I specifically had Islam in mind and its treating of slaves. I am now just realising that when their slaves were trained to be professionals in the army (Mamluks, Janissaries) they soon realised their self importance and took over the political conditions. This has some parallels with social revolution.

It does. On a related note: I've read points and speculation that Islam was to be a step to abolishing slavery by granting leniancy to slaves, which'd be a spring-board to total abolition of the practice at some future date. Sort of an early-US approach to it to draw parallels there (paraphrased: "We can't do this thing now, it'll totally destroy the Union in its infancy. We need to ween the country off slavery at a slow and consistent pace!"). So instead of screwing over everyone who might matter early on it was put into limbo that got forgotten about and even as jurors across the Muslim world cried foul the political establishment kept onto the practice because it was too advantagous to their economy or their politics.

And abolishing slaves was only in name only. The emergence of capitalism soon transferred the slave role to a new class of people. Let me say something radical here. Being pro-slavery, in the same sense as being pro-working class, and increasing the self-awareness of their importances, is a positive direction. An institution which focuses on making slaves better, even better than their owners, directly leads to an overthrow of the ruling class.

I might cautionarily point out that you have to be a little careful lest the class roles reverse themselves. The then-slave, now-ruling class could just become another slave-owning class repeating the some practices as before. Though thinking about it too, that's looking at the issue through only the lens of a specefic short period of history (Mameluke Egypt, for instance). In the grand scheme of things that role reversal where the ex-slaves are the slave holders today are where we are today.

>tfw this is real, despite being comedy. https://youtu.be/A4-3TKy2A28

Haha, I know this guy. He is Australian and plays in the band Nazxul.

I used to go through his stuff a lot when I was on a George Carlin binge a long time ago. I actually forgot about him until recently until someone posted this in a thread about supporting a four-hour work day.

Or it was a twenty-hour work week.

Either-or.

<:hrt:312036949453963264>
<:hot:312059167634620417>

I hate comunists

Speak

Hmph

Your oppinions have been seen and registered into the dialectic. Have good day.

@AaronMk Regarding the slaves becoming the new ruling class, how do you break the cycle? By removing the relationship to property and the means of production? But even this process has to very carefully handled. The way it could work, and others, if if there is a final state beyond the cycle of oppression that is intended to be reached. Communism and some religions both have higher aims.

@Deleted User They do, and the lack of consensus on how to get there - or really the initiative to get around to it - has admittedly kept a low faith in the left. Personally, I'd say moving ahead what needs to be done is to figure out how to build it up on a local level, so that way there are pockets where concepts can be physically played with. And at least to me here in the States I feel if there was substantial change at the local level then everything up top will slide into place in the higher echelons, or if revolution were to actually fucking happen there are areas already working at a real socialist or communist capacity. Getting some kind of alliance with like-minded religious organizations couldn't hurt either.

I have always found the interplay between religion and politics fascinating. It seems really cynical though, that hard materialists and atheists would encourage co-operation with religious believers, when they have no intention to maintain this relationship in the long term, only use it for their immediate advantage.

I would admire a more hardline approach. What is you justification for toeing the line?

I've never really maintained a hard atheist outlook myself, so I don't have much an issue with it myself. Like, I was raised religiously but sort of phased out of church without any qualm with them and drifted about as an agnostic before picking up Buddhism and getting into religion in the far-east.

@Deleted User I haven't really thought about toeing the line much. If I can make another parable with the Early US I'd argue more often there's more Thomas Jefferson's on the left in that ideology is all that matters as opposed to practical types like maybe George Washington where pragmatic execution of ideology as it applies to the real world is what's important; but to the later I'd certainly say something needs to be carried out to test shit out so people can be raised in the mindset or come into in much the same way as the generation of 1776.

I've also been reading a lot about that time too, so it's all on my mind.

@AaronMk Typically American response. But you are bound to butt heads with other Leftists, like Marxists, who are strict materialists. I didn't even ask you, what are your politics?

@Deleted User Once a fairly middle of the road liberal (though I was also so young it would be more accurate to say I didn't have any politics then) who drifted further left through the George Bush years. Flirted with the likes of Tankies back in '08 or '09. By the time this last election went through I threw in the towell and bailed out into Left-Libertarianism. I've jokingly said I swim the waters between Anarcho-Mutualism to Bolshevism. I don't entirely rule out armed insurrection, it's just a question of if there's anyone who has the merit of making sure it's done right and won't let it degenerate.

I am extremely weary of armed conflict, especially in this day and age. The falling of one regime still plays into the hands of imperialism and capital interests. Destroying and rebuilding is a good way to spend capital and make money, and being able to fund reactionary thugs is a key part of this war profit strategy.

It's not totally unworkable, but it's a big role of the dice for the future. The American revolution could have gone a completely different way early on. If Hamilton's federalists had completely won out over Jefferson's Republicans in the early days and the party didn't have a total meltdown after Hamilton's death then there may have been a class of political aristocracy like in Venice that could have steered the country down a path where we'd have a Doge-like president.

And if all this pissing about of foreign interference in the elections is any indication it's not unlikely the non-revolutionary way either, it's just a fact of life right now, imo. One way or another someone'll pay someone some sugar daddy money.

Muslims. for example, have an allegiance to God first, which transcends nations. The working class need to do the same. So that, even when you fight and destroy, it increases the struggle and brings it to a wider view. Restricting revolutions to certain borders is a fatal error and plays into the chessboard strategy of capitalists.

Nationalism is a trap.

T'is. Though how we're going to get the working class in America here for instance to believe that when the oppinion is that Mexico and China is stealing jobs is going to be the challenge. There'd need to be a new enemy made up to inspire them.

lol

Again, this is a cynical idea, 'invent a new enemy to inspire them'. This is what Fascism does. It does not educate, is distracts.

It is an off-handed remark. But when all what we see is "Made in China/Mexico" on all our products then the mentality is already externalized. I don't have an answer to shift this internally, like getting them to think with class conciousness. It'd be a long trial and error to shift that way of thinking.

Maybe though, setting up something they can control and see the product of their own labor on their own resources and time in their own community would help to shift the mind-set from one without an external foe to more, "We need more of this shit, this shit right here". So all they need is to be told, "You can have more this shit, and I/we are willing to fight for it if you are willing to join in".

It'd be like an extension of the locally sourced trend here; even if that tends to be something the middle-class likes to worry more about than the working poor who just need cheap anything to keep their head above water.

I feel this is too artificial. The economic experience is firmly rooted in marketing and manipulation. It is a cynical business. Even the opposite, 'fresh, local produce' is a marketing meme. It may very well have good effects on consciousness, but it is still in the playing field of consumer memes. Another way to approach this, is to bring the religious experience of people and bring the importance of it back into the day to day society. No more cynicism, but instead increasing the importance in peoples minds, like it has been in the past. These strong convictions can override the market ideology and trappings.

I honestly wouldn't mind bring some good-old community faith back into the thing. Something to simply emphasize being together as an entire unit.

That's exactly right. It gives people a solid foundation that does not depend on consumer life. People are like ghosts nowadays and they need to replant their spiritual roots so that they can navigate the world again with a keen eye.

And like coming back to your using Islam initially, something on that scale can bring people of many nations together; and if it's something that advocates everyone taking up the same language like Latin or Arabic to wholly understand or convey the faith than it can break down national borders. Malcolm X's hate towards white people was dissolved when he first went on Hajj and met plenty of white Muslims that he learned were cool dudes, so they went to see the pyramids and shit together on their pilgrimage. And when he came home he was of a new mind.

Like-wise in Albania I think it is, there's strong inter-faith relations between the Christians and Muslims. There's a festival tradition there where a cross is thrown into a river and people are challenged to dive and retrieve it, and Muslims even join in on the fun. This would be useful to look into so the lines between religions can be blurred and it all doesn't fall apart on an inter-faith crusade.

Religion is an extension of community. But like race, I don't think this is necessary something that has to be blurred. Conflict is not always a good thing. The most violent religions never last very long. Like Roman Paganism or Fascist Mythology. The longest lasting religions need to add stability to communities, especially externally when dealing with others, or else it will cease to exist. All major religions which are 1000 years or more old, have proven some degree of merit in humanity existence.

And exploitation is a secular phenomenon of class, not based in religion.