Posts Tagged ‘middle-class

16
Jan
11

Capitalism and Race

In an older post, I attempted to demonstrate how Capitalism spawns bigotry in terms of both class and race. For this post, I thought I might expound a bit on the latter issue.

 

First, a disclaimer. Capitalism is not inherently racist. It is exploitative, enslaving, and oppressive, but it is not inherently racist.

The key word here is inherently. While there’s nothing about in the tenets of Capitalism that embraces racism (just the opposite- Capitalism doesn’t care much who it exploits), the Capitalist system, once put into practice, adopts the bigotry of the Capitalists. Allow me to clarify.

 

Capitalism produces social classes, the rich, the middle class, and the poor and working class. The rich, often dubbed “the elite” or “the ruling class” by Communists, control society through politics, industry, disproportionate wealth and property, and so on. Now despite the growing multiculturalism we’re seeing across the globe, the ruling classes of various countries still tend be primarily from a single race or ethnicity. Look at America where, despite one of the highest levels of racial and cultural diversity, the upper and middle class remain almost entirely white and Protestant Christian. Now while there’s nothing racist about being white or Christian (though there’s been plenty of racism from whites and Christians), the problem is with human nature. We crave familiarity and are terrified of the strange or unknown. As a result the middle and upper-classes attempt, both consciously and unconsciously, to keep things the way they’ve always been, which often leads to cultural and racial tension.

 

For example, a couple years ago I was in a debate with a woman about the institution of English as the official language of the United States. She was decrying having to “press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish”, and the dire implications of having streets signs and forms written bilingually (though exactly what dire implications would arise she never did enumerate upon). Now as I talked with this woman, it became evident that she was not a racist. She did not believe that her ethnicity was in any way superior to anyone else’s. yet she passionately argued that immigrants must “learn English”. In short, she wasn’t afraid of racial mixing or other people groups, she was afraid of change and the unknown.

 

When you break it down into it’s most basic components, the race/class issue functions like this: the haves are race/ethnic group A, the have-nots are races/ethnic groups B, C, D, and so on. Those in power are race/ethnic group A, the powerless are races/ethnic groups B, C, D, etc. Again, the system is not inherently racist, however, the system almost always becomes racist. The ruling class becomes the ruling race- the lack of diversity spawns an atmosphere of xenophobia at best and blatant, unapologetic bigotry at worst. On the opposite end of the spectrum, resentment (understandably) foments. Again I have to state, even with a system that isn’t inherently racist and people who are, individually open-minded, any social structure that divides us up or separates us from each other will ultimately create racism.

Advertisements
23
Dec
10

A Few Thoughts On The Homeless

Despite being largely a mire of polemic and melodramatic prophecies about an impending Republican police state, the liberal, progressive site AlterNet does occasionally produce some good articles. I just recently found one about new legislation passed in San Fransisco targeting the homeless.

The article’s been linked here.

Now it reminded me of a lecture activist Shane Claiborne gave at my college- he discussed an occurrence in Philadelphia when a similar law was enacting, unfairly targeting the homeless. Indeed, we can probably all think of some time when we’ve heard about something like this.

Now of course such laws are never called “anti-homeless” or anything along those lines and more often than not are simply disguised as anti-loitering laws. The reality, unfortunately, is that law enforcement may be selective about who they fine for “loitering” or “obstructing” the sidewalks or “panhandling”. Is a man in a business suit, asking you for some spare change, just as likely as an unkempt man wearing four jackets? Is a woman in high-heels just as likely to be told to “move along” as a woman with plastic-bags taped to her feet? I think not. Nevertheless, legislation is constantly being introduced for the specific purpose of persecuting the homeless, ranging to anything from fines (exactly how fining the poorest of the poor is supposed to work I can’t say) to imprisonment (as if living in abject poverty wasn’t punish in and of itself).

 

Why? Why are we so bent on attacking the most broken members of society?

 

Perhaps the reason we so despise the homeless is because we’re afraid of them and what they represent. They’re the products of our manipulative and exploitative social system, and a grim reminder that any of us could have the same fate. The homeless don’t respect the illusions of total prosperity we insulate ourselves with. When we categorize our worlds into neat areas and neighborhood based on class, the rich and middle class can live warm, fuzzy lives of blissful ignorance until some unruly schizophrenic shuffles down the sidewalk clutching a battered backpack and muttering something about George Lucas stealing his thoughts. Then the homeless person turns into a stark, in-your-face reminder of poverty, disease, and pain. I’d go even so far as to say that the homeless are dark reflections of our own lives- that we’re not all that different from the homeless. A friend once sent me a comedy routine in which the speaker says “We’re not supposed to give money to the homeless because they’re just gonna spend it on drugs and alcohol. But wait- that’s what I’m gonna spend it on…”. What’s the real difference between a homeless person living in a cardboard box downing cheap booze and a billionaire living in a mansion drowning his sorrows in rare wine?

 

So what’s the solution?

 

Going back to the comedian I referenced just a minute ago, his routine went on to recount “He [the guy a homeless person had asked for money from] said ‘Why don’t you get a job, you bum?’ People always say that to homeless guys- ‘Get a job!’ like it’s always that easy. This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants. I’m guessing his resume aint all up-to-date. I’m predicting some problems during the interview process…”. Clearly the problem isn’t going to be solved by simply telling the homeless to get jobs and houses and integrate into society. Besides, more often than not it’s society that’s responsible for the creation of the homeless in the first place- these people don’t simply materialize. You take a person, throw him into a Capitalist world where he has to face-off against his peers for jobs and opportunities, there’s a chance he might not make it. Is there really any point in taking the homeless and forcing them back into a world that will either chew them up and spit them back out or cause them to displace others? It’s our way of living as a whole- competition instead of cooperation.

 

And in the meanwhile, how should we treat the homeless? They aren’t where they are because of laziness or choice, and they aren’t animals without need for human compassion and help. We need to resist the temptation to separate ourselves from them or bring in laws to harass the homeless into inconveniencing someone else’s city. Who knows if luck will turn and you or I will end up in the same position as them?

16
Nov
10

The Point Of It All

I’m not feeling so great. I’ve been up since six this morning with no real sleep for the past two days. My stomach is aching from a combination of stress and oily, fatty college cafeteria food. I’ve spent the past three hours having my brain clubbed into a gooey pulp by a statistics test, and I’ll be having to write up a major presentation and memorize it by tomorrow evening.

 

I have it easy.

 

There are millions of people out there who would sell their own children to be in my place. Thousands of people have sold their own children to have a chance at being where I am. There are millions of people who, no matter how hard they work or how long or how well, will never be where I am.

 

That’s just a little something to put things in perspective.

 

I’m sitting here, eyes-bloodshot, stomach churning, neck-aching and I’m wondering why? Why am I putting myself through this everyday (sure it’s nothing compared to other people’s hardships, but let’s stay focused here)?

 

Why do people go to college? Well, some people are in college because they want to party for four years before the responsibilities of life and the universe hit them. Some people are here (at my college especially) to find someone to marry, but in general, the overwhelming number of us are in college to get degrees so they can get jobs.

 

Not sure, you don’t need a college degree to get a job. You don’t need to know how to find a t statistic for related samples or the definition of a theodicy to get a career in a textile mill or as a janitor. Only problem for those who try going down this road is that in the West, the vast majority of jobs you would be able to get without a degree can be done infinitely cheaper by a twelve-year old in Indonesia or an illegal immigrant. Sure there are still jobs out there for the degree-less, but it’s hard to support yourself, let alone any sort of family, working the grill at McDonalds or mowing lawns. There’s always the army, but considering the pay isn’t much better and the work is slightly more than hazardous, it’s a bit of a gamble.

 

So that’s where degrees come in. You want to have a decent-paying job at some point, you’ll need a degree. I’m at college to get a degree and chances are that you were/are/will be at college to get a degree. But is that really enough? I can’t help think back to a Peter Kreeft book where the resurrected philosopher Socrates approaches a college student to figure out why he’s attending college. I’ll paraphrase it briefly:

Socrates: Why are you here?

Student: To get a degree so I can get a job.

Soc: Why?

Stu: To make a lot of money so I can have a family and send my children to college.

Soc: Why will you send them to college?

Stu: So they can get degrees and get jobs.

 

It goes on like that.

 

Now this is really what I’m seeing here at my college. Students come in from generally the middle-class/upper-class to get degrees, get jobs, and return to being part of the middle-class/upper-class. People will take jobs on the basis of pay, whether said jobs are fulfilling or not, and spend the next forty years or so grinding away at their jobs. Why? To do what they really want to do. To go fishing, to take care of a garden, to spend time with family, to paint, to read, to tinker with cars, to cook, to write, and so on. It’s seems to me to be awful rate of exchange if we’re working sixty-plus years at jobs we don’t care about (or even hate) to spend our old age desperately trying to do the things we we wanted to do from the beginning (indeed, the things we were born to do). I don’t want to work on the machine that going to sap me of my life, rewarding me with the chance to do what I love doing when I’m too old to do it! I don’t want to have wealth, I want to have purpose.

 

That, I think, is the point of it all.

The only question we’re left with is “what purpose”?

 

28
Jul
10

A Communist Response to the Tea Party

The Tea Party has made a point of lambasting the Communist movement. Pictures of Obama (for the last time- not a Communist) are adorned with the hammer-and-sickle emblem, or set up alongside pictures of Marx and Lenin. There are picket-signs with such slogans as “Revolt Against Socialism”-in short, it’s the largest anti-leftist movement since McCarthyism. And not without reason, either. It’s undeniable that there’s a certain appeal to the Tea Party movement. Joining the fight against the [alleged] looming threat of an authoritarian state, bringing the country back to its original values, lowering taxes for the middle-class-everyman- who wouldn’t want in? But as with every political/social/economic movement you have to cut through the buzz words and slogans and examine the core principals and goals.

The Tea Party seems to be focused around three central issues, (1) the limiting of government power, (2) the restoration of Free Market Capitalism, and (3) through these two goals bring America back to the values of the Founding Fathers. In and of themselves these principals seem perfectly reasonable- admirable even. Until you look at history.

Limiting government power? Hey- Communists are all for it. One of the principal goals of Marxism is the abolition of the state. Indeed, despite the Tea Party’s pictures of Democrat politicians with the hammer-and-sickle superimposed on them, Communists have more in common with Libertarians- as far as governmental issues anyways. The problem with the Tea Party is that there not against big government- they’re against big Democrat government. The Patriotic Act was one of the greatest expansions of government power since the Civil War- did the Tea Party protest then? In the Tea Party’s defense though- this is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum; those who protested the Patriot Act have remained strangely silent about the issue now that Obama is in power.

As for the restoration of Free Market Capitalism- there’s a reason regulatory laws and branches have been developed. Before the advent of market regulation, the state of things was appalling. Child labor, strike-breakers, low wages, dangerous work conditions, false advertising, a complete lack of product safety and quality control, rampant pollution- to put it mildly, it was nightmarish. And even despite regulatory laws, corporations continue to pollute and exploit- look at third-world sweatshops and the continued destruction of the environment! If things are bad now, how much worse will they be without laws to protect the workers and consumers?

And lastly and most importantly, there’s the issue of the founding fathers. If you listen to far-right pundits (Glen Beck would be a prime example), you’ll hear repeatedly that the US must be returned to the plans the founding fathers had for it. A closer look at the writings of America’s founders, however, suggest that they might not have been as wild about Capitalism as conservative pundits and Tea Party members make them out to be. Thomas Jefferson, for example, had this to say about private property:

It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an [sic] universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.

Or look at this statement by Thomas Paine (technically not a founding father, but his influence of the Revolutionary War and the formation of the American government is immeasurable):

Men did not make the earth… It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property… Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.

and

…To pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to send them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic; the ministers of every parish, of every denomination to certify jointly to an office, for that purpose, that this duty is performed… By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less…

Even half a century later, Lincoln (not a founder, still an important figure in the shaping of American politics) gave us this warning:

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

Quite simply, as far as the founders go, I doubt their ideologies would have mixed too well with those of the Tea Party.

To summarize, the Tea Party may have a heroic and patriotic veneer, but that’s all that there is- catchphrases, dire warnings about an apocalyptic future, and desperate attempts to restore a past that never existed. And the truly tragic thing is there’s a lot in the Tea Party that could be used for the betterment of the American public. The rejection of big government is admirable- just make sure that you’re not substituting one lack of liberty for another. The desire to restore prosperity is good- Capitalism isn’t the way. The attempt to restore the country to the principals of the founding fathers is commendable- but only so long as you know what those principals were.

25
Apr
10

Continued BNP Fascism

Linked here is a BBC article describing the BNP’s (British Nationalist Party) continued campaign against immigration. Like most Fascist and nationalist organizations, the BNP is attempting to gain public support through the vilification of a certain group (in this case, immigrants) and the propagation and proliferation of lies about how this group will upset the status quo (a popular BNP claim is that immigrants will somehow destroy British identity and culture). Now it would be remiss of us to immediately discount every theory a Capitalist or Fascist organization brings forward, so let us examine some of the positions held by the BNP.

Major BNP Positions (as stated in the BBC’s “At-a-glance: BNP general election manifesto):

Economics:

Cut public spending on immigration, asylum, EU membership and foreign aid, which the BNP claim accounts for more than £40bn.

Perhaps the only understandable point the BNP has here is its reluctance to be part of the EU. If group doesn’t feel that it is being adequately represented, there’s no reason it should be forced to participate. It’s there, however, that understanding ends. For an immensely wealthy and powerful first world country to wish to cut spending on immigration, asylum, and foreign to less fortunate countries is twisted and unjust- especially considering that many of these countries were once brutally colonized by the British.

Crime and Immigration:

Halt immigration – in particular from Muslim countries – and deport illegal immigrants. Allow legally settled and law-abiding minorities to remain but review citizenship grants awarded since 1997.

Again we have the issues of discrimination and bigotry. The BNP would have an end to immigration despite the fact that many of the countries immigrants originate from were once conquered, colonized, and exploited for centuries. The fact that immigrants are now streaming into the UK in search of better lives isn’t merely a natural phenomena, it’s poetic justice.

Deport foreigners convicted of crimes in Britain, regardless of immigration status, ban the burka and building of mosques. Deport radical Islamist preachers.

It is perhaps here that the Fascist reality of the BNP is most evident. Regulating a specific religion or community (in this case, Islam and the immigrant/Muslim community) Fascists attempt to maintain the traditional social order and status quot.

Review the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from police duties.

While there’s nothing wrong with wanting to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, keeping the BNP’s other political stances in mind, one can’t but help be suspicious of this proposal. Fascist and authoritarian regimes can only remain in power with an extensive police force- there’s a fine line between removing bureaucracy and removing accountability.


Social Aspects:

“British concepts” of civility and courteousness to be taught in schools, along with British history and English, Irish, Scots and Welsh culture and tradition.

Ah, what counts as a “British concept”? Do naturalized immigrants influence at all what counts as a cultural concept? Would this be the contemporary concept, or an earlier one? Should it even be the government’s role civility and courteousness?

Free university education to students who have completed community service.

This actually doesn’t sound like such a bad idea- depending on what the BNP defines as “community service”. Are we talking about a month of picking up litter from the sides of roads or years of backbreaking labor poor and proletariat youth will have to undergo as a result of being unable to afford university? Either way, considering the BNP’s other policies, it probably isn’t worth it.


Healthcare:

Cut waiting times and service difficulties by relieving immigration burden upon the NHS.

Last time I checked, a sick Anglo-Saxon’s life isn’t any more valuable than a sick Central Asian’s. The Hippocratic oath doesn’t have limits on race and nationality.


Politics:

Bill of Rights guaranteeing basic civil liberties, repeal 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Considering the attitudes of the BNP, you probably shouldn’t look forward to their concept of “basic civil liberties”.

Other Aspects:

Ensure National Lottery funding spent on projects enhancing British culture. Introduce formal bank holidays marking patron saints days of all UK nations.

Again, since culture is always in a state of flux, proposals that the government should be responsible for instituting a set, state culture seems dictatorial. As far as banks go, I’m sure the workers wouldn’t mind the days off but why should those days mark some saints? What’s that saying about non-Christian religions in Britain?

Please note that in the interests of space, I have not published every position held by the BNP. I do seriously recommend that you study their full list of proposals and positions or even visit their website. Know your enemy.

03
Apr
10

Live Long and Prosper?

If you were to look up “Communism” in a philosophy book, you’d probably find it under a section dealing with “Materialism”. The problem with this is that the popular meaning of the word “Materialism” has changed radically over the years. In terms of philosophy, the original meaning of “Materialism” was a category of philosophies primarily concerned with the concepts of property and their effects on human society/history. If I were, however, to use the term “Materialist” today, it would commonly be assumed that I was referring to the idea that the end goal of life is to accumulate wealth (radical hedonism, essentially). This is a recurring problem with many terms connected to Communism- in Marx’s day, “Socialism” meant a society embracing shared property and rejecting the class system, today we use it to refer to a politico-economic system where the majority of property is owned and managed by a massive government- but perhaps that’s off topic.

The issue with trying to categorize Communism in philosophy is that Marx was rather critical of philosophy as a whole. He asserted that analyzing the world should not be an end but merely a means to bring about change and advancement (“Philosophers have merely interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it!” -Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”). While Communism definitely does offer a socio-politico-economic perspective, to claim that Communism is an all-out philosophy wouldn’t be quite correct. While most philosophies make some basic assumptions about the purpose of life (hedonism, as much pleasure as possible; Socratic philosophy, preparing for death;  aesthetic realism, finding harmony in life; the list goes on and on), Communism on the other hand functions more like a scientific theory than a code of ethics or an understanding of existence (indeed, one of the reason people find Marx so hard to read is the fact that he treats economics almost like a branch of physics). Don’t misunderstand me- Marx did have convictions. He saw the exploitation of the proletariat as the principal factor in the toppling of Capitalism and the class system and believed that the toppling of the Capitalism and the class system would propagate justice and equality. It’s like a scientist discovering that running electricity through a gas filled bulb not only creates light but it is his moral imperative to run electricity through a gas filled bulb and create light. As a result of all this, you’ll find no single, coherent Communist philosophy but rather a number of philosophies espousing Communist political theory. On one side you have philanthropic, altruistic humanist communists who have become Communist out of love for their fellow man. On the other side you have cynical and bitter antisocial communists who have become Communist out of a belief in morality rather than man (the author falls into this category). And between these two extremes you’ll find any number of other philosophies- religious Communism, green Communism, Anarcho-Communism, etc. If there’s a mainstream philosophy out there, you’d be safe to bet that there’s a Communist version of it (baring, perhaps, Ayn Rand-style Objectivism).

Now one might argue that the exact same rules apply to Capitalism. “Capitalism is a socio-economic theory too. You can hold any philosophy or worldview and still be a Capitalist!”.

Now this is partly true. You can indeed be a Capitalist and hold the purpose in life to protect and preserve the earth and all its natural wonders. The problem is that if you also accept Capitalism, you have to maintain that it is perfectly legal (and indeed, a basic human right) to purchase a mountain, to prevent anyone else from walking on it, and if the owner so chooses, to blow it to pieces.

“Alright, so Environmentalism and Capitalism don’t mesh so well- but there’s still a ton of other philosophies out there.”

Absolutely, and they too don’t seem to mesh well with Capitalism. If you hold the purpose of life is to live honestly and decently, then you’re presented with a number of challenges (the primary of which is that in Capitalism, the highest profits come from underpaying and overworking your employees and overpricing your products- not exactly honest or decent, is it?). If you declare that the end goal in life is to live long and prosper and see your family happy and secure then you have to deal with the fact that this is the wish of not only you but a large percent of humanity and since in Capitalism there’s only so much room at the top you’ll have to viciously compete with your neighbors for this lifestyle (unless you’re born into it, in which case you just have to worry about the huddled masses eying your house and pool. Even if you believe that the sole purpose of live is to live in decadence and luxury, you have to contend with the very definitions of the words. Do two houses in Monaco count as decadence and luxury, or should you get a yacht as well (or more importantly, will you be any more happy and fulfilled with the yacht than you are now?).

So essentially, no matter what your philosophy is, it has to be accepted that in all likelihood, you’d be able to pursue it better in a society free from Capitalism. You want peace and happiness for your family? Maybe you should opt for a system where a starving homeless man is going to gun down your wife/husband for her/his necklace/wallet. You want to be able to do whatever you love doing? Maybe you should opt for a system where you aren’t forced to take whatever job pays the bills, no matter how painful or bland. You want to be able learn everything there is to know about a subject? Maybe you should opt for a system where education is a high-priced commodity available only to some.

Maybe you should opt for Communism.

15
Mar
10

The Frontline

Since the beginnings of civilization (if this oppressive class-system society can be called “civilized”) the poor and working class have been pushed to the front lines of every battle and conflict. In ancient Greece, soldiers were expected to procure their own armor and weapons- resulting in the wealthy being able to procure decent armor and weapons for themselves while the poor had (at best) worn-out leather armor and homemade weapons. As you can doubtlessly imagine, casualty rates among the poorer members of the vying forces tended to be much greater than those among the wealthy.

Now obviously things today have changed since ancient times. We have the resources to maintain a trained and (equally) equipped military in times of peace and war. Does this mean inequality between social classes (with regards to war and the armed forces) has been wiped out? Of course not!

Now imagine, if you will, that you are a military recruiter. It is your job and your duty to convince members of society to join your army and kill for (or be killed for, as the case may be) their country. Now who would you target? The wealthy corporation owner? Of course not. He’s living in luxury- what motivation would he have to take up an austere and dangerous military life? How about the professional middle-class woman? No way. She’s got two kids and a steady job- even the most jingoistic patriot would be reluctant to leave that behind. Perhaps an eighteen year-old from a bourgeois background? Yeah right. You really expect this guy who’s looking at colleges to go out and potentially die? It’d have to be a seriously dire situation before that happens.

How about working class youths fresh out of high school with no way to pay for college, little or no chance at a decent job, and no future?

Jackpot.

So you approach these disenfranchised, poorly-educated, and more than likely desperate youths and offer them a way out of crime-and-poverty. “Education, dignity, power, and the respect and gratitude of the nation- all this can be yours (oh, and there’s a pretty high chance that you’ll be killed or maimed or develop a mental condition as a result of you killing/maiming your fellow man- but we don’t like to talk about that)”.

There’s a catch to everything.

And so the ranks are swelled by the poor fighting in wars they don’t probably don’t understand or have a stake in. It’s really the ultimate con game. The poor line up to die for their country when their countries have done nothing for them. Just look at the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King Jr. was an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War, not only because it was opposed to his pacifist ideals but also because he saw war as a diversion of funds that ought to be used to aid the poor (claiming “A nation that continues… to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”). It’s just the unbelievable injustice of it all. Society is built on the backs of the poor. The proletariat sweep the streets, clean the gutters, build our houses and buildings, pave our roads, manufacture our products and produce the raw materials that our nations run on and in addition to all this they die for whatever cause the government deems justified. And for the poor and working class who do not go to war- what’s their lot? Why, it’s their “patriotic duty” to tighten their belts, buckle down, and make sacrifices for the war effort. Overtime at the munitions factory. What’s that? You’re arm got caught in the belt and you desperately need surgery? Sorry- you’re just some working class zero, you can’t afford insurance. Government healthcare? If they hadn’t diverted all the funds to help our brave boys on the western/eastern/southern/northern/ front it’d be no problem. You’re out of work now and the cost of living is going up? If you were middle-class you wouldn’t be feeling the pinch as much, would you? Maybe you should’ve thought about being born into a wealthier family!

You get the point.

And this is where you’ll witness a seeming hypocrisy among us Communists. On one hand, we’re screaming for revolution, the toppling of Fascists, imperialists, and the bourgeois and corporate taskmasters. On the other hand, you’ll probably find Communists at every major anti-war rally going on. Our reply? Our reply is this: We are opposed to war as much as war is opposed to us (for there have been few wars indeed where the workers have had any benefit). For us, there is only one war worth fighting and that war has been going on unceasingly since the immemorial. Our war is against Fascism, against imperialism, and the oppression of the Capitalist system. Let there be no war but class war!