[lbo-talk] No rights for Tsarnaev?

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 22 12:09:18 PDT 2013


Joanna: "If the state guaranteed any social rights it was because of worker actions or the imminent threat of such actions."

[WS:] True, but it was the state that guaranteed it, not owners. Owners sent goons to beat up the workers that threatened their property and that was the end of the threat. You seem to forget that direct confrontations between workers and owners invariably led to the defeat of the former.

Only when the state was able to restrain owners, the working class made any progress. So yes, organized working class is important, but it needs the state to solidify its political power. "Direct action", "direct democracy" ets. is a delusion, a pipe dream invented by petite bourgeois intellectuals.

Wojtek

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:


> The neo libs like the cops and army quite a lot.
>
> If the state guaranteed any social rights it was because of worker actions
> or the imminent threat of such actions.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Joanna: "Interesting to note that the more dictatorial power the state
> claims, the more it loses legitimacy."
>
> [WS:] Which is very unfortunate, because it only strengthens the neoliberal
> assault on the state. People seem to forget that the only thing that kept
> them insulated from working 16 hours a day in sweatshops with no benefits,
> protections, rights or guarantees of any kind was the state. I can
> understand that libertarians espouse such views, after all, scratch a
> libertarian find a Repug, but lefties? But then, most of the so called
> radical left today is of petite bourgeois provenance and sensibilities,
> hence the appeal of neoliberal anti-statism and anti-institutionalism in
> general.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Interesting to note that the more dictatorial power the state claims, the
> > more it loses legitimacy.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > The last three words make nonsense of this.
> > >
> > > The threat does NOT come from "the right" ; the threat comes from
> Obama,
> > > Clinton, et al.
> > >
> > > A focus on the "right" relegates the writer to the ranks of the mere
> > > onlooker in the bleachers.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> >
> > It's a reading error. R E I C H means state in German I think. It was
> > supposed to indicate the US justice system has thrown out traditional law
> > and turned to dictatorial power. And I agree the threat comes from the
> > Obama
> > administration. They want that kind of power and have done their best to
> > keep it in place. So has Congress.
> >
> > CG
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list