your level of tolerance toward other ideologies

[danyboy27]

this question is basicly for everyone. what is your level of tolerance for people who didnt have the same ideology than you do?

[Havet]

100% tolerance - except fascists, totalitarians and most right-libertarians.

[Stand Your Ground]

In my opinion, I feel people can follow what they feel is right. And they have the right to be vocal about it, but not in an offensive way. If they turn violent against those who are opposed to them then they need to stopped.

[trivas7]

If they turn violent against those who are opposed to them then they need to stopped.
Then it follows you can't in conscience tolerate socialists or those who oppose private property. These are statists and statists ipso facto use violence.

[Jazzratt]

Then it follows you can't in conscience tolerate socialists or those who oppose private property. These are statists and statists ipso facto use violence.

Property rights are illegitimate.

To answer the opnening question: I can't stand opposing political views, but I can often get on with those that hold thme.

[trivas7]

Property rights are illegitimate.

Ah, then you are a statist. It takes a state to suppress property rights.

[More Fire for the People]

Property rights don't exists.

[Bud Struggle]

I enjoy all of you
Property rights don't existbastards.

Love being here.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Bud

[LOLseph Stalin]

As long as I'm not attacked for my views by people of other ideologies I usually have a pretty high tolerance. However, the second I get attacked I'm not afraid to strike back. I like to maintain an open-mind and feel I can learn from these people. Besides, most of my friends are Capitalist so I've learned to be pretty tolerant anyway although I hate Capitalist oppression with a burning passion.

[trivas7]

[...] although I hate Capitalist oppression with a burning passion.
Capitalist oppression doesn't exist. :ohmy:

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalist oppression doesn't exist. :ohmy:

So true! ;)

Sad truth of the matter, ultimately it's the workers that oppress themselves.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalist oppression doesn't exist. :ohmy:

Yes it does. Where the fuck are you from? There's poverty all around if you actually take time to observe. That's oppression. Don't know that word? Look it up. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Ah, then you are a statist. It takes a state to suppress property rights.

It takes a state to grant them, dipshit. They don't magically spring into being.

[Jack]

Very little, which is why I try to avoid talking to people who I have fundamental disagreements with. I'm not an asshole about it to people, though.

[Kronos]

"The fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself."- The Sublime Object of Ideology- Zizek

Good video series here. In this one he comments briefly on 'ideology':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv8DJBalswc

Myself, I'm really understanding this issue along the same lines- that 'ideology' is not a succession of ideas or concepts we apprehend clearly, but rather a kind of subliminal totality of notions we experience in our material relations which we try to translate into philosophical terms. As Marx put it "they do not know it, but they are doing it".

For instance, consider this very thread from a post-structuralist perspective. Posters talk about 'fascism' and 'capitalism' and 'totalitarianism' as if they were discrete entities indistinguishable from the others. But, a closer, critical inspection would reveal that each ideology is only a narrative form, containing interchangeable concepts which are not exclusive.

The distinguishing characteristics of opposing ideologies are set into their material circumstances, their economic relations, their actual performance....not their concepts or ideas. These things are transitive...they exist in a kind of amorphous blob. A communist might talk of 'alienation' as a symptom of class society....but the term 'alienation' can also be employed in a narrative where the opposite is true- perhaps in the case of 'citizens being alienated from their freedom and individuality by not having the right to own property'.

The point is not if this is true or not, but that the philosophical discourse surrounding all ideological theory cannot produce infallible ideological ideas.

So instead of any of us having a clear grasp on what we mean when we name an ideology, we are instead expressing more of a symbol, a semiotic notion, which we have adopted through our exposure to the myriad of narratives in philosophy.

[trivas7]

It takes a state to grant them, dipshit. They don't magically spring into being.
Only in your Marxist dreams, doofus. Read some history.

[Robert]

Not sure what you mean by "tolerate."

If you mean "seriously consider," I can tolerate any ideology that calls for deference to the popular will, i.e., non-totalitarian, so long as the popular will doesn't incline to slavery, racism, wanton cruelty, or murder.

Sexism is a little harder: I can listen to arguments against putting females in the infantry or in male prisons, which is a kind of sexism, arguably. But it's more paternalist than sexist.

I may one day become intolerant of meat eating by those who can get their protein some way other than by killing a defenseless mammal. Killing an adult, carnivorous male bear with your bare hands or a spear/atl-atl combo only is okay. It has to be male and at least 3 years old, and the only way to know his age is to measure and weigh his testicles while he's awake. Don't try this unless you have experience. Of course, the only way to get the experience is to do it a few times. Good luck.

Who do you think is most tolerant of opposing views on this forum? The revolutionaries or the reactionaries?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It depends on the ideology. Generally I find people such as Nazis, fascists, paleoconservatives and religious fundamentalists repulsive and worthy only of ridicule. I may not agree with left liberals or (non-conservative) libertarians politically speaking, but at least they generally seem far more amenable to reason.

Although I have no problem with criticising what I believe to be stupid statements, no matter who they come from, for example:


I may one day become intolerant of meat eating by those who can get their protein some way other than by killing a defenseless mammal.

They're not defenceless. Being domesticated and tasty is good for a species, since humans will want to keep them around. This means they have humans to defend them against other predators.


Killing an adult, carnivorous male bear with your bare hands or a spear/atl-atl combo only is okay. It has to be male and at least 3 years old, and the only way to know his age is to measure and weigh his testicles while he's awake. Don't try this unless you have experience. Of course, the only way to get the experience is to do it a few times. Good luck.Macho bullshit. We invented high-power rifles for a damn good reason.

[danyboy27]

It depends on the ideology. Generally I find people such as Nazis, fascists, paleoconservatives and religious fundamentalists repulsive and worthy only of ridicule. I may not agree with left liberals or (non-conservative) libertarians politically speaking, but at least they generally seem far more amenable to reason.

Although I have no problem with criticising what I believe to be stupid statements, no matter who they come from, for example:



They're not defenceless. Being domesticated and tasty is good for a species, since humans will want to keep them around. This means they have humans to defend them against other predators.

Macho bullshit. We invented high-power rifles for a damn good reason.

too bad robert, but this guy got a point.

[Robert]

We invented high-power rifles for a damn good reason.

Yeah. All those nice, warm buffalo robes.

Actually, I take some comfort from this:


stupid statements, no matter who they come from


That's a back handed compliment, and I do appreciate it. But you must be a bad shot if you think animals have defenses against hi-powered rifles. :lol:

[danyboy27]

That's a back handed compliment, and I do appreciate it. But you must be a bad shot if you think animals have defenses against hi-powered rifles. :lol:

well, has a matter of fact, they do, they can blend in relatively quickly, run a lot faster than me AND they can feel my presence over a mile.


having a rifle balence things out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well, has a matter of fact, they do, they can blend in relatively quickly, run a lot faster than me AND they can feel my presence over a mile.


having a rifle balence things out.

I've never hunted, so that didn't occur to me, although I did suspect that hunting with firearms involved far more than simply going out into the wilderness, finding an animal within 5 minutes, shooting it, and then heading home.

[Misanthrope]

There is no perfect ideology. Everyone identifies with a philosophy for different unique reasons. I will tolerate any philosophy in a discussion, if they keep it civil and logical. I will not tolerate any ideology that encourages mindless violence.

[danyboy27]

I've never hunted, so that didn't occur to me, although I did suspect that hunting with firearms involved far more than simply going out into the wilderness, finding an animal within 5 minutes, shooting it, and then heading home.

also, it depend of what you are hunting, if you go after a cariboo or a bear, you have to consider that if you miss, the fucker could kill ya.

about the use of firearm in farm, it does help reduce the suffering of the beast, kill quick and without any pain.

personally i think the death penality in the us should be perforned like the chinese used to do for ages: point blank shot with a pistol.

they dont have to strap you or put you on all that stress, its quick and painless.

[ThorsMitersaw]

It takes a state to grant them, dipshit. They don't magically spring into being.

conflating property with state,
assuming all property titles must be communitarian,
assuming all current property titles to be illegitimate,
not recognizing that state is the largest violator of individual property rights ever to have existed,
*enormous face palm*.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I find most people who hold extreme political views are actually quite unenlightened and dogmatic about their viewpoints. Their viewpoints tend to be emotional rather than logical. You have to use the internet to find the reasonable people.

I actually find it easier to have intellectual conversations with individuals who are moderate liberals. Liberalism is a fairly intellectually prevalent ideology, at least in Canada. If someone is a liberal, they generally know the rational behind liberalism and have a semi-coherent basis for their viewpoints. The education system teaches them how to be a good liberal.

When I first encountered communism, I spouted everything Marx said as he was God telling us how the world is to be. For anyone who wants change and is unsatisfied with either their lot in life or society, anything from communism to libertarianism can be appealing. Communism appealed to me because, in my heart, I'm not a selfish twit. If I was, I'd probably be a libertarian. Libertarians are generally rationally leftist but morally rightist - aka soulless evil beings. This is excluding the intellectual libertarians, who are few and far between. But someone who would honestly see libertarianism spelled out and think "that sounds good" probably has something seriously wrong with them (they're probably rich and selfish). Most people who have a defensible libertarian philosophy came to the conclusion from at least a rational basis of some sort.

I still have a lot of learning to do. Sometimes my arguments in real life, particularly, will be weak. I just end up staring at people and thinking "really, you believe that?" It's often an emotional skepticism. At heart, I'm very sympathetic to others. Even though I often struggle to see any rational basis in ethics and considering my fellow men and women, I ultimately would like to think there is something to ethics. When people make comments about issues of inequality it just confuses me to no end. However, I'm starting to get some better justifications for my leftist philosophy. It turns out Marx was still right about a lot of things. I just don't take anything he says as true, now, simply because he has a plausible reasoning for it. If I believed everything that someone could provide a plausible explanation for, I'd be a nut job.

So I'm quite tolerant of opposing viewpoints. I think it's difficult for some people to seriously consider a communist philosophy given that respect for others and altruism seem to be dieing ideals sometimes. I'm a very pessimistic and cynical person sometimes. Marx says communism is inevitable. I'm not so sure. All I can say is a person should make an effort to progress in the areas of life that matter. End goals are not necessary except to guide us in the right direction. If I die and society isn't capitalist, I'll be alright. If I die and society has gotten worse. Well, I hope I made of it what I could.

[Demogorgon]

The question can mean several different things. If you mean, will I respect people with different views then I generally will unless the views are particularly odious. I am never going to be friends with Nick Griffin but if somebody holds vaguely liberal views then that isn't going to be an impediment to friendship.

If you mean, do I think people should always be able to express their views, regardless of what they are, then the answer is yes. Restraining freedom of speech is always a bad idea for several reasons.

If you are asking if I think people should always be free to take part in the political process with a view to implementing their views then my answer is that realistically if the majority favours a certain set of policies then it is very difficult to stop those policies being carried out without resorting to repressions. However we also need to guarantee certain rights for people, so there should be constitutional protection against certain policies being carried out.

[Radical]

I am a Communist and I shall oppose any ideas that I feel are oppressive.

[Robert]

I did suspect that hunting with firearms involved far more than simply going out into the wilderness, finding an animal within 5 minutes, shooting it, and then heading home.Yes, it does. But it's mostly a matter of sitting around and waiting till the beast walks or flies by your blind (hideout), not tracking or doing anything difficult. Then you spend some time showing the dead animal to your comrades and bragging over whisky about what a difficult shot it was. And there is zero possibility that the duck, the squirrel, pheasant, the grouse, the turkey etc. will harm you or any of your fellow hunters.

It is true that deer and geese, in the USA at least, would probably starve in great numbers if not for hunters, but that's because of overpopulation of humans and elimination of the breeding and feeding grounds for wildlife.

[Dr Mindbender]

Depends on the Race of the individual.

Jews of any ideology I oppose on the solid ground provided by Prof. Kevin Macdonald and Adolf Hitler, I urge a pogrom of re-Ghettoization for these creatures.

Most other beings though I tolerate, although in the coming White Nationalist state there will be expulsions of non-Whites.

I have no problem working with anti-Zionist elements of the Left however.

bye bye.

[ThorsMitersaw]

All I have ever asked of anyone is their benign neglect. But unfortunately, that seems to be a request that gets you on the hit list of many

[Richard Nixon]

Will Tolerate Without Reservation: Most Democratic ideologies (Conservatism, Liberalism, Populism, Libertarianism, Social Democrats, Socialists)

Tolerate But With Some Unease: Communism (pure Communists and maybe Castroites not Stalinists or Maoistsm who actively support them), Anarchism (Both Anarcho Communism and Anarcho Capitalism), Fascism

Will Not Tolerate: Extreme Religious Fundamentalists, Communists actively defending Mao or Stalin, Nazis, Racists,

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It depends on what you mean by tolerance... I consider large sections of the right-wing to be disgusting filth who deserve to die in a fire. So I am highly intolerant of their views on a personal level. At the same time, however, I strongly believe that society should not punish (or reward) people solely for their political views. So, no matter how much I despise these right-wingers on a personal level, I believe they should be tolerated and largely left alone as a matter of public policy.

[Dust Bunnies]

Depends on the persons, not their view. I would not tolerate a very obnoxious Communist because of the person's obnoxiousness. But I would be friends with a Fascist, hope that my politics rub off and as long as he/she respects me, then I shall return it. Though there are limits for stuff such as extreme friendship, a romantic relationship, etc. Of course when the Fascist starts doing things I disagree with like oppress other races and such, I'd end my friendship, but if the Fascist is one only by name and has a fetish for Mussolini, then how is that any different than a Stalinist Kiddie?

[Conquer or Die]

A person who supports imperialism = practicing free speech.

A person who enables imperialism = reactionary.

This is why Ann Coulter can say whatever she wants but the CEO of Coca Cola deserves to be killed.

Thus is my level of tolerance towards other ideologies.

[Bud Struggle]

but if the Fascist is one only by name and has a fetish for Mussolini, then how is that any different than a Stalinist Kiddie?

That's a really good point. Exactly when do "fetish Communists" start to become "Other Ideology?" I'm sure serious Communists can't have helped but notice that Stalinists and the like are severely detrimental to the Communist cause.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Only in your Marxist dreams, doofus. Read some history.

o rly? I wonder how the government would react to me claiming my property as my own rather than the state's.

The libertarian idea that they and all of their belongings exist outside of the state is laughable.

Unless you live on a desert island somewhere (the libertarian fantasy I suppose since they're so keen on separating themselves from society) I highly doubt you live on property that doesn't belong to a government.

[Dust Bunnies]

Only in your Marxist dreams, doofus. Read some history.

All land belong to the state (I know this exists in the US). I forgot the term, but basically the government can force you off your land and pay the amount that they feel is proper repayment for the land. If the government had it out for you, I'm sure they'd try to build a kewl new mall for kewl Capitalism on your land. :rolleyes:

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Only in your Marxist dreams, doofus. Read some history.

How do you intend to keep people away from your orchard without a violence?
Private property exists because people are willing to kill to protect it, no more, no less.

--------------------------------

I tolerate social democrats.
Every other ideology i do not tolerate, though i do not hold that against the people with those ideologies. It is the ideas that are at fault, not the people that hold them.

[zerozerozerominusone]

this question is basicly for everyone. what is your level of tolerance for people who didnt have the same ideology than you do?

I am fully tolerant. I may not agree with one's ideology - I may even vehemently disagree with it, but I afford everyone the respect and courtesy to hold their beliefs. I draw the line when someone attempts to impose their ideology upon me, unwanted. I believe in equality of liberty amongst people. Therefore there is not a single living being on the planet possessing authority to dictate how I shall live my life.

[zerozerozerominusone]

There is no perfect ideology. Everyone identifies with a philosophy for different unique reasons. I will tolerate any philosophy in a discussion, if they keep it civil and logical. I will not tolerate any ideology that encourages mindless violence.

I may beg to differ with you a bit here. The ideology of equal liberty for all is effectively perfect. It allows people to live according to the dictates of their conscience within a very minimal set of restrictions (murder, rape, robbery, etc).

[zerozerozerominusone]

How do you intend to keep people away from your orchard without a violence?
Private property exists because people are willing to kill to protect it, no more, no less.


Eh? The one is not the causal factor for the existence of the other.

Let me ask you this: if someone were attempting to burn my house down, would you call it unjustified were I to kill him in defense of that property?

[zerozerozerominusone]

Ah, then you are a statist. It takes a state to suppress property rights.

Bingo.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Property rights don't exists.

I see. So tell me, do I own myself?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Let me ask you this: if someone were attempting to burn my house down, would you call it unjustified were I to kill him in defense of that property?

Well that would be pointless wasteful vandalism, that is of no worth. I'd stop them from burning down any house.


I see. So tell me, do I own myself?

How can one possibly own yourself? You are yourself.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The way I see it, anarchism requires diversity. Anarcho-Communists, Anarcha-Feminists, Primitivists, and even some Anarcho-Capitalists all have valid points that need looking at and consideration.

With Anarcho-Communists we can see an image of Marxism without Leninist vanguards, Anarcha-Feminists present us with the most radical forms of gender-equality, Primitivists go as far as to question Civilization itself, and Anarcho-Capitalists give us new perspectives of the State as a monopoly and keep us warry of it's expansion.

These spectrums may not agree with eachother and may even attack eachother but in the larger picture of resistance as a whole, I see a need for all of them.

[*Red*Alert]

0% for Trots who are against national liberation as the way towards socialism.
0% for Fascists, Totalitarians, Capitalist Right-wingers

[StalinFanboy]

Ah, then you are a statist. It takes a state to suppress property rights.
It takes a state to defend property rights.

[StalinFanboy]

Property rights are illegitimate.

To answer the opnening question: I can't stand opposing political views, but I can often get on with those that hold thme.
This

[Conquer or Die]

0% for Trots who are against national liberation as the way towards socialism.
0% for Fascists, Totalitarians, Capitalist Right-wingers

What the fuck? Stupid stalinist is stupid.

[Trystan]

100% tolerance - except fascists, totalitarians and most right-libertarians.

Same.

[Sarah Palin]

As long as I'm not attacked for my views by people of other ideologies I usually have a pretty high tolerance.

Indeed, unless they use personal attacks or blatantly fabricate things, I'm pretty tolerant.

[Ele'ill]

Justice and truth. I don't have any tolerance for people that ignore these; regardless of their ideology.

A rich republican denying that police harassment and gentrification exist is just as bad as anarchists defending a dickish and immoral comrade simply because they are also an anarchist.

It isn't the ideologies that are hard to tolerate its the people wielding them.

[graffic]

I am pretty tolerant, even of people who are fundamental religious nutcases.

It's bad because I should not judge but people who are genuinely racist or fascist (not ignorant people, people who are clever and try to justify their hatred) I cannot tolerate. Someone sent a link to the website stormfront which made me feel ill looking at some of the posts and threads. Everytime I see someone from the far-right on TV I instantly hate them. It is bad to judge people.

[Pogue]

I am not really tolerant of anyone who is a strong advocate of any ideology other than mine. if I met a leninist in a situation where i wouldnt expect such as my college or in the workplace i'd be a lot warmer to them, but aside from that i'd just argue with them and recognise are differences are too large for us to meaningfully do alot together. unless they were a solid anti-fascist, that'd be useful in my area.

i have alot of time for working class people with any ideology. i dont have much time for people in the bnp even if they are clearly just a bit of a confused twat. i do try with them but i find such people, the actual ideological supporters are impossible to engage with as a communist most of the time, its only worth trying with disaffected working class people but the fash i know are usually tory fash anyway.

i have plenty of time for people in leninist organisations who i think might be more genuine. like the rank and file, people who are not indoctrinated, and any working class militant has my respect regardless of whether they are trot or anarcho or even labour. i mean by this shop stewards essentially, cos alot of shop stewards are in the trot parties or even labour. i try to convince them of my ideas.

i don't really meet many actual randroids because they dont get out much and live on the internet but i like arguing with right wing kids. i've never met one who is really ideologically clued up. it'd be amazing to meet someone who genuinely knew about politics who could give me a solid argument that recognised i don't like stalin, i don't believe communism will just appear, etc. usually its the same old arguments and they are too stubborn and middle class to listen. i have intense predjudice towards middle class people who aren't left leaning so usually i just dismiss them.

i actually don't have much time for alot of people who call themselves anarchists either. i mean lifestylists, posers, 'even the bourgeoisie are oppressed'ists. I find it hard to really focus much time on non class strugglist libertarian revolutionaries. theres alot of disagreements going on, i try to deal with these and i do with comrades, but at the end of the day if someone is solidly clued up in their respective ideas or is a hopeless case i cant be fucked.

basically i have alot of respect for genuine working class revolutionaries of all kinds. if i met a genuine working class trot for example, like holden caulfield from this board, i can appreciate that and engage with them because you can sort of tell like you they believe they think their ideology is best for the class. i think alot of people in the SP in general are like this (i appreciate holden isn't in the sp anymore) so i tend to have more time for them other the SWP with its student base.

i have alot of time for left communists to an extent, and also any libertarian socialist. left communism has some good things to say which have influenced me, and all forms of libertarian socialism have something to offer so i tend to get on with other types of these too.

[Bud Struggle]

I am not really tolerant of anyone who is a strong advocate of any ideology other than mine.

REALLY! I hadn't noticed.

[Pogue]

REALLY! I hadn't noticed.

Your a special case because you make excactly the same empty arguments each time which makes you think you are the most dedicated and ingenious troll ever to walk the interwebz.

[Bud Struggle]

Your a special case because you make excactly the same empty arguments each time which makes you think you are the most dedicated and ingenious troll ever to walk the interwebz.

Back at you about the empty argument thing (like we're all going to get together and decide to make this world a better place)--but we do agree about Trotsky! Life is good Comrade.

[Pogue]

Back at you abot the argument thing--but we do agree about Trotsky! Life is good Comrade.

Give me an example of something empty I have said.

[Bud Struggle]

Give me an example of something empty I have said.

I don't want to get int a fight--but honestly I think there is lots, and I mean LOTS more interest in Pop/American Idol than in "workers struggles." It's a phantom reality that you are chasing.

I agree that world equality would be great--but there isn't the WILL for it. I think we have the best we can hope for. Maybe a bit more consideration on the part of the government/employers, but that's it.

The people don't want to govern, they've had ample opportunity to take control and even if they do on rare occasions (USSR) they give it back in a heartbeat.

Tell me I'm wrong. You know, I don't disagree with you in theory at all--you just aren't practicle.

[Pogue]

I don't want to get int a fight--but honestly I there is lots and I mean LOTS more interest in Pop/America Idol than in "workers struggles." It's a phantom reality that you are chasing.

I agree that world equality would be great--but there isn't the WILL for it. I think we have the best we can hope for. Maybe a bit more consideration on the part of the government/emplotyers, but that's it.

The people don't want to govern, they've had ample opportunity to take control and even if they do on rare occasions (USSR) they give it back in a heartbeat.

Tell me I'm wrong. You know, I don't disagree with you in theory at all--you just aren't practicle.

No, I asked you to tell me something empty I have said. You know, like when you post that shit about us needing something new that isnt communism or maybe that tripe about the rich and poor being indistinguishable now.

[Bud Struggle]

No, I asked you to tell me something empty I have said. You know, like when you post that shit about us needing something new that isnt communism or maybe that tripe about the rich and poor being indistinguishable now.

None of what I say is empty. Easy credit gets every worker a plazma TV or BMW. I SEE how workers live--and the only differnce beween them and me (besides for a bit of scale) is that they don't OWN what they have. It's all borrowed and payed off on time.

As far as I can see easy credit killed off any sort of Communist revolt--the poor can live as large as I do (on time payments.)

[StalinFanboy]

I don't want to get int a fight--but honestly I think there is lots, and I mean LOTS more interest in Pop/American Idol than in "workers struggles." It's a phantom reality that you are chasing.

I agree that world equality would be great--but there isn't the WILL for it. I think we have the best we can hope for. Maybe a bit more consideration on the part of the government/employers, but that's it.

The people don't want to govern, they've had ample opportunity to take control and even if they do on rare occasions (USSR) they give it back in a heartbeat.

Tell me I'm wrong. You know, I don't disagree with you in theory at all--you just aren't practicle.
Bud Struggle knows all!

[Pogue]

None of what I say is empty. Easy credit gets every worker a plazma TV or BMW. I SEE how workers live--and the only differnce beween them and me (besides for a bit of scale) is that they don't OWN what they have. It's all borrowed and payed off on time.

As far as I can see easy credit killed off any sort of Communist revolt--the poor can live as large as I do (on time payments.)

'We need something new - not communism.' - totally empty shit, ignores the nature of class conflict.

'The rich and poor are indistinguishable' - empty, and bias.

Stop with this 'I see how workers live'. We all live in the real world. I actually live as a worker, i think I know things better than you.

[Bud Struggle]

'We need something new - not communism.' - totally empty shit, ignores the nature of class conflict. I agree there is class conflict. There is business conflict and religious conflict and race conflict and blonde/brunette conflict. So what?


'The rich and poor are indistinguishable' - empty, and bias. More of a fair point--the poor CAN be as well off as they want--they just have to manage their credit.


Stop with this 'I see how workers live'. We all live in the real world. I actually live as a worker, i think I know things better than you.Maybe. But I lived that life (my dad was AFL-CIO) and I'm friends with my workers. I see how they live--I visit their houses. And they are middle class. They have everything I have--their kids go to school with my kids. It's a matter of scale--nothing else.

If you have an open mind you should come to America (I'll pay) and visit my factory and tell me what you think. I'm not ashamed of my business or my relationship with my employees.

[Pogue]

I agree there is class conflict. There is business conflict and religious conflict and race conflict and blonde/brunette conflict. So what?

More of a fair point--the poor CAN be as

Stop with this 'I see how workers live'. We all live in the real world. I actually live as a worker, i think I know things better than you.Maybe. But I lived that life (my dad was AFL-CIO) and I'm friends with my workers. I see how they live--I visit their houses. And they are middle class. They have everything I have--their kids go to school with my kids. It's a matter of scale--nothing else.

If you have an open mind you should come to America (I'll pay) and visit my factory and tell me what you think.[/QUOTE]

I think class conflict has more of a reality than any of those. Consistently throughout history it has been clear the classes are opposed in their interests. This is not the case with say 'racial' conflict. History proves that it is not in the interests of working class black and white people to fight, same with hair colour.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud Struggle knows all!

It's been noted before in vast and varried venues. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

I think class conflict has more of a reality than any of those. Consistently throughout history it has been clear the classes are opposed in their interests. This is not the case with say 'racial' conflict. History proves that it is not in the interests of working class black and white people to fight, same with hair colour.

You may have a point. But people engaged in the racial conflict or other conflict may differ greatly. That's why I say it's a lifestyle issue. Add global warming and Michael Jackson tributes and you get a snippet of the real world.

[Pogue]

You may have a point. But people engaged in the racial conflict or other conflict may differ greatly. That's why I say it's a lifestyle issue. Add global warming and Michael Jackson tributes and you get a snippet of the real world.

This is an example of the empty rubbish you spew out.

[Bud Struggle]

This is an example of the empty rubbish you spew out.

I guess, but as long as I have an argument and you spew out insults--I win. Always, evertime, eachtime, without fail.

I win.

And you wonder why the world is Capitalist. :D :D :D

[Pogue]

You don't make an argument though, you just make unsubstantiated highly subjective claims and expect us to meaningfully respond to them, then act suprised when we dismiss them as bullshit. For example, you once said the rich and the poor are becoming one and the same. This is so ridiculous I don't see how you expect me to seriously respond.

[Bud Struggle]

For example, you once said the rich and the poor are becoming one and the same. This is so ridiculous I don't see how you expect me to seriously respond.

OK, let me address this topic specificly. Easy lending has let a person making a limited amount of income buy thing that were in the past WAY above his income level.

I as a Borugeoise buying in my income level am the equal of a proletarian buting on credit.

[Pogue]

OK, let me address this topic specificly. Easy lending has let a person making a limited amount of income buy thing that were in the past WAY above his income level.

I as a Borugeoise buying in my income level am the equal of a proletarian buting on credit.

I don't even understand this. Clearly Bill Gates can afford to live a much more luxorious life than me.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't even understand this. Clearly Bill Gates can afford to live a much more luxorious life than me.
Unless you use credit!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

None of what I say is empty. Easy credit gets every worker a plazma TV or BMW. I SEE how workers live--and the only differnce beween them and me (besides for a bit of scale) is that they don't OWN what they have. It's all borrowed and payed off on time.

As far as I can see easy credit killed off any sort of Communist revolt--the poor can live as large as I do (on time payments.)
The idea of "easy credit" is what has us in this financial mess.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't even understand this. Clearly Bill Gates can afford to live a much more luxorious life than me.

Me too.

That's not the point. There are a coupe of zillionares out there that take up a lot of air time. But ON AVERAGE the millionare next door is an average guy. He lives in a nice house and drives a nice car but no Rolls Royces. He's an average guy. He owns a little bit of stock (non ownership) in a lot of companies.

He makes $250,000 a year from his investments. And he WORKS at his investments.

That's the real world of the rich. The rest is just tabloid.

[Pogue]

Me too.

That's not the point. There are a coupe of zillionares out there that take up a lot of air time. But ON AVERAGE the millionare next door is an average guy. He lives in a nice house and drives a nice car but no Rolls Royces. He's an average guy. He owns a little bit of stock (non ownership) in a lot of companies.

He makes $250,000 a year from his investments.

That's the real world of the rich. The rest is just tabloid.

Right. Whatever. I think you've been reading the Bible for so long you think you can just make borad, stupid claims and expect people to agree with them.

[Bud Struggle]

Right. Whatever. I think you've been reading the Bible for so long you think you can just make borad, stupid claims and expect people to agree with them.

Hey, you ask me for an explaination--I give them. You ask me about my opinions abou how Capitalism works--I tell you what I see. I'm in a position to do so.

I'm giving you a window on what it means to be Bourgeoise and all you do is tell me I'm an idiot--fine. My observations on workers aren't going unnoticed either.

I try to be fair.

[Pogue]

Hey, you ask me for an explaination--I give them. You ask me about my opinions abou how Capitalism works--I tell you what I see. I'm in a position to do so.

I'm giving you a window on what it means to be Bourgeoise and all you do is tell me I'm an idiot--fine. My observations on workers aren't going unnoticed either.

I try to be fair.

I think you just talk alot of subjective bullshit really, you always have. It always seem to be pseudo-religious ramblings with no substantiation. When challenged, you dodge the issue and just create some more bullshit, until someone calls you out on your bullshit, at which point you bullshit with a bit more bullshit.

[Bud Struggle]

I think you just talk alot of subjective bullshit really, you always have. It always seem to be pseudo-religious ramblings with no substantiation. When challenged, you dodge the issue and just create some more bullshit, until someone calls you out on your bullshit, at which point you bullshit with a bit more bullshit.

Except I represent REAL LIFE. I explain how the system works--the real system. I explain how workers live and think--real workers. You seem just to go on and on about some romantic fantasy about a utopian world full of sex drugs and rock and roll.

You are not serious at all. Don't forget I've been to an IWW meeting...

I actually was the only to know the words to the Internationale--and that was only the first verse--things got MUCH worse after that. :p

You are an Anarchist lifestyleist nothing more.

[StalinFanboy]

Except I represent REAL LIFE. I explain how the system works--the real system. I explain how workers live and think--real workers.
Nah.

[Bud Struggle]

Nah.

Worker's struggles. :rolleyes::lol:

[StalinFanboy]

You're high.

[Manifesto]

As long as they aren't assholes and can provide valid points to their reasoning then I can tolerate them.

[fiddlesticks]

I tolerate everyone, as long as the aren't trying to convert me to their ways.

[jake williams]

It's pretty low, to be really honest. I have a set of political friends and a set of non-political friends. The political friends are basically all radical leftists. The non-political friends are mostly, but not entirely, at least social democrats. I try to avoid very deep interaction with many other people, again, being honest.

It's not like I'm a recluse, I just don't have very deep or extended social relationships with people I'm not politically comfortable with. In other discussions on this forum on this topic, it's been controversial, and so I may as well dig in. I really believe that the way I feel about this is because I take my politics seriously. It's not a hobby. It's not a personal quirk. It's a set of things I feel very very strongly about. There's just a huge set of views about the world that I find really repulsive. And as it happens a lot of the people in some of my communities don't just have ugly views, but they actually have the power to implement them.

But I actually prefer mildly right-wing workers to, for lack of a more rigorous term, overprivileged ignorant liberals, at least sometimes.

[FreeFocus]

My tolerance level is pretty low even for some people on here. I try to avoid real-world political discussion because I might punch someone. :mad: lol. But really, I have nothing to say to a Democrat or a Republican, or someone who is otherwise a liberal or a conservative. Unless it's genuinely leftist, it's capitalist, imperialist, and anti-human basically.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I tolerate everyone, as long as the aren't trying to convert me to their ways.

Argh, I hear you. Preaching is the worse. Whether it's religious or political preaching I won't tolerate it. Hey, if the people are just trying to tell me their point of view, that's fine. However, the second they suggest I should also follow that viewpoint is when my tolerance level drops drastically.

[Conquer or Die]

Not tolerating other viewpoints is reactionary.

[NumeDeUtilizator]

Zero.

[Klaatu]

People can do what they want, as long as they do not send their pollution my way (or send pollution anywhere, for that matter)

[Rosa Provokateur]

REALLY! I hadn't noticed.


Atleast he's honest, Bud. Love him or not, you've gotta respect Pogue's bluntness.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You are not serious at all. Don't forget I've been to an IWW meeting...


Don't forget you live in Florida. Which is really unique compared to anywhere else I have been so your experiences will differ to others on the bored massively. (Nice weather and people though)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Im an intolerant wanker when it comes to discussing politics but on a personal level I know all kind of folk including right wing Christian fundies.

[RGacky3]

I explain how workers live and think--real workers.

Pretty arrogant and dumb of you to think that.


Except I represent REAL LIFE. I explain how the system works--the real system.

Based on your posts you actually have no idea.


Not tolerating other viewpoints is reactionary.

Calling things reactoinary is reactionary.

[NecroCommie]

I can tolerate viewpoints, but I have a really short temper when it comes to political illiteracy and ignorance. I don't want to argue against the same old strawmen gazillion times over.

[StalinFanboy]

Not tolerating other viewpoints is reactionary.
This guy agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

[Pogue]

I support any real workers power and workers democracy, any genuine revolution and generally working class run society. If for example, the Maoists in Nepal succeeded and created a true working class society, a revolutionary society, i'd support it. The point is, I think only anarchism can create such a society, because other ideologies consolidate power in a state which is dominated by a vanguardd party, ultimately leading to the degenration of any revolution and a new ruling class. I think only libertarian socialism avoids this. It would need any Leninists to abandon alot of Leninism for their movement to work obviously at which point they would no longer be Leninist, if you follow. For example the Maoists would have to act in a libertarian manner, but they wont, because they are Maoists, so I am not hopeful.

[Richard Nixon]

My tolerance level is pretty low even for some people on here. I try to avoid real-world political discussion because I might punch someone. :mad: lol. But really, I have nothing to say to a Democrat or a Republican, or someone who is otherwise a liberal or a conservative. Unless it's genuinely leftist, it's capitalist, imperialist, and anti-human basically.

Capitalist doesn't equal imperialist and or anti-human. For instance social democrats.

[Bud Struggle]

I support any real workers power and workers democracy, any genuine revolution and generally working class run society. If for example, the Maoists in Nepal succeeded and created a true working class society, a revolutionary society, i'd support it. The point is, I think only anarchism can create such a society, because other ideologies consolidate power in a state which is dominated by a vanguardd party, ultimately leading to the degenration of any revolution and a new ruling class. I think only libertarian socialism avoids this. It would need any Leninists to abandon alot of Leninism for their movement to work obviously at which point they would no longer be Leninist, if you follow. For example the Maoists would have to act in a libertarian manner, but they wont, because they are Maoists, so I am not hopeful.

Good points, Marxist-Lenist-Maoist Communism pretty much has shown itself to continually devolve into the "Dictatorship of One Man" each and every time. It seems to me that giving it "one more try" is a worthless endeavor. I don't think it would hurt for Communists to rally around the banner of Anarchism and give it a try for once.

[StalinFanboy]

Capitalist doesn't equal imperialist and or anti-human. For instance social democrats.
Capitalism requires forceful expansion and forceful appropriation of resources. Social democrats just put a nice face on it.

[Soviet]

Tolerance=indifference.Am I indifference for bourgeouse ideology?No,I negate it.Therefore,I'm not tolerance.

[RGacky3]

Capitalist doesn't equal imperialist and or anti-human. For instance social democrats.

As evidence is showing more and more, Social-democracy collapses the more global capitalism becomes. Just look at europe, most of the countries are dismanteling their social-democracies over time (making it worse for working people), simply because social-democracies can't compete.


Good points, Marxist-Lenist-Maoist Communism pretty much has shown itself to continually devolve into the "Dictatorship of One Man" each and every time. It seems to me that giving it "one more try" is a worthless endeavor. I don't think it would hurt for Communists to rally around the banner of Anarchism and give it a try for once.

There are much more rational socialists than marxists-leninist-maoists (or whatever somedudeist) socialism.