Kim Jong Il online dating

[GracchusBabeuf]

qHkWv1vHtHk
Dk_DHh5iLrk

:cool: PMSL :lol:

[Il Medico]

:lol:LOL:lol:

[Prairie Fire]

Best case scenario, the "humour" is not funny/clever enough to get a response out of me.

As for the subject matter of the clip, this is routine vile garbage that propagates imperialist aspirations for the korean penninsula.

All of the main points are there:

1. The DPRK is the major threat to soveriegnty on the Korean penninsula, and is aggressive towards the rest of the world.

2. The DPRK is anti-American for unknown reasons, and is a threat to the sovereignty and security of the United states (not the other way around).

3. The DPRK's weapons program is irrational/illegitimate, as well as aggressive.

4. Kim Jong Il is an irrational leader, and his position is illegitimate ( while I may agree with this in a certain sense, any WPK leader in the DPRK would be painted in the same way by the bourgeois media).

5. Vague references to alleged crimes against humynity. In this case, their "humynitarian" appeal at the end of both clips, states their conviction that people are dying, but cites no sources or makes no reference to a specific incident or even statistics. They don't even make an accusation about what the cause of death is for all of these people that are allegedly dieing.

Anyways, even without the reactionary imperialist purpose, this is not remotely entertaining.

The Korean people ("North" and "South") have a right to self determination without intervention, and despite their revisionist party, I would like to see some of the "left" devote even half of the zeal with which they criticize the DPRK, to organizing and raising the politics of the working class, and resisting Capitalism instead of a politically unpopular state on another continent.

Quit playing the "loyal opposition" to the imperialist foriegn policy of the United States. You don't have to advocate Juche and Songun politics, or even agree with the stances often taken by the WPK, but becoming a ditto-head of the dominant narrative on the DPRK, and denouncing them at every turn, is just as incorrect (and reactionary as well).

[Il Medico]

Best case scenario, the humour is not enough to get a response out of me.

Otherwise, this is a vile clip that propagates imperialist aspirations for the korean penninsula.

All of the main points are there:

1. The DPRK is the major threat to soveriegnty on the Korean penninsula, and is aggressive towards the rest of the world.

2. The DPRK is anti-American for unknown reasons, and is a threat to the sovereignty and security of the United states (not the other way around).

3. The DPRK's weapons program is irrational/illegitimate, as well as aggressive.

4. Kim Jong Il is an irrational leader, and his position is illegitimate ( while I may agree with this in a certain sense, any WPK/Socialist candidate in the DPRK would be painted in the same way by the bourgeois media).

5. Vague references to alleged crimes against humynity. In this case, their "humynitarian" appeal at the end of both clips, states their conviction that people are dying, but cites no sources or makes no reference to a specific incident or even statistics. They don't even make an accusation about what the cause of death is, for all of these people that are dieing.

Anyways, even without the reactionary imperialist purpose, this is not remotely entertaining.

Korean has a right to self determination, and despite their revisionist party, I would like to see some of the "left" who criticize them devote even half of that energy to organizing and raising the politics of the working class.

Quit playing the "loyal opposition" to the imperialist foriegn policy of the United States. You don't have to advocate Juche and Songun politics, or even agree with the stances generally often by the WPK, but become a ditto-head of the dominant narrative on the DPRK, and denouncing them at every turn is the other incorrect stance to take.
1. Chill out comrade. It is comedy, meant to be funny. You take it way to seriously.
2. Stop replacing the 'a' with and 'y' . I don't know why certain feminist have such a hatred of words with man in them. The fact is your messing with the English language to promote something that could easily be construed as sexism, so please just stop.

[Prairie Fire]

1. Chill out comrade. It is comedy, meant to be funny. You take it way to seriously.



Are you putting forward the the concept that "humour" is a neutral concept, and does not reflect class aspirations and the dominant power structure?

Here is a joke:

Jesus is sitting in a bar.

A man with a limp walks into the bar, and orders a beer. He sees Jesus, and asks the bartender " Is that Jesus christ?" The bartender says yes, so the man orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and heals his limping leg. The man is so happy, he does a jig out of the bar.

Another man with a bad back walks into the bar and orders a beer. He sees Jesus, and asks the bartender "Is that Jesus christ?" The bartender says yes, so the man orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and heals his bad back. The man is so happy, he backflips out of the bar.

A third man, a unionized constuction worker with a broken arm, walks in and orders a beer. He see's Jesus and says " Is that Jesus over there?" The bartender says yes, so the Union worker orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and is about to heal his broken arm, but the worker stops him.

"No thanks, lord. I'm drawing disability"

* * *
This is an actual joke, publihed in a free newspaper (generally used for advertising) in my hometown.

Moral of Joke: Unionized workers are lazy, always looking for a way to work the system. Workers are the ones who are lazy, not their employers, Unions are tyrrany, and the working class is a burden on tax money that could be better spent on war and corporate welfare.

Now, without even mentioning the various ethnic and gender jokes I've heard over the course of my life, I just want you (and the various other people who tell me that " It's just a joke" when I take issue with bourgeois analysis,) to maybe get a grasp of what I'm talking about here.

Humour, like everything else, reflects the class relations to power and the dominant ideas of the ruling class. There is no neutrality.

[An archist]

That's not the case with all jokes.
For example

Two pizza's are sitting in an oven.
One pizza says to other: 'Whew, it's so hot in here'
The other says 'Agh! A talking pizza!'

[Il Medico]

I have no idea why that is so funny. ^ I laughed quite hard.

[F9]

That's not the case with all jokes.
For example

Two pizza's are sitting in an oven.
One pizza says to other: 'Whew, it's so hot in here'
The other says 'Agh! A talking pizza!'

lol, old one, with lots of variations anw :tt2:

PF:You seem to take way too serious anything..

[Pirate Utopian]

Here is a joke:

Jesus is sitting in a bar.

A man with a limp walks into the bar, and orders a beer. He sees Jesus, and asks the bartender " Is that Jesus christ?" The bartender says yes, so the man orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and heals his limping leg. The man is so happy, he does a jig out of the bar.

Another man with a bad back walks into the bar and orders a beer. He sees Jesus, and asks the bartender "Is that Jesus christ?" The bartender says yes, so the man orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and heals his bad back. The man is so happy, he backflips out of the bar.

A third man, a unionized constuction worker with a broken arm, walks in and orders a beer. He see's Jesus and says " Is that Jesus over there?" The bartender says yes, so the Union worker orders him a beer as well.

Jesus says "bless you", and is about to heal his broken arm, but the worker stops him.

"No thanks, lord. I'm drawing disability"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA :lol::lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


This is an actual joke, publihed in a free newspaper (generally used for advertising) in my hometown.

Moral of Joke: Unionized workers are lazy, always looking for a way to work the system.
Oh this was a example of an "evil" joke...:o

[Trystan]

Best case scenario, the "humour" is not funny/clever enough to get a response out of me.

As for the subject matter of the clip, this is routine vile garbage that propagates imperialist aspirations for the korean penninsula.

All of the main points are there:

1. The DPRK is the major threat to soveriegnty on the Korean penninsula, and is aggressive towards the rest of the world.

2. The DPRK is anti-American for unknown reasons, and is a threat to the sovereignty and security of the United states (not the other way around).

3. The DPRK's weapons program is irrational/illegitimate, as well as aggressive.

4. Kim Jong Il is an irrational leader, and his position is illegitimate ( while I may agree with this in a certain sense, any WPK leader in the DPRK would be painted in the same way by the bourgeois media).

5. Vague references to alleged crimes against humynity. In this case, their "humynitarian" appeal at the end of both clips, states their conviction that people are dying, but cites no sources or makes no reference to a specific incident or even statistics. They don't even make an accusation about what the cause of death is for all of these people that are allegedly dieing.

Anyways, even without the reactionary imperialist purpose, this is not remotely entertaining.

The Korean people ("North" and "South") have a right to self determination without intervention, and despite their revisionist party, I would like to see some of the "left" devote even half of the zeal with which they criticize the DPRK, to organizing and raising the politics of the working class, and resisting Capitalism instead of a politically unpopular state on another continent.

Quit playing the "loyal opposition" to the imperialist foriegn policy of the United States. You don't have to advocate Juche and Songun politics, or even agree with the stances often taken by the WPK, but becoming a ditto-head of the dominant narrative on the DPRK, and denouncing them at every turn, is just as incorrect (and reactionary as well).



So . . .



Long story short:


http://irldefender.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crying-baby.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

blah blah blah... ...evil imperialists... ...blah blah blah

...yawn.

[Il Medico]

So . . .



Long story short:


http://irldefender.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crying-baby.jpg
Ha ha ha. :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wish I could see the video so I could understand what all the damn fuss is about. PF may or may not be overreacting, I can't tell, but you guys definately don't appear to be helping matters at all.

[Prairie Fire]

An archist:

That's not the case with all jokes.

It is the case in the situation with the Kim jong Il clips posted here.

Pirate Utopian:


Oh this was a example of an "evil" joke...http://www.revleft.com/vb/kim-jong-il-t110944/revleft/smilies/blush.gif


That was an example of an anti-worker joke (ditch the "good and evil" world outlook,please), but more specifically an example of how humour is subject to the ideas of the ruling class and used to propogate these ideas in a society with class divisions.

Fuserg9:

PF:You seem to take way too serious anything..

And yourself, and many others here, don't take politics seriously enough.

If you want to turn off your critical thinking and laugh at anything that is spit out at you by youtube, then do so, but take it somewhere else than revleft.

In theory, revleft is supposed to be for politics.


Ulster socialist:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Fire
blah blah blah... ...evil imperialists... ...blah blah blah
...yawn.


Yes, that is the essence of what I said.:glare:

All of my positions can be reduced to "blah blah blah", and my objections to imperialism are 2-dimensional bourgeois moralism on my part.

(sigh)....Revleft.

Only on revleft is taking a political stand, and doing it in a wordy way, a negative trait.


Trystan:

So . . .



Long story short:


http://irldefender.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/crying-baby.jpg

I can't see what the image that you have posted here is. It didn't load.

[Dr Mindbender]

In theory, revleft is supposed to be for politics.

but this is chit chat.




I can't see what the image that you have posted here is. It didn't load.


It was a crying baby.

[Pirate Utopian]

So PF what do you watch/like/do for shits and giggles?

[Dr Mindbender]

So PF what do you watch/like/do for shits and giggles?

No! Shits and giggles are bourgeioise! Only back breaking tolling and un questioning dedication to Enver Hoxha is tolerated.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No! Shits and giggles are bourgeioise! Only back breaking tolling and un questioning dedication to Enver Hoxha is tolerated. This is a shame, Ulster Socialist. Although I am Hoxhaist, the only thing I disagree with him is his views on Maoist. He overcriticised it, I would say. But yeah, it cool to laugh on anti-workers joke. :thumbdown:

[Pogue]

The irony of Stalinists calling us anti-worker is delicious.

BANNING STRIKES - FOR THE WORKING CLASS!

[Il Medico]

Oh, come now this is chit-chat. Everyone here is getting their panties in a bunch for nothing.

*NoXion*
It is a video of Kim Jong Il online dating and E-harmony spoof. I is pretty funny. It is making fun of Kim Jong Il. I don't know why people would object to that, he is a dictator who is ruining the name of communism. Even the most advit supporters of North Korea think he is a nutjob. So I don't really see the outrage over a video on chit-chat.

[Jazzratt]

I couldn't be bothered watching the video, it probably wasn't funny. Not because of the underlying politics but because most of the videos I've watched that have been touted on here as "hilarious" were a complete waste of time.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Best case scenario, the "humour" is not funny/clever enough to get a response out of me.Well? Isn't that a contradictory sentence? Anyway, criticizing dictators is one of the most revolutionary things ever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe I'm just an America-hating touchy PC liberal, but I wouldn't trust the Yanks to make a joke about Kim Jong-il that was both A) not based on or involving some stupid stereotype and B) actually funny.

[Glenn Beck]

Well? Isn't that a contradictory sentence? Anyway, criticizing dictators is one of the most revolutionary things ever.

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/7273/gobelibarealvu2.jpg

[Wanted Man]

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/7273/gobelibarealvu2.jpg
Ah, so you support police brutality against our fellow workers? *Insert obligatory Orwell quote*

[GracchusBabeuf]

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/7273/gobelibarealvu2.jpgThe most amazing argument ever!:laugh: Coming from a cop supporter, too!

[Prairie Fire]

Socialist:


Well? Isn't that a contradictory sentence?


No. I meant that best case scenario, it isn't funny; worst case scenario, it is disgusting bourgie analysis and rationalization of imperialism.



Anyway, criticizing dictators is one of the most revolutionary things ever.


:rolleyes:.

Criticizing Kim Jong Il (or Ahmadinejad, recently,) from a standpoint of being "anti-dictator", is kind of like attacking Islam in general, post 9/11, on the grounds of being "anti-thiest". It is shameless opportunism.

You have a go at a persyn that is already being viciously slandered in the bourgeois press, and you do this on so-called "revolutionary" pretexts. You attack entities that are already unpopular (based on hearsay, might I add), and give others who are much worse a "pass", because it isn't in vogue to have a go at them.

If you want to be "revolutionary", why don't you criticize someone more close to home. Maybe someone whom the bourgeois press has not declared open season on. If you want to criticize dictatorship, criticize the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in your own country, rather than throwing rocks at countries that don't submit to Washingtons foreign policy.

I don't know. It's kind of like beating up toddlers, and calling yourself a "boxer".

Ulster Socialist:


but this is chit chat.


Apparently Many revleft posters have the ability to turn their political world outlook on and off, when it is convenient to them.

I don't have that quality, and neither do the capitalists for that matter.



It was a crying baby.


Ah. I see.

Taking an issue with the imperialist agenda for the Korean penninsula certainly is infantile.

Sorry to be a "buzz kill".


No! Shits and giggles are bourgeioise! Only back breaking tolling and un questioning dedication to Enver Hoxha is tolerated.

Right, because critical thinking in regards to analyzing media is dogmatic drone behaviour.:rolleyes:

H-L-V-S

The irony of Stalinists calling us anti-worker is delicious.

BANNING STRIKES - FOR THE WORKING CLASS!

Troll.

CaptainJack:


Oh, come now this is chit-chat.

This is also revleft. In theory, a revolutionary stand should be consistent in all things, but especially on a forum that is (ideally) geared towards revolutionary discussion and action.


Everyone here is getting their panties in a bunch for nothing.

Because getting upset is a female trait ("...panties in a bunch"). :rolleyes:

This ties into my concerns on this thread, wether it be getting others to ditch reactionary bourgeois analysis (in satirical form,) ,or to ditch reactionary expressions (like that one).


I don't know why people would object to that, he is a dictator who is ruining the name of communism.

Okay, seriously, quit calling yourself a "Marxist". It is offensive to actual Marxists.

I'm not going to have the " (X) ruined the name of communism" discussion again, because I have already covered that at least 4 or 5 times already.

If someone else has a link to one of those many arguments on that topic since I got here in 2006, feel free to post it.


Even the most advit supporters of North Korea think he is a nutjob

Right. He is insane, and the actions of the US and it's allies on the Korean Penninsula are therefore sane and rational in contrast.



So I don't really see the outrage over a video on chit-chat.


You would if you would read my posts, and lose the "LOL, chill out" responses.

[F9]

And yourself, and many others here, don't take politics seriously enough.

If you want to turn off your critical thinking and laugh at anything that is spit out at you by youtube, then do so, but take it somewhere else than revleft.

In theory, revleft is supposed to be for politics.

looool, and like the old good quote
Internet SERIOUS BUZZINESSSS
hahaha
sho what you suggest?Be boring idiots and just kick ourselves around all day?The only thing this site should exist to be so we fight?Sorry but Revleft isnt a propaganda place, isnt a place so you serious people can get to discuss nicely without having us immature and stupid noisy people laugh a bit!NO, laugh is BANNED.Laugh is counter-revolutionarie, those who are having fun should be shooted!
Haha are you fucking serious?Just stop visiting chit-chat, its simple.Stop the elitist attitude, ohz da Revleft is serious and we want to only be around tearing ourselves, dont like it go elsewhere.You know what?We arent going anywhere because you say so, grow some humor, its not bad laughing every now and then you know.
Geesh with some people around here.............

Fuserg9:star:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Socialist:
Criticizing Kim Jong Il (or Ahmadinejad, recently,) from a standpoint of being "anti-dictator", is kind of like attacking Islam in general, post 9/11, on the grounds of being "anti-thiest". It is shameless opportunism.

You have a go at a persyn that is already being viciously slandered in the bourgeois press, and you do this on so-called "revolutionary" pretexts. You attack entities that are already unpopular (based on hearsay, might I add), and give others who are much worse a "pass", because it isn't in vogue to have a go at them.

If you want to be "revolutionary", why don't you criticize someone more close to home. Maybe someone whom the bourgeois press has not declared open season on. If you want to criticize dictatorship, criticize the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in your own country, rather than throwing rocks at countries that don't submit to Washingtons foreign policy.

I don't know. It's kind of like beating up toddlers, and calling yourself a "boxer"The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. And who're you calling a toddler? The nuclear-armed Kim, leading the most militarized country on earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops), is as dangerous as any western imperialist to the Korean working class. As you have said earlier, you actively support the ruling class of DPRK while opposing the ruling class of the west which seems hypocritical at best.

[Il Medico]

CaptainJack:



This is also revleft. In theory, a revolutionary stand should be consistent in all things, but especially on a forum that is (ideally) geared towards revolutionary discussion and action.
Yes, that what politics, discrimination, learning, and almost every other fucking forum on revleft is for. Chit-Chat, is just that, Chit-Chat. It is bullshit, were people tell jokes, play games, and do stupid stuff, get over it! If you don't like the non-serious attitude of Chit-Chat then don't post here!




Because getting upset is a female trait ("...panties in a bunch"). :rolleyes:

This ties into my concerns on this thread, wether it be getting others to ditch reactionary bourgeois analysis (in satirical form,) ,or to ditch reactionary expressions (like that one).Well, I guess I am a women, because your elitist attitude and utter stupidity has succeed in pissing me off. Would you prefer I said "Your making a mountain out of a mole hill", you probably would have still objected, saying something completely idiotic like "No you can't say a phase! Every real leftist knows that the bourgeois have long oppressed mole hills from becoming mountains because mole hills are women!" It is amazing how fucks like you find everything sexist, while it is yourself who has the ego driven elitist superiority complex.




Okay, seriously, quit calling yourself a "Marxist". It is offensive to actual Marxists. Okay, seriously, quit calling yourself "intelligent". It is offensive to people who actually have a brain. I think it is quite funny how you could consider yourself a Marxist, when you defend any two bit despot who calls themselves "communist". I also love yor high and mighty attitdue, that only proves you are a petty bourgeois ass, who has no real concept of class struggle. You might want to learn what real Marxist believe and stop being such an ass.


I'm not going to have the " (X) ruined the name of communism" discussion again, because I have already covered that at least 4 or 5 times already.
Lets see, the bourgeois claim we are evil people who want to take away the people's freedom. Then fuckhead 1,2, and 3 come along, calling themselves 'communist', but instead implement a oppressive dictatorship. I wonder which side that helps? Then it helps even less when fuckhead #4 (You) comes along and starts defending these idiots, I wonder who the common man is going to believe?




Right. He is insane, and the actions of the US and it's allies on the Korean Penninsula are therefore sane and rational in contrast. Yes, because I think a crazy fucking despot is a crazy fuck, I therefore support imperialism. Your arguments make such sense!:rolleyes: I am a Marxist, I despise dictators, capitalism, oppression, and states. I am against any fuck who oppresses anyone. It seems as long as they say "I commie" you can turn a blind eye to these atrocities. I think I figured out what you are. Lets have a look. You are clearly anti-men, thus you support discrimination. You attack anyone who disagrees with you with nonsense and slander. And you support totalitarianism and genocide if the person doing it shares your world view. Congratulation, your a Nazi. The forum you would most likely enjoy a long stay at is OI. Welcome to the idiotic right, enjoy your stay!




You would if you would read my posts, and lose the "LOL, chill out" responses.Enjoy your non chill-out response, maybe you'll realize what an ass you have been.

[Prairie Fire]

Socialist:

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend

With cat like grace, you evade my point.

I was not endorsing the "enemies of our enemies". I was saying that attacking the same forces that are under attack from the United States and other imperialists (literally and verbally), is opportunism, especially in light of the fact that many of these forces are engaged in a just struggle against invasion and subsequent occupation or aggression (with the threat of invasion/occupation).

Criticizing the "foreign policy adversary of the month" is opportunism because, despite it's intentions, it plays into the agenda of the bourgeoisie. It strengthens their narrative, and propagates their objectives.


And who're you calling a toddler? The nuclear-armed Kim, leading the most militarized country on earth (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops)

Why? because they have the largest concentration of soldier to citizen ratio?

Your analysis lacks context. The DPRK is a country under seige.
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2009/D39105.htm#1
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2008/D38060.htm#1

To criticize their defensive build up (and it is defensive; un-like other countries, they don't have troops deployed abroad) is metaphysical and ridiculous, given the circumstances that they are living under.


As you have said earlier, you actively support the ruling class of DPRK while opposing the ruling class of the west which seems hypocritical at best.

Nooooooo, that is not what I said.

I said that I support the right of the Korean People to self determination, free of external intervention.

This article was co-written by myself:http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/letter-of-criticism-to-the-rural-peoples-party/

Captain Jack:

Yes, that what politics, discrimination, learning, and almost every other fucking forum on revleft is for. Chit-Chat, is just that, Chit-Chat. It is bullshit, were people tell jokes, play games, and do stupid stuff, get over it!

Everyone, yourself included, seems to be misconstruing my concerns as being "Serious" vs frivolous.

The issue is not the light tone or lack of practicality of discussions in chit chat.

The issue is, in the case of this thread, that the film clip posted, and the subject of the thread, is vile propaganda for the purpose of undermining Korean sovereignty.

If you want to have a section of the board for lighter discussion and humour, fair enough, but there is a world of difference between silly small talk and reactionary political stances. This film clip is a representation of the latter, and that wouldn't bother me except that people are agreeing with it.

If I saw you take a backwards stance anywhere else on the forum, I would call you on it, and I have:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/nature-stalinism-split-t109719/index.html?t=109719&highlight=nature+stalinism

Is Chit chat going to be our own little sanctuary for reactionary politics, above and beyond criticism?


If you don't like the non-serious attitude of Chit-Chat then don't post here!


Revleft: Love it or leave it.:rolleyes:

Yes, because that's what revolutionaries do: we accept the way things are, or we go somewhere else. Revolutionary transformation and struggle for change is out of the question.

Also, as I said the issue is not "serious" discussion vs "non-serious" discussion (see above). The issue is bourgeois political lines present in chit chat, and the fact that they are not only being disseminated, but defended.


Well, I guess I am a women, because your elitist attitude and utter stupidity has succeed in pissing me off.

"Elitist attitude"? I am not upholding my own status, I'm upholding revolutionary politics in the face of your opportunistic apologism.

I am not an an "elitist" for calling you out on the shit political lines that you have been advancing in this course of this thread, and pretty much every thread that I have seen you post on.

And no, I am not stupid, and niether are my positions.



Would you prefer I said "Your making a mountain out of a mole hill", you probably would have still objected, saying something completely idiotic like "No you can't say a phase! Every real leftist knows that the bourgeois have long oppressed mole hills from becoming mountains because mole hills are women!"


When all else fails, attribute an absurd point of view to the persyn that you are arguing against, and defeat that. When you are done arguing with characters that you have created in your own head, we can continue.

Okay,

1. Even "mountains out of mole hills" I would have disagreed with, not because of the implications behind the expression, but because I am not exaggerating the situation.

The politics in the clip at the begging of the thread were reactionary and vile. It was not simply frivolous entertainment for entertainments sake. It was overt propaganda, complete with a more serious (but vague) condemnation of the DPRK at the end of both skits.

2. This comment shows that you are resisting my points with ridiculous rationalization. I pointed out that your previous expression was anachronistic to those with aspiring towards liberation, and you responded by attributing a ridiculous statement to me, and inserting some profanity into your paragraph.


It is amazing how fucks like you find everything sexist, while it is yourself who has the go driven elitist superiority complex.

Thank you for taking my qualms with some of your more anachronistic expressions, and turning it into a bizarre absolute (not to mention a persynality defect on my part).

I don't find "everything sexist"; I find many comments posted on revleft to be sexist.
If I find a disproportionate number of your posts to be sexist, that means that you have some scores from your old conscience that you need to settle.

You feel that I am insinuating something here? This coming from the "Honey" guy.

I am not elitist, nor do I have a superiority complex. I have a developed, solid political outlook, and you could too. The fact that you don't, is your own fault and no one elses.

I am making a political criticism, and many here have (predictably) spinned the issue into my concerns being a persynality problem on my part.


Okay, seriously, quit calling yourself "intelligent".

erm, I didn't. I said that you weren't a Marxist, and that the Korean people have a right to self determination.



It is offensive to people who actually have a brain.


Oh! Ba-Zing!

See, what you did was took what I said, and changed it into a jab at my intelligence, or alleged lack thereof.

I guess you showed me.


I think it is quite funny how you could consider yourself a Marxist, when you defend any two bit despot who calls themselves "communist".

WRONG.

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/letter-of-criticism-to-the-rural-peoples-party/
(Co-written by myself)

Incidently, there is middle ground between fawning Jucheism and parroting the line of the bourgeois press regarding the DPRK.



I also love yor high and mighty attitdue, that only proves you are a petty bourgeois ass, who has no real concept of class struggle. You might want to learn what real Marxist believe and stop being such an ass.

What?

Okay, let me dissect this...

a. I have a high and mighty attitude.
b. having a high and mighty attitude is a class characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie
c. I don't understand class struggle.

Okay...

A and B don't seem to be linked...

As for C, http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1464607&postcount=4

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1464700&postcount=6

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1465272&postcount=10

Okay, anways.... We have strayed so far past the issue at hand, that now I'm defending myself from non-sequiters and other allegations unrelated to the issue.

Back on topic.


You might want to learn what real Marxist believe and stop being such an ass.

So real Marxists are those that attack foreign policy adversaries of the United States and accept bourgeois historical narratives at face value?

I was under the impression that real Marxists support the right of all nations to self determination, and real Marxists exercise critical thinking when subjected to the news and views of the ruling class.

so now I'm an "ass"? I thought I was a "fuck".


Lets see, the bourgeois claim we are evil people who want to take away the people's freedom. Then fuckhead 1,2, and 3 come along, calling themselves 'communist', but instead implement a oppressive dictatorship.

What have I told you about your "talking points" arguing style?

Yours truly,May 26th 2009:

To Captain Jack, please lose the "talking points" one-liner arguing style. If you are going to make bold statements, ... then you had best be prepared to back that up with statistics and sources, and do so.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1453746&postcount=9

I see that you have decided to continue to make bold statements without any sort of sources, explanation, or even specific allegations/accusations!

You aren't going to let this slide, so I guess I'm going to have to re-itterate an old and tired argument.

No. (X) did not give socialism a "bad name". Capitalism gave socialism a bad name.

Think about it: do you think that there is ever going to be a Marxist that will get good press from the bourgeois media?

If everything goes according to plan, Marxism means that capitalists get expropriated and lose control of the state. They can no longer survive by exploiting the labour of others, and their class is eventually phased out completely.

You think that the biggest threat to capitalism is going to get good press?

The bourgeoisie owns the media (this isn't paranoia, just a basic fact. The rich own the newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, most major websites, so basically all mediums of mass communication), so all media is the mouthpeice for the bourgeoisie's class interests.

So how do you think all socialism will be portrayed?

http://ventdauvergne.canalblog.com/images/Karl_Marx.jpg

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You said I don't understand class struggle. Well, apparently you are struggling with the concept of the struggle between the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the ideology of the working class.


Then it helps even less when fuckhead #4 (You) comes along and starts defending these idiots, I wonder who the common man is going to believe?

Maybe I'll let Karl answer this one:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

Karl Marx, The German Ideology

also, as Lenin put it,

"Imperialist ideology also penetrates the working class. No Chinese Wall separates it from the other classes"
-Lenin, Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism

The "common man", as you put it, will generally follow the dominant narrative available on these countries and persynalities (aka, the views held/propagated by the bourgeoisie), because this is the only viewpoint available in the mass media.

This is why it is important for revolutionaries to raise the politics of the working class, to counter the politics of the bourgeoisie, and arm the workers with politics of their own.


Yes, because I think a crazy fucking despot is a crazy fuck, I therefore support imperialism

We already had this discussion with Dimentio (aka Serpent)when he re-gurgitated this line.

It is support for imperialism, because you are re-itterating the dominant narrative on Kim Jong il, that he is insane.

What has he done that is "fucking crazy"? You say that with conviction, but as with the rest of your "talking points" arguing style, you don't see any particular need to follow that up with any specific concerns that someone like me could address individually.

To say that Kim Jong Il is insane (or "fucking crazy", as you put it), or that the actions of the DPRK are insane, is to not only to paint their foreign and domestic policy as irrational (Which it isn't. For better or for worse, everything that they do has a purpose), but to make the policy of the United States and it's allies as the basis for comparrison.

When the DPRK was co-operating on the six party talks, they were seen as rational. When they launched a communications sattellite, they were seen as batshit looney.
Apparently then, the basis of Korea's sanity is how their actions play into imperialist
agenda.

You are supporting imperialism by adopting and repeating this analysis, because I know that this viewpoint is not based on your persynal experiences, so it is therefore just repeating what you heard in a mass media outlet.


I am a Marxist,

No you're not.



I am a Marxist, I despise dictators, capitalism, oppression, and states.

1. Marxism is more concerned with dictatorships of classes, specifically the over-throw of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a class, and the rise of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class.

2. this "oppression" that you despise is vague, which ties into...

3. ... your contempt for "states".:rolleyes:

This is a dead give away that you are not a Marxist, no matter what you think you are.

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

Marx recognized that a dictatorship of the proletariat as a class was necesary to hold political power, and suppress the political power of the bourgeoisie (in essence,a state is merely the intstrument to exercise political power of a class).

As long as there were classes , there would be a state.

In order to abolish classes, something was needed after the over-throw of capitalism, to prevent the resurfacing of the bourgeoisie, and to vest political power into the hands of the working class.

For more on this, read Lenin, The State and Revolution.


I am agianst any fuck who oppresses anyone.

So you are opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Out of curiosity, how do you see political power being taken from the bourgeoisie that currently hold it?

This is why class vague analysis, especially a blanket statement like that, is not useful to scientific socialists, especially Marxists.


It seems as long as the say "I commie" you can turn a blind eye to arosities.

1. In this thread in particular, no, that was not my position.
My position was defending the right of the Korean people ("North" and "South") to self determination, free of external intereference and imperialist ambitions.

2. No, that is not even remotely close to the truth. I think that Kim Jong Il and the Workers Party of Korea are revisionists (read the paper that I co-wrote with Winter). I am heavilly critical of many who are generally considered communists, so no, your bold statement in regards to my politics does not correspond to reality.



I think I figured out what you are.


:lol:

You're not even in the ballpark, so far. Please, do tell.


You are clearly anti-men, thus you support discrimination.

I'm anti-male chauvenism. There is a difference.

Typical. Anyone who is against discrimination "supports it", and anyone who objects to being discriminated against is accused of discriminating themselves.

Next.


You attack anyone who disagrees with you with nonsese and slander

My "attacks" include sources, historical evidence and a detailed explanation of specific circumstances. My positions are legitmate and carefully layed out.

On the flipside, you have been unable to address me in this post without using the words "fuck", "ass", or "stupid".

Next.


And you support totalitarianism and genocide if the person doing it shares your world view.

I already countered your bullshit "Totalitarianism" line allready:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1453746&postcount=9

As for the "genocide" line, are we going to reference a specific incident today, or no?
I guess you have been vague about all other accusations up to this point, why start getting specific now.

Next.


Congratluation, your a Nazi.

And you are a "Marxist", apparently :lol:.

Next.


Wlecome to the idoitic right, enjoy your stay!


Well,I guess you showed me. I am humbled by your vague accusations and bold statements without explanation.


Enjoy your non chill-out response, maybe you'll realize what an ass you have been

I'm not even going to point out the irony.

[Il Medico]

I am a Marxist

No you're not.

Yes, because I am also not a Bisexual either. Also, just to add, PF has shown me that I am really a sexist, racist, pro-capitalist, oppressor of women, and a complete fascist! I bow to your superiority in judging what I believe in. :rolleyes:

Also, on your nice Marx quote....THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT!
Marxist are opposed to states, as in nation states. (Which is what your are supporting in you nice self determination lecture) It matters not if a state is imperialistic or not, in fact any state is in support of nationalism. Imperialist countries are the ones who use this national pride to justify their greed and warmongering. As nice as Anti-imperialism is, it is specifically for a capitalist world that is not going to change. This is because it support 'National Liberation" which draws on feeling of patriotism to free a country from the hands of another, which is nationalistic, while Marxism is international in focus. The creation of more independent, nationalist states is a determent to the cause of Marxism. The fact is Marxism requires the abolition of all nation states, not just the imperialistic ones.


politics country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


We believe that that a one world government or state if you wish, is a necessary evil, that will be set up by the working class after the revolution. This is because it is required for reaching post sacristy levels of production and assimilating the bourgeois into the working class. However, this government would not be nationalistic in nature, nor would it oppress anyone as you implied. When these mesaures are accomplished the government or state will be disbanded. Thus, Marxist theory and Marxism is inherently anti-State in both uses of the word. But you would have know that if 'YOU' were a Marxist.

[Bilan]

This is getting a little out of hand.

[Il Medico]

This is getting a little out of hand.
Then close the thread. There was no reason for this thread to got outside the realm of humor, but it did. The bickering will continue unless the thread is closed. Arguments like this belong in other forums.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, because I am also not a Bisexual either. Also, just to add, PF has shown me that I am really a sexist, racist, pro-capitalist, oppressor of women, and a complete fascist! I bow to your superiority in judging what I believe in. :rolleyes:

Please show me where she said that your a sexist, racist, pro-capitalist, oppressor of women, and a complete fascist. She was pointing out the irony, not accusing you. Certainly your last part is also the same, talking it to extreme. In other word, your a completely lose at word and have to take something radical in order to divert the point she said.

[al8]

I have nothing to add to Prairie Fires sound and well grounded political political line on the bourgeois content aspect of the video. She is absolutely correct and has shown it thoroughly in power of 10!

But the video is also not funny because it does an atrocious job of the northkorean accent. It's like a cheep replica of the one used in Captain America. The content has no punchline, is shallow and thin. Over all what one would expect from a mainstream american mediocre "comedy"-sketch.

[al8]

Just to emphasize how poorly the online dating theme was worked. It's good to see how funny the actual thing can be;

8FefWp_4B0k

[Il Medico]

Please show me where she said that your a sexist, racist, pro-capitalist, oppressor of women, and a complete fascist. She was pointing out the irony, not accusing you. Certainly your last part is also the same, talking it to extreme. In other word, your a completely lose at word and have to take something radical in order to divert the point she said.
Racist and Fascist were added for emphasis. However, in the post above she accused me of not being a Marxist, which I am, supporting bourgeois propaganda, (pro-capitalist) and in other threads she has accused me of chauvinism (oppressor of women and sexist). She presents a Marxist-Leninist view of communism, which is different from traditional Marxism. However, her lack of understanding of the difference or insistence that Marxist-Leninism is the only valid form of Marxism, does not make me 'not a Marxist'. As for my last part, I was stating that she is not a traditional Marxist, or just Marxist. She is clearly a Marxist-Leninist, if her arguments mean anything. How else would you explain her lack of agreement or understanding of how Marxism is implicitly anti-state, other then that she is a supporter of one-country socialism, a Marxist-Leninist idea, not a Marxist one.(It is also suggested by her attack on revisionist) Also, is there anything that my rather basic explanation of Marxism was wrong on? No.
I don't see how I dodged her point, I address her comment that I was not a Marxist and did not understand Marxism directly.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Racist and Fascist were added for emphasis.Good thing you step into the 12-step program. (:tt2:)


However, in the post above she accused me of not being a Marxist, which I am, supporting bourgeois propaganda, (pro-capitalist) As you should know, she said this in term as you should not accuse her of not being Marxist.


and in other threads she has accused me of chauvinism (oppressor of women and sexist).[quote] She explained it well. Your attack on her misspelling (despite she is very aware of it) is one of them.

[quote]She presents a Marxist-Leninist view of communism, which is different from traditional Marxism. how you would explain Traditional Marxism? Marx DID argue for worker's state.


However, her lack of understanding of the difference or insistence that Marxist-Leninism is the only valid form of Marxism, does not make me 'not a Marxist'. As for my last part, I was stating that she is not a traditional Marxist, or just Marxist. Now I get it.


She is clearly a Marxist-Leninist, if her arguments mean anything. How else would you explain her lack of agreement or understanding of how Marxism is implicitly anti-state That depends on other tendency, but yeah.


other then that she is a supporter of one-country socialism, This is misunderstand term: I will refer you to this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2070

Also, is there anything that my rather basic explanation of Marxism was wrong on? No. Do you have to explain to her what is Marxism when she been here longer than you? I think you do not need to address her, she is aware of this and she is readily to help you on understanding if you wish so. That is her choice and not mine.


I don't see how I dodged her point, I address her comment that I was not a Marxist and did not understand Marxism directly. I think she replied otherwise.

[Il Medico]

Good thing you step into the 12-step program. (:tt2:) ha ha. :laugh:


As you should know, she said this in term as you should not accuse her of not being Marxist. Alright, but she is not just Marxist.


She explained it well. Your attack on her misspelling (despite she is very aware of it) is one of them.I still don't see how disagreeing on the usefulness of replacing every vowel in the English language in helping forward the cause of gender equality is chauvinistic or sexist.


how you would explain Traditional Marxism? Marx DID argue for worker's state.Marx only argued for a temporary world state, which would be dissolved as soon as possible.


Now I get it. I am glad.




This is misunderstand term: I will refer you to this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2070 Thank you I shall read it.


Do you have to explain to her what is Marxism when she been here longer than you? I think you do not need to address her, she is aware of this and she is readily to help you on understanding if you wish so. That is her choice and not mine. I really wasn't so much as explaining it to her, but proving that I knew and understood it.


I think she replied otherwise.I was talking about my reply to her continued accusation that I am not a Marxist. I believe I addressed that point well, by showing a firm understanding of the subject and addressing why her reasons for my 'non-marxism' were wrong. (Such as states and imperialism)

[The Author]

These movies are shit. They're not funny at all. They have too much of that Borat-style low-grade humor with an actor faking a foreign accent poorly and not coming across as amusing but annoying.