest with slanderous unsupported conclusions thrown in.

^^^^^^^



Honest to God I hope another plant is never built in America . . . without
the most detailed examination of its impact on WO/man and society as our
environment. I will never . . . ever . . . advocate a plant is built to give
someone a job. Why not just ask for income?

^^^^^
CB: Ask ?

Income to buy what ? How is the stuff the income buys going to get made ? By
the people overseas working on jobs ? What the fuck are you talking about ?


^^^^^^^^

And I survived and won leadership amongst the most economically stable
section of the workers, organized as a trade union, facing this relentless
bourgeois imperial ideology for a lifetime. Here is the real reason I
retired at  age 49, against my brothers wishes - a leading International
Representative  of
the UAW, and moved to Texas. Comrades outside the US are never given an
accurate picture of America and American communism.

^^^^^^
CB: I think you are romanticizing yourself.

^^^^^^

Romanticizing working classes - this thread, clarify the difference on the
most elementary level.

Build plants so the workers in American can have jobs . . . What a crock of
national chauvinism. Brother when we come to power in America I am going to
try  and get elected to the committee tasked with the responsibility to tear
down factories.

^^^
CB: What a crock indeed ?

^^^^^^

Please justify fighting and advocating building new plants in America so
that workers can have jobs. Please.

Melvin P.

^^^^^^^
CB: The justification is the classical Marxist reasoning. Almost all modern
use values are produced through people working in jobs. The technological
form of organization of production of many important use-values is in
plants.

Now , give a justification for not advocating building plants for jobs for
workers in the U.S.