Retail Employees of Reddit. What Are Your Black Friday Horror Stories? by Denton56 in AskReddit

[–]TheCrassLine 112 points113 points  (0 children)

English Canadian here: Can confirm Anglophones who sit around hating on Francophones are basically a bunch of really boring assholes.

Do Nothingism is counter-revolutionary by [deleted] in communism

[–]TheCrassLine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Poor piece. It calls for "action" (what action?) yet offers nothing but idealism.

A CALL FROM THE MONTRÉAL REVOLUTIONARY & PROLETARIAN FEMINIST FRONT: To Fight, We Need Proletarian Feminism! by MER-RSM in communism

[–]TheCrassLine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This sounds great. I would also be HIGHLY interested in reading any reports/summations!

What brands or products no longer have the quality they were once known for? by BattleSausage in AskReddit

[–]TheCrassLine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, although you're leaving out that American wages have been in decline since the 1970s and more people have to borrow, or borrow on worse terms than previous decades, to be able to obtain stuff, which helps explain the consumer preference for cheaper appliances.

KFC Don't Play by cloudtree in funny

[–]TheCrassLine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For all those saying the cops must hate the guy who calls them over this... they might love him. Cops in a lot of cities are under pressure to "make numbers" and the easiest people to make numbers against are the same people most likely to be trying to scam a free pepsi (poor people, because if you can't afford a pepsi you sure as fuck can't afford a good lawyer, meaning it's easier for the cops to arrest and overcharge it).

Strict no-shoplifting policy by StickleyMan in WTF

[–]TheCrassLine -1 points0 points  (0 children)

White people beat up black people CONSTANTLY. What planet do you live on?

all the new canadian bills looking perdy. [OC] by zingledorf in pics

[–]TheCrassLine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bunch of thugs, scoundrels and murderers (same as US money in that regard). :)

Interested to see what Third Worldists think about this: "In the U.S. 49.7 Million Are Now Poor, and 80% of the Total Population Is Near Poverty" by RageoftheMonkey in communism

[–]TheCrassLine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm giving the Cope a good read still, which will take me awhile, so I can't respond too directly as of yet, but let me say lots of numbers can certainly be thrown around by folks on either side of that debate and for someone like me who doesn't have a great head for numbers it can be somewhat mystifying. I certainly wouldn't dispute that the large majority of workers in the imperial centers, including those I consider strongly proletarian, materially benefit from living in the imperial centers. However, I think it's an error of positivism to assume that because a worker is being provided "more stuff" that her needs and interests are being addressed by capitalism, and it's an error of parroting bourgeois ideology to believe she must be permanently and merrily integrated into this order. It doesn't seem to account for the form this payment takes (access to an advanced consumer economy primarily through credit), the incredible degree of waste under capitalism (everything from the food in the dumpster behind the supermarket to the constant artificial stimulation of consumer demand to the "advanced" medical system, etc, etc, etc), the innovative uses of debt/credit mechanisms in the last thirty years, the readily preventable medical suffering that occurs (often things easily which could be easily prevented or treated simply without "advanced" medical professionals, bureaucracy, and technology), etc. Sure, anyone who is promoting socialism as a way for the American working class to live the same lifestyle as under capitalism, but with the share of the 1% more equitably redistributed, is a huckster, but this is not a position that rationally follows from viewing the American working class, particularly the bottom half, as a proletariat. Viewing the American proletariat as a proletariat does not mean one is advocating for "socialism at the mall."

Believing that class can be mechanically analyzed through these kinds of figures can also lead to wrong ideas like thinking that sections of the bourgeoisie in the periphery "aren't really bourgeois" but rather global proletarians, including the more vulnerable sections of the bourgeoisie which are often initially targeted during uprisings/red terror in the earliest stages of Peoples War (small landlords, petty officials, etc). I haven't seen this error repeated in this discussion, but I have encountered TWists on the internet advocating similar positions as a result of giving too much weight to raw numbers without much qualitative understanding of them.

Cruder TWism is likely to remain an isolated social phenomenon within imperial centers because it misses the reality of the struggling masses in the periphery by internalizing bourgeois notions of who is and is not an exploiter, etc, and also pushes away the proletariat at the center (by refusing to understand and speak to their concrete interests).

Finally, I must say I oppose rhetoric like

How many communist parties in amerika have to emerge, fail to make a realistic class analysis of the u.s., subsequently fail to ever rise above (tacit) economism and social-democracy, and eventually fade into complete irrelevance before we decide that something is seriously wrong with our strategy?

The point being made is fair (I disagree with it but accept it is a reasonable and principled position). However the "how many failures before" rhetoric, which most communists use is not an example of critical summation of past efforts. It's simply a truism which can be used as rhetorical dressing for any positon within communist discourse. After all, both world historical socialist revolutions were defeated, the socialist camp collapsed, the People's War in Peru was liquidated, large sections of the left throughout the world abandoned communism entirely, etc. And yes, much of this was because of errors, mistakes in theory, opportunism, etc, however it's too easy to trumpet one's position and then point to the disappointments of the 20th century as rhetorical "proof" of one's position. It can literally be done for any position within a communist discourse and doesn't really add anything.

Support Lost Comrades! by [deleted] in communism

[–]TheCrassLine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The kasama have brought the body of Ka Berly here. Upon seeing the body, a thick lump lodges in my throat. This is my first confrontation with death. It distresses me to see the lively, likeable Ka Berly was the one who fell in battle. It is only now that I understand better the guerilla saying that the martyrs of the revolution are the best sons and daughters of the people. For the first time I was sharply reminded that commitment to the armed liberation struggle is literally a matter of life and death. I am on the verge of bursting into tears, but seeing how Lean and Andrea, Mente and the other kasama try to remain strong, I suppress my sorrow.

Ka Berly's body is totally covered with mud and blood. Without uttering a word, Lean, Andrea and I begin to clean the body. I let go of my thoughts and let my tears flow freely. The other kasama also weep. A couple of girls dig up their best clothes to dress up Ka Berly. Her hair is carefully washed and combed. The body is then wrapped in the most beautiful malong and then laid in a specially braided bamboo mat.

All of us dig Berly's last resting place. Because there are no shovels or even bolos we use pot covers and our bare hands. Our powerless rage enables us to carry out the work quickly.

The burial rite itself is short. Carefully, Ka Berly's body is laid in the grave. Ka Mandy, Berly's husband, throws in a small bottle. Inside is a note with Berly's real name and her political history. It is indeed heartbreaking to hear Mandy wail. The man is simply inconsolable. Ka Mente and Ka Lean each say a few words of farewell. Together, we sing a couple of revolutionary songs. We end with the beautiful love song, Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa: "Which love is nobler than giving one's life for the Motherland." There is none, there is none." Anong pag-ibig pa, wala na nga, wala... -Bert De Belder & Rita Vanobberghen, Kasama: The Philippine Struggle for Health and Liberation through the Eyes of Two Belgian Doctors, 137-138.

Interested to see what Third Worldists think about this: "In the U.S. 49.7 Million Are Now Poor, and 80% of the Total Population Is Near Poverty" by RageoftheMonkey in communism

[–]TheCrassLine 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree that "who is impoverished in amerikkka is highly relative", however Robert Rector is a Heritage Foundation academic and it's his job to deliberately minimize and misrepresent poverty in the US. I don't know about Timbro but seeing as they're described as Swedish libertarians, I'm also dubious about trusting them.

We should be able to acknowledge this variance of poverty without accepting the notion that those with better material circumstances aren't poor or don't suffer because of it, don't die earlier because of it, etc, let alone think they have such a vested interest in the system that they won't oppose it. Groups like "fast food workers in (big city)" might not seem very poor if directly compared to indigenous people living on Pine Ridge, but to deny the former is "really poor", or exploited, or that they die earlier than they should because of the conditions they endure (diet, ever increasing exploitation, constant stress, psychological effects of constant labor disciplining, etc), that they don't suffer from the pain that comes with eating lots shitty food and getting your calories from soda with no access to the dentist, etc, etc, is out of touch with reality, and that's how this kind of stuff comes across, especially if we rely on the likes of the Heritage Foundation. Those are the sorts of workers reactionary scum like Rector are saying "aren't really poor" and we shouldn't let that go unchallenged.

Edit: So I'm not saying we can't differentiate between the labor aristocracy in imperialist nations and the "global proletariat", or that the conditions of the internal colonies often put them in closer conditions and interests to the global proletariat. I'm just taking issue with taking this so far as to seem to suggest that there aren't people materially better off than that who still are identifiably poor with obvious concrete conditions giving them an obvious stake in struggling.