The left has also allowed itself to be divided over class. As a comrade and teacher I met “cloth-cap elitism”, I wasn’t a real worker. The attitude was the “Workers of the World Unite”, and we’ll let students and teachers tag along. Yet how often have their intellectual energies been driving forces in the movement (Note – I do not consider myself an intellectual).

With divisive terminology used over the years it is not surprising that our movement has been divided. Through our lack of activism based on sound analysis we have allowed a division that calls comrades liberals, and we have allowed identity politics to divide the movement, instead of integrate it, through failure to listen to a section of workers without jobs. Instead identity politics has been manipulated into a competition for decreasing jobs, and increased the internal colonial divide endemic in capitalism.

What is worse is that an increasing number of jobs are not considered slavery. I chose to be a teacher because I believe in the importance of education. But in all my time as a teacher I was never able to educate because of the controls of the 1%-system. Whilst I was always aware of my own wage-slavery it became so much more apparent in retirement reflecting on what a pawn I became.

The important word here is choice, how can I choose to be a slave? And the answer for most people to this question is that they do not. Because they chose they are not slaves. Yet let us examine this choice. The 1%-system allows us to choose from certain professions or careers, so our intellects feel they have made a choice. Then as intellectuals we cannot admit that we have chosen wage-slavery. To hide this error of choice these intellectuals embrace a materialist liberal lifestyle. These intellectuals/liberals develop an approach to their slavery which is acceptance, and avoid at all costs a recognition of its wage-slavery.

Added to this arrogance of choice is an additional arrogance – intellectual arrogance; for many of these people they were taught to see themselves as successes in the 1%-education-system. They were taught to feel superior to other workers who the system created as failures – engendering a different ego, the conflict between successes and failures. I personally met this adversity far too much whilst working in the mass movement.

However what has to be understood is that we are all wage-slaves. For the intellectuals they need to stop considering themselves superior, and for the “traditional workers” whose proportion of the workforce is vastly decreasing they need to stop perceiving themselves as failures in an education system that is designed to create failures.

Liberal intellectuals also need to stop perceiving “mistakes” in the system as mistakes. Much of what we see is intended, if it increases profits for the 1% it is intended. When these Liberals perceive what happens as mistakes, they are deluding themselves and effectively colluding. The traditional workers are given no choice – work for us and we will give you some money to bring up your families – the usual view of wage-slavery. But intellectuals pretend that they have choice, that they control what they do, and this is a much more effective way of enslaving. They choose their jobs, their job description has limitations, but because of their choice they accept this, and they never question. This is their boundary, their cage, their prison, but it is never perceived as such because liberals are comfortable within their cage. These boundaries are also sufficiently wide that fearful intellectuals need never confront the boundaries, and can keep their mortgages and self-esteem.

Conflict is the way out of the cage, conflict of conscience – compassion. Whistle-blowers learn of the limits of their cage, and try to tell the truth; they are currently major targets. This engenders fear in liberals so they avoid conflict. They champion safe causes that the 1% tacitly allows, and satisfy their egos with tilting at windmills.

As the mass movement we have to redefine ourselves. By limiting class descriptions in terms of the traditional worker – peasant and industrial, we have to lose because those jobs are becoming increasingly automated. We cannot accept a middle-class definition as there is no such thing, the middle-classes are simply a different type of wage-slave as many found out after the crash of 2008. We are the 99%.

A PC approach creates division. We do not repress people who disagree because that repression comes out – it has to be expressed. Language was supposed to have been the first step in educating for equality, and not jobs for liberals to enforce repression. There isn’t a future when wage-slaves are separated. There isn’t a future when one wage-slave perceives their type of slavery is better than another. There isn’t a future when we accept intellectual divisions. As wage-slaves we are comrades in the fight against the 1% even though so few of us know.

The left has also allowed itself to be divided over class. As a comrade and teacher I met “cloth-cap elitism”, I wasn’t a real worker. The attitude was the “Workers of the World Unite”, and we’ll let students and teachers tag along. Yet how often have their intellectual energies been driving forces in the movement (Note – I do not consider myself an intellectual).

With divisive terminology used over the years it is not surprising that our movement has been divided. Through our lack of activism based on sound analysis we have allowed a division that calls comrades liberals, and we have allowed identity politics to divide the movement, instead of integrate it, through failure to listen to a section of workers without jobs. Instead identity politics has been manipulated into a competition for decreasing jobs, and increased the internal colonial divide endemic in capitalism.

What is worse is that an increasing number of jobs are not considered slavery. I chose to be a teacher because I believe in the importance of education. But in all my time as a teacher I was never able to educate because of the controls of the 1%-system. Whilst I was always aware of my own wage-slavery it became so much more apparent in retirement reflecting on what a pawn I became.

The important word here is choice, how can I choose to be a slave? And the answer for most people to this question is that they do not. Because they chose they are not slaves. Yet let us examine this choice. The 1%-system allows us to choose from certain professions or careers, so our intellects feel they have made a choice. Then as intellectuals we cannot admit that we have chosen wage-slavery. To hide this error of choice these intellectuals embrace a materialist liberal lifestyle. These intellectuals/liberals develop an approach to their slavery which is acceptance, and avoid at all costs a recognition of its wage-slavery.

Added to this arrogance of choice is an additional arrogance – intellectual arrogance; for many of these people they were taught to see themselves as successes in the 1%-education-system. They were taught to feel superior to other workers who the system created as failures – engendering a different ego, the conflict between successes and failures. I personally met this adversity far too much whilst working in the mass movement.

However what has to be understood is that we are all wage-slaves. For the intellectuals they need to stop considering themselves superior, and for the “traditional workers” whose proportion of the workforce is vastly decreasing they need to stop perceiving themselves as failures in an education system that is designed to create failures.

Liberal intellectuals also need to stop perceiving “mistakes” in the system as mistakes. Much of what we see is intended, if it increases profits for the 1% it is intended. When these Liberals perceive what happens as mistakes, they are deluding themselves and effectively colluding. The traditional workers are given no choice – work for us and we will give you some money to bring up your families – the usual view of wage-slavery. But intellectuals pretend that they have choice, that they control what they do, and this is a much more effective way of enslaving. They choose their jobs, their job description has limitations, but because of their choice they accept this, and they never question. This is their boundary, their cage, their prison, but it is never perceived as such because liberals are comfortable within their cage. These boundaries are also sufficiently wide that fearful intellectuals need never confront the boundaries, and can keep their mortgages and self-esteem.

Conflict is the way out of the cage, conflict of conscience – compassion. Whistle-blowers learn of the limits of their cage, and try to tell the truth; they are currently major targets. This engenders fear in liberals so they avoid conflict. They champion safe causes that the 1% tacitly allows, and satisfy their egos with tilting at windmills.

As the mass movement we have to redefine ourselves. By limiting class descriptions in terms of the traditional worker – peasant and industrial, we have to lose because those jobs are becoming increasingly automated. We cannot accept a middle-class definition as there is no such thing, the middle-classes are simply a different type of wage-slave as many found out after the crash of 2008. We are the 99%.

A PC approach creates division. We do not repress people who disagree because that repression comes out – it has to be expressed. Language was supposed to have been the first step in educating for equality, and not jobs for liberals to enforce repression. There isn’t a future when wage-slaves are separated. There isn’t a future when one wage-slave perceives their type of slavery is better than another. There isn’t a future when we accept intellectual divisions. As wage-slaves we are comrades in the fight against the 1% even though so few of us know.

First published on my blog at http://zandtao.wordpress.com