A few thoughts from an old friend...

[LSD]

Hi there.

Seeing as I haven't posted here in more than two years, and given the extraordinary membership turnaround on message boards such as this one, I recognize that the vast majority of those reading this have absolutely no idea who I am.

That's cool though, I'm not really planning on sticking around.

But a long long time ago (in internet time anyway), I was a member here -- and an administrator for a time. And although I haven't visited (or honestly thought about) this place in quite a long while, this afternoon I somehow found myself here again.

It's a real funny thing running into pieces of your past, it's kind of like reading a book you'd been read as a child for the first time. Everything's sort of the same, but sort of different... you know what I mean? No? That's OK, I'm not entirely sure myself. Maybe it's just the normal distance that comes from, well, distance. Or maybe I'm just nostalgic 'cause I'm moving (in real-life that is) and I'm reaching out to disparate facets of my former lives -- I have spoken to three ex-girlfriends in the past 2 weeks, two for the first time in months (years?).

I don't know why I'm telling you all of this, but I've been talking a lot lately, to a lot of people; it probably somehow relates to this whole theme of distance and separation.

In any case, not having posted here in two years, I feel no compunction about writing as damn much as I feel like -- nor do I particularly care if no one reads it. I'm really writing more for myself than for any of you.

For lack of less 1980s pop-psychology way of putting it, I'm "seeking closure".

Not that I really have any outstanding issues with this place. Sure, my tenure as member and administrator came to ignoble end when I was expelled in disgrace for traitorously abandoning the working class and the salvation of mankind ...but who doesn't love a dramatic exit? :lol:

I all honesty though, I have nothing but good thoughts for everyone here, and my memories are overwhelmingly positive. I don't know how many members remain from the "old days"; but whoever is out there, know that I wish you well. :)

***

On another, sort-of related subject, I notice that in the (long) time since I've been here last, there have been some political and/or administrative changes. From what little I can tell ('cause it isn't actually spelled-out anywhere), the CC's been abolished and the board is now run like a regular old-fashioned message board.

I must say I'm surprised, although at a certain level I suppose it's entirely predictable. There was always a significant and unresolved (perhaps ultimately unresolvable) conflict between what this board was and what it imagined itself to be. Virtually every message-board in the world is run the same way. There's a reason for that. But this board is, by definition, made up of people who generally don't care about reasons.

After all, capitalism has reasons too, lots of them, and pretty good ones at that. It takes a pretty strong capacity for obstinacy (not to mention a touch of self-delusion) to affirm the communist ideal in a post-Berlin Wall, post-1991, post-"socialism with Chinese characteristics" world.

The kind of person who insists, despite 75 years of evidence to the contrary, that the choice really is "socialism or barbarism"... let's just say they're less than tolerant of appeals to order or efficiency.

And so it was kind of inevitable that this board would evolve its own sense of community, and that that sense would be revolutionary. It wasn't always pretty, in fact it rarely was, but it was a fascinating experiment to witness.

In my time here, I watched the CC transform from a semi-informal discussion group, to an administrative notice-board, to a formal advisory panel, to some sort of weird bureaucratic institution with full blown-out protocols, regulations, and even regularly scheduled elections.

All this for an internet discussion board.

In the end though, again from what little information I can glean, the CC was deemed too fractious, too rancorous, and perhaps too caught up in its own distorted sense of its own self-importance. Fehr always insisted it was primarily a venue for "intellectual masturbation".

Perhaps he was right. I always liked the rancor (and the self-importance :thumbup1:) and I'm an enormous fan of masturbation, intellectual or otherwise. But I must admit I'm disappointed to see that the era of collective governance has come to a close, however limited and deeply flawed it may have been. I think it was part of what made this place special; not necessarily because of what it did (it often did very little), but because of what it represented: a collective belief in collective rule.

At its heard, the CC was a expression of revolutionary faith, of the belief that in all places, and amongst all people (yes, even on a message board), all authority ultimately derives from the people.

Whatever else I may feel about politics in general or the revolutionary left in particular, I still think that's a beautiful sentiment. In the end, it's perhaps the only one that matters.

I think it would be a real tragedy if that's been forgotten; not to mention the cruelest of ironies if the desire for an ordered and efficient discussion of the "revolutionary left" stifles the spirit of both revolution and the left.

***

OK. That's enough of that.

I don't want to leave you on a down note, 'cause I really do love you all, especially the vast majority of you of whom I know absolutely nothing. But then that's the whole fun of the internet, isn't it?

Anyway, I better stop writing now or I'll run out of world-wide-web. And, damn, if this long-ass bullshit ain't "closure", I really don't know what is!

Workers of the World Unite, Y'all!

:)

[bcbm]

was really hoping for a more interesting piece than some reflections on the cc:(

[khad]

Yeah, people know that you are a degenerate, and not because of your politics. No one is under any obligation to give you closure, so don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[RedAnarchist]

Interesting to hear from you again, LSD.

[Dean]

Anyway, I better stop writing now or I'll run out of world-wide-web. And, damn, if this long-ass bullshit ain't "closure", I really don't know what is!
I do remember you and I always respected you, not the least because you were so up front about your disillusionment with the left. I don't know who could easily forget NovelGentry, LSD and BlackDagger - and whomever else rose to forum-prestige and then came to clash with the Admins and the community.

The CC was closed because of unresolved issues in reference to sexism and the Israeli-Palestinian question - though interestingly, it seemed more to do with attitudes rather than distinct conflicts of policy stances.

You claim that we are by and large obstinate to the real facts of the world. Well, RevLeft is mostly a gathering place for younger people who have a leftist moral paradigm. And when they come here or to other leftists, they are by and large sent to read the old communist theoreticians and historians. I think that's a dangerously narrow approach. But a lot of them - including Marx, Kautsky, Fromm and Lenin had not only valuable theories and ideas to offer - but very realistic concepts about how the world works.

Furthermore, I have not found any grouping of people so interested in the social and material reality of our contemporaneous economic and political regimes.

You can decry the "inviability of socialism" 'til you're blue in the face (last I checked you were down with the ISM, though, right?) but that doesn't mean much. If you really want to understand what can happen, you need to understand what is happening. So that's apparently the crux of the issue for you.

Tell me, is there some other greener pasture out there?

[RebelDog]

The kind of person who insists, despite 75 years of evidence to the contrary, that the choice really is "socialism or barbarism"

U know something. Whilst you might have changed the problems of humanity have not. OK u are a TINA subscriber now, but around you revolve the contradictions to this. Unless humanity takes a different path it is fucked,its as simple as that. Nuclear war or climate destruction are real unchecked threats and it takes lapse in the rational conciousness or a head full of right-wing garbage to think otherwise. All around the world are millions of people who do not subscribe to market madness, never ending war or environmental catastrophe.

[RebelDog]

Whatever else I may feel about politics in general or the revolutionary left in particular, I still think that's a beautiful sentiment. In the end, it's perhaps the only one that matters.

Then why does it matter? Because it means decency? Because it is the only alternative? Because socialism is not a dirty word stolen by those with something to gain by its missuse? It doesn't matter what state we are in politically. What matters is what is really worth our efforts as humans. What should we fight for?

I see my friends lives fucked up because a boss says they are no longer productive to them as a capitalist even though the world needs what their labour. I see kids existing in poverty in a rich country and condemned to a path in life they should never be exposed to. I see my local NHS hospital under threat because the wefare of the rich has overtaken any notion of human decency that existed in the first word states. I see a global popuation under the ruthless grip of a tiny, rich elite that contol unaccountable tyrannies. I see twisted out of control corporations produce suicide genes in order to thwart agricultural growth in the third word, whilst their state-sponsored lackeys spout bullshit about word hunger. Fuck all this shit, fuck it to hell.

No rational, human being will ever accept the idea that this fucking madness is the ony way and neither will anyone with any degree of empathy in their soul.

[Thug Lessons]

Socialism is dead and discredited, everybody. Just don't tell Latin America!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113902/opinion-briefing-latin-america-leftists.aspx

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Good to hear from you again, LSD. Good luck with the move.

[Nolan]

Who the fuck are you?

[Kayser_Soso]

Cool story br--- no wait. It wasn't cool, it was over-emotional and pointless. If you wanted to come on here and debate with Communists, you could have just put forth the points you included without the long history. I may disagree with those ideas but they are a good challenge. Debating reactionaries is too easy.

[ComradeOm]

And, damn, if this long-ass bullshit ain't "closure", I really don't know what is!Honestly, I'm not entirely sure just what it is. It doesn't seem like closure and I'm not sure how it could be given the turnover in posters since your day

What it does seem to resemble is an incredibly smug farewell. Which would be fine if we hadn't already gotten this years ago. Don't get we wrong LSD, I always considered you to be one of RevLeft's better posters but this is the sort post (yay for capitalism, sobs for the CC) that is entirely irrelevant to the forum today. As is yourself. I really couldn't care less if you never posted here again

Which I guess is, for myself at least, progress of a sort. So adios

[Kayser_Soso]

I see this as a passive-aggressive attempt to open a debate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Interesting to hear from you - I remember you, but I don't remember the details of your "disillusionment" with the left. But it's strange to come here now in a time of austerity and economic crisis and say that capitalism has its good reasons too.

[Invader Zim]

Interesting to hear from you LSD. Good luck and all that.

[AnthArmo]

Hey LSD. I'm more of a "lurker" than a poster. I'm not really familiar with you personally, and I only visit intermittedly, mainly as a source for news. This is were I mainly learnt about the revolutionary left, before moving onto other sources. The gist of this is, I'm not that familiar with you. I did read your other post were you said your enourmous "goodbye", and I trifled through some of your older posts to get a feel for the sort of "Leftist" you were.

I "think" I get you. Correct me if anything I say you feel is wrong, but I "think" I understand your perspective.

A lot of adults (I'm 18) simply refuse to argue politics with me. I wasn't sure why, so I gave up. But whenever I did, I always got the cliched response "You'll grow out of it" or "When you see the world, you'll understand"

To me, that sounded like an appeal to authority "Your too young, shutup and let the adults talk", to an extent, that is precisely what it is. But I think I understand some of the underpinnings of that statement now.

Adults, are pessimistic. Young people are idealistic, we have hope, passion, energy. We have a life ahead of us, and for us, that's a blank slate. Adults are the inverse of this, they are exhausted, spent, hopeless. I've heard a lot of adults use the term "Realist" to describe themselves. I believe the term "Defeatist" better explains it. Adults don't see any sign of change in their lifetimes, they've lived their lives, to an extent, and as a result, change becomes something "foreign" to them. Young people like me are used to learning new things, so in a way, nothing is really "alien" to us, that's why new ideas have such an impact on us, they spur us to action. How many middle-aged men did you see protesting the vietnam war, for instance?

Reading you posts, I don't think your stupid. In fact, going through your older posts, it sounds like you were a hell of a lot more reasoned and intelligent than most of the posters on this board. You understand, and still do, the fact that Capitalism is an exloitative, dehumanising and tyrannical system. Yet, your urge to "overthrow" it has "fizzled out"

Looking at your last "big goodbye" post, your arguments weren't "Capitalism good because of X, Socialism bad because of Y", but were rather, and I quote.



'Cause sitting in that crowded dusty little office, full of books no one wants to read and articles by authors no one's ever heard of, I was struck by the abject pointlessness of it all.and


And that, my friends, is the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. A bunch of lonlely deluded idealists sitting around in a backroom dreaming Russian dreams that died seventy years ago.
and...


'Cause like it or not folks, the Soviet Union was the grand experiment. And so was China and Vietnam and Cuba and the dozen or so other countries where Marxist parties have come to power and tried to implement their "transition" to "communism".This is the most important. You KNOW that these regimes had nothing to do with the ideals supported on this board. But your mindset doesn't see it like that. It see's these attempts at Utopia, failing. Over and over again. One can only witness failiure so many times that you just give up. That's what's happened to you. It might even happen to me in the future, I hope not, but it most probably could.

What I'm basically saying here is, your position has nothing to do with arguments, or objective facts. It is purely a case of Defeatism

You've given up. You see the Left as the hopeless, idealogical mess that is is, you've seen the many desperate attempts at Utopia failed during your life. And so you've given up.

It doesn't matter that, when it comes down to it, Socialism would work better than Capitalism, I think you feel that way to, deep down. Its just that you don't want to get involved in the petty sectarianism, the hopeless calls for that "Grand Revolution", the party politics, the close minded idealogical view of the world that often accompanies the Far-Left.

All I can say is, look at the past. I'm sure there were hundreds of pessimistic Democrats who saw the French Revolution and thought to themselves "well that's it, there's the grand attempt at Utopia failed, I give up! I'm just a realist here you know!"

Of course, the transition, the change, is never easy. But I personally would rather live with conviction than with defeat. Even if all the Far-Left groups out there were pathetic, hopeless and sectarian, there's nothing to stop you from not being pathetic, hopeless and sectarian.

Many people derive meaning from different avenues of life. You obviously see no meaning in pursuing revolutionary change, you've given up, and that's fine, you can find meaning elsewhere. But the people on this board haven't given up, they find meaning in striving for change, regardless of the futility of the act.

I agree with you to an extent, the far-left is hopeless. The petty sectarianism is paralysing. I read the World Socialist Website for my source of Australian news, and I can see what you mean when you talk about,


"these people have been writing this article, this very same damn article, for almost a hundred years now. Every year, in some little Trotksyist rag that no one reads, an article about how we need a "working class party" and the "revolution" is just on the horizon."
Don't worry, I see that too, hell, I see it everytime I read a news piece off of them. But that doesn't require you or I to sink to that level of dogmatic smallmindedness.

Looking at the comments, it looks like you had a reputation of criticising the far-left for being, well, hopeless. Rather than say "These guys are hopeless, I give up", wouldn't it be more noble to state that "These guys are hopeless, I need to knock some sense into them."

I realise that you have given up on that, but I haven't. I'd rather continue pursuing a hopeless ideal, than to devolve into hopeless pessimism

endrant/

[Bud Struggle]

You left about the time I started--but I remeber your post on the problems you were having with Communism was on of the best I've seen on the boards. I hope all goes well in your life. You are always welcome to post here on OI.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hey LSD. I'm more of a "lurker" than a poster.You should post more often.

[AnthArmo]

You should post more often.

I adhere strongly to the rule "Don't talk unless you have something to say"

[AK]

I adhere strongly to the rule "Don't talk unless you have something to say"
Find something to say :)

[JazzRemington]

You all realize two things: he became this way after a sitting in on a Trotskyist meeting and he probably hasn't logged in since he posted.

[Bud Struggle]

You all realize two things: he became this way after a sitting in on a Trotskyist meeting and he probably hasn't logged in since he posted.

I heard that he got this way while going out for a pizza and accidently crossing the Washington Mall while Glenn Beck was giving a speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

[revolution inaction]

I adhere strongly to the rule "Don't talk unless you have something to say"

it'd be quite here if everyone did that

[ComradeOm]

You all realize two things: he became this way after a sitting in on a Trotskyist meeting and he probably hasn't logged in since he posted.LSD always had a very mechanical/vulgar/academic outlook on class struggle. To be honest, it was not a huge surprise it hear that he'd officially crossed over to social-democracy. He was just retracing* Bernstein's path of over a century ago. One past exchange that sticks in the mind was his suggestion that the bourgeoisie would automatically become proletarianised, and abandon all hostility to the workers' movement, post-revolution through the simple act of relieving them of their ownership of the means of production

Some people look at the lamentable state of the socialist movement today and despair. That's understandable. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this somehow means that capitalism is doing fine is not

And, as you may have noted from the past tense, I'm treating this as something akin to a wake. As depressing as the idea of a wake for a reformist on a website is

*To be simple about it, before any neo-Kautskyites decide to start nitpicking

[Bud Struggle]

This is the logical end to the dialectic.

Thesis=Capitalism, antithesis=Communism; synthesis=Social Democracy.

[RedStarOverChina]

This is the logical end to the dialectic.

Thesis=Capitalism, antithesis=Communism; synthesis=Social Democracy.Well, he does say he is a "recovering communist", so his evolution does not seem complete yet. Maybe his final synthesis will be Nazism, who knows.

It's not the fact that he stopped being revolutionary that bothered me. It's his immediate picking up of anti-communist propaganda as well as him conveniently forgetting about even the rudimentary understanding about Marxism.

It suggests that this whole communist thing has been an act from the very beginning.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, he does say he is a "recovering communist", so his evolution does not seem complete yet. Maybe his final synthesis will be Nazism, who knows.

It's not the fact that he stopped being revolutionary that bothered me. It's his immediate picking up of anti-communist propaganda as well as him conveniently forgetting about even the rudimentary understanding about Marxism.

It suggests that this whole communist thing has been an act from the very beginning.

I don't know. People do change. I came here a first class Reaganite--I seem to be a Social Democrat now. Admittedly, I do have an old fondness for my hard right days--some people are "Romantic" like that. Maybe LSD is just more rationalistic.

[RGacky3]

This is the logical end to the dialectic.

Thesis=Capitalism, antithesis=Communism; synthesis=Social Democracy.

Lets take that argument further, Thesis Death antithesis life, synthesis is coma.

Thesis=dictator, antethisis=democracy, synthesis=aristocricy. You see the problem?

The solution is to figure out what works and go with it, your twisting the application of the dialectic.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Lets take that argument further, Thesis Death antithesis life, synthesis is coma.

Thesis=dictator, antethisis=democracy, synthesis=aristocricy. You see the problem?

The solution is to figure out what works and go with it, your twisting the application of the dialectic.

I bet that Bud was only being a clever ass. But you, too, have a sense of humor.

[RGacky3]

humor is hard to translate on an internet forum.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

humor is hard to translate on an internet forum.

Thesis = humor. Antithesis = forum.

And synthesis? Synthesis = misunderstanding.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dialectics is irrelevant crap anyway, you don't need to hold to it to be a good communist.

[Bud Struggle]

Dialectics is irrelevant crap anyway, you don't need to hold to it to be a good communist.

That's true.

Where it comes in handy is if you want to turn Communism into a religion.

You're and Admin! Congrats. :)


humor is hard to translate on an internet forum.

Actually, most of my post have jokes of one sort of another in them. I'm not a very serious person in real life. :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

LSD always had a very mechanical/vulgar/academic outlook on class struggle. To be honest, it was not a huge surprise it hear that he'd officially crossed over to social-democracy. He was just retracing* Bernstein's path of over a century ago. One past exchange that sticks in the mind was his suggestion that the bourgeoisie would automatically become proletarianised, and abandon all hostility to the workers' movement, post-revolution through the simple act of relieving them of their ownership of the means of production

[...]

*To be simple about it, before any neo-Kautskyites decide to start nitpicking

That thinking of automatic proletarianization is indeed quite mechanical and quite vulgar, Herr Lukacs Jr. (just returning the favour :p ). Carry on. ;)

[Dean]

That thinking of automatic proletarianization is indeed quite mechanical and quite vulgar, Herr Lukacs Jr. (just returning the favour :p ). Carry on. ;)

Right. I remember reading his posts (which were interesting - don't get me wrong) and consistently thinking that he sounded like an ideologue. Basically, he was engaged in dogmatic theorization. They were often pretty insincere.

I can't imagine staying here if I thought that learning all the terms and arguments for one model was all there was to do. It's really no surprise he was exhausted.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know. People do change.Very true. And I would have thanked the post if it weren't for the "more rational" jab at the end:lol:.

I think we shouldn't really try and re-read the comrades past radicalism as somehow inauthentic at the time. Maybe there were some weird ways he was looking at things, maybe other ex-radicals were only marginally interested in the politics and their later "betrayal" was a manifestation of things that were not at the surface before. But, more likely in my opinion, it's just that people's ideas change because of new circumstances in their own life or in the broader world. This isn't an easy time to be a radical considering the disorganization on out side and relentless and seemingly unstoppable onslaught of war and austerity and attacks from the ruling class. So until we have momentum on our side, it will be easier for someone to ditch radical politics than to pick it up.

So if someone burns-out, they might recognize their need to take a step back from organizing or other political activity, they might just decide that their project of organizing the working class is too big and that reformism is "easier" (though they'd probably say "more realistic" than "easier"), or they may develop hostility towards the working class or the left and become reactionary out of their disillusionment.

So anyway, I can understand that people who knew LSD longer and better might feel hurt or betrayed, but I don't think there is reason to be totally hostile (although the tone of some of his re-introduction was kind of smug and alienating). I hope he checks into OI now and then and maybe as world events continue to change, he will also question his new reformist ideas and reconsider his approach to radicalism in the past and maybe even return to it as the objective political situation changes.

[Kiev Communard]

To LSD: it is really strange that you decided to come here and preach TINA at the time when it crumbles around the very capitalist Establishment that concocted it. You seem to be stuck in the 1990s, Sir :D.

[Kayser_Soso]

To LSD: it is really strange that you decided to come here and preach TINA at the time when it crumbles around the very capitalist Establishment that concocted it. You seem to be stuck in the 1990s, Sir :D.

It seems these people are always trying to insinuate that the overthrow of capitalism is too radical and too much to hope for(yet it was done before, whether one believes the previous revolutions established socialism or not). In fact history proves the opposite- social democracy, and all attempts to regulate capitalism have failed more consistently.

[Ele'ill]

I do remember you and I always respected you, not the least because you were so up front about your disillusionment with the left. I don't know who could easily forget NovelGentry, LSD and BlackDagger - and whomever else rose to forum-prestige and then came to clash with the Admins and the community.


Wow, I remember LSD- I think.

Welcome back.

[Zanthorus]

This is the logical end to the dialectic.

Thesis=Capitalism, antithesis=Communism; synthesis=Social Democracy.

The dialectic isn't "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". Any kind of static formula's for doing philosophy would have been totally alien to Hegel's whole approach anyhow, but if you really want some kind of formula for doing dialectics a more accurate one would be: Harmony - Disharmony - Supersession.


Dialectics is irrelevant crap anyway, you don't need to hold to it to be a good communist.

Treating Hegel like a dead dog are we?

Dialectical materialism is rubbish, and much of Hegel's philosophy is based on his pantheistic mysticism. However a basic knowledge of what Hegel was trying to do is necessary to understand where Marx was coming from. A mechanical view of Hegelian dialectics which sees it as "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" or as some kind of "laws" like the "law" of the transformation of quality into quantity and vice versa has been one of the main things which has led people down the wrong road when trying to find the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

[Bud Struggle]

You seem to be stuck in the 1990s, Sir :D.

We all are stuck in time a bit. A while ago I renamed RevLeft--RetroLeft because of all the fighting pro and con of heros long forgotten by the rest of the world.

LSD should feel right at home here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Treating Hegel like a dead dog are we?

Dialectical materialism is rubbish, and much of Hegel's philosophy is based on his pantheistic mysticism. However a basic knowledge of what Hegel was trying to do is necessary to understand where Marx was coming from. A mechanical view of Hegelian dialectics which sees it as "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" or as some kind of "laws" like the "law" of the transformation of quality into quantity and vice versa has been one of the main things which has led people down the wrong road when trying to find the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

I just think Marx was wrong on this one. He was only human after all. Historical materialism is much more relevant.

[Zanthorus]

I just think Marx was wrong on this one. He was only human after all. Historical materialism is much more relevant.

I'm not sure exactly what is being said here. If you're saying that there is no rational kernel within the mystical shell, that would be a tacit rejection of Marx's critique of political economy. "Historical materialism" is not really any kind of theory besides the demand to engage in concrete history instead of studying reified abstractions like the "ideal" or "material", although it does demand concrete theories of specific societies, which the critique of political economy provides in terms of capitalism, so rejecting the rational kernel could constitute a rejection of the materialist conception of history as per Marx.

[Dean]

Dialectical materialism is rubbish, and much of Hegel's philosophy is based on his pantheistic mysticism. However a basic knowledge of what Hegel was trying to do is necessary to understand where Marx was coming from. A mechanical view of Hegelian dialectics which sees it as "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" or as some kind of "laws" like the "law" of the transformation of quality into quantity and vice versa has been one of the main things which has led people down the wrong road when trying to find the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

I have to admit I just haven't read much Hegel. I lent my friend a book on Hegel and we read a bit together and it came off as fairly profound.

Basically, the passage we read discussed the fact of disparate human conditions expanding or repressing the ability to succeed in terms of finances. Well thats a fact of the world I learned at an early age and it shaped my rejection of contemporary societal norms, specifically "law and order" morality.

I think Hegel has some very useful writings which are still very relevant. NoXion is right that "dialectics" is silly as a model for science. But so is Popper's falsifiability, and yet, it carries some valuable notions for science as well.

I see a lot of superlatives bouncing around and I just don't think its useful. I think communists would do well to step out of some of their safety zones - I really think disillusionment comes from communists' strict adherence to models which don't change with the times.

[Thug Lessons]

Dialectic materialism is nothing more or less than a useful tool for examining the world and the progress of history. The mistake, like Zanthorus says, is in assuming it's some sort of law, but he's wrong that this makes it rubbish or irrelevant.

[RebelDog]

I thought the claim of DM is that it is a law of nature. TBH, I think as it stands it is pretty solid claim. It is a theory that is hard to contradict.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought the claim of DM is that it is a law of nature. TBH, I think as it stands it is pretty solid claim. It is a theory that is hard to contradict.

That's one of the problems with DM; if promulgated by a suitably eloquent advocate, it simply cannot be falsified. Soviet scientists didn't abandon DM when evidence was found that contradicted it; the dialectical materialists simply wrote a few incomprehensible papers and all was well again in the world of DM.

If Marxists want their claim of being scientific to be taken at all seriously, they should abandon DM.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's one of the problems with DM; if promulgated by a suitably eloquent advocate, it simply cannot be falsified. Soviet scientists didn't abandon DM when evidence was found that contradicted it; the dialectical materialists simply wrote a few incomprehensible papers and all was well again in the world of DM.

If Marxists want their claim of being scientific to be taken at all seriously, they should abandon DM.

What evidence contradicted it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What evidence contradicted it?

I believe it was evidence for the Big Bang, which apparently contradicted DM.

But even if I've got the wrong end of the stick, my point still remains; any theory that claims to explain the world or some subset of it that cannot be refuted by material evidence (at least in principle) is utterly useless.

[Kayser_Soso]

I believe it was evidence for the Big Bang, which apparently contradicted DM.

But even if I've got the wrong end of the stick, my point still remains; any theory that claims to explain the world or some subset of it that cannot be refuted by material evidence (at least in principle) is utterly useless.

Dialectical materialism is a methodology, not a theory. We can use it to formulate a theory.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dialectical materialism is a methodology, not a theory. We can use it to formulate a theory.

What's wrong with logic?

[Kayser_Soso]

What's wrong with logic?

Who said that DM is opposed to logic?

[Thug Lessons]

I believe it was evidence for the Big Bang, which apparently contradicted DM.
I don't see what's so difficult about explaining that in terms of dialectics. While the universe may have arose from a single entity, if that entity lacked internal dynamics nothing would spark it to change.


But even if I've got the wrong end of the stick, my point still remains; any theory that claims to explain the world or some subset of it that cannot be refuted by material evidence (at least in principle) is utterly useless.
If all you have are epistemological objections, there's really no need. All science is based on certain assumptions that are inherently unfalsifiable, even beyond inductive reasoning. Is there any material evidence supporting the claim that all changes have a cause? Perhaps things sometimes happen for no reason. And perhaps some phenomena do not have contradictory relationships to other phenomena. These lines of reasoning present meaningful challenges to neither theories of cause and effect nor theories of dialectics.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who said that DM is opposed to logic?

It doesn't necessarily have to be, but it strikes me as singularly unnnecessary. What's the point of it?


I don't see what's so difficult about explaining that in terms of dialectics. While the universe may have arose from a single entity, if that entity lacked internal dynamics nothing would spark it to change.

That's the thing; we don't know if cosmological singularities have "internal dynamics" or not.


If all you have are epistemological objections, there's really no need. All science is based on certain assumptions that are inherently unfalsifiable, even beyond inductive reasoning.

The only assumption that science makes as far as I can see is that the universe is knowable on some level. Seeing as the universe appears to respond "as if" that were true, it doesn't strike me as that much of a leap - at least compared to the proposition that there is some kind of meta-reality, inaccessible by ordinary science.


Is there any material evidence supporting the claim that all changes have a cause? Perhaps things sometimes happen for no reason.

Science can discover things like that too; for example, virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles) appear to come and go without any particular rhyme or reason - it's just something that happens at that scale.


And perhaps some phenomena do not have contradictory relationships to other phenomena. These lines of reasoning present meaningful challenges to neither theories of cause and effect nor theories of dialectics.

At best it makes DM superfluous.

[Thug Lessons]

That's the thing; we don't know if cosmological singularities have "internal dynamics" or not.
A static singularity with no internal dynamics doesn't change, and such does not expand to create an entire universe, without being acted upon by an outside force. Either way you have a dialectic, or at least room for one.


The only assumption that science makes as far as I can see is that the universe is knowable on some level. Seeing as the universe appears to respond "as if" that were true, it doesn't strike me as that much of a leap - at least compared to the proposition that there is some kind of meta-reality, inaccessible by ordinary science.
This is true of science in a very broad sense. However there is very little theoretical or practical scientific work that isn't founded on assumptions that are less than completely justified, or perhaps impossible to justify. Different branches of science also tend to have different epistemological bases, some of which set much more stringent standards of justification than others. Psychology, for example, isn't falsifiable by the standards of say, physics, because no one has seen or quantitatively measured a mind.


At best it makes DM superfluous.
That's a strange way to put it. The use of examples or thought experiments are superfluous to the process of expressing an idea or theory. That doesn't mean they're useless.

[Skooma Addict]

This is true of science in a very broad sense. However there is very little theoretical or practical scientific work that isn't founded on assumptions that are less than completely justified, or perhaps impossible to justify. Different branches of science also tend to have different epistemological bases, some of which set much more stringent standards of justification than others. Psychology, for example, isn't falsifiable by the standards of say, physics, because no one has seen or quantitatively measured a mind.

Is this what you are trying to get at?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

[Victory]

I can understand why anybody would become disillusioned with 'revolutionary leftism' in first world countries.
Have you ever been to some of these 'revolutionary protests' in Britain recently - They are generally mothers meeting consisting of 21st century hippies and middle class labour aristocrats that only ever pay lip-service to revolution. - And when they talk about Revolution, it usually consists of a topic related to criticizing other revolutionary movements that are actually involved in a real revolution, rather than just mouthing words of Marxism because they are romantically attracted to the idea of being a 'liberator', whilst at the same time they are drinking Coca Cola and benefiting from the rape and pillage of the third world. -

I hope I didn't offend anybody on this board by saying that, who are reading this post at present whilst ignoring the fact that they too are middle class labour aristocrats that only ever pay lip-service to revolution. - Meanwhile, I’m waiting for the response of being labelled an ’Evil Thirdworldist’ or something similar to those lines which conviently justifies the critic to continue benefiting from the rape and pillage of the Third World.

I don't know you're story LCN, but I've always been interested in hearing how people can go from being a class conscious communist to a self-proclaimed Capitalist, ever since that leading member of the Red Army Faction went from the most militant of Communists willing to risk their life, to becoming a straight-up outspoken Nazi. - It's a phenomenon I have never quite come to terms with.
I’m not being nice here, make no mistake about it, I’d wouldn’t brink at the opportunity of making you dig your own grave right before I made you permanently lye in it.

[Thug Lessons]

Is this what you are trying to get at?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
More or less, though I'm familiar with Quine only in passing and Duhem not at all. I'm very much an amateur when it comes to the philosophy of science.

[anticap]

It takes a pretty strong capacity for obstinacy (not to mention a touch of self-delusion) to affirm the communist ideal in a post-Berlin Wall, post-1991, post-"socialism with Chinese characteristics" world.

The kind of person who insists, despite 75 years of evidence to the contrary, that the choice really is "socialism or barbarism"... let's just say they're less than tolerant of appeals to order or efficiency.

This nonsense rests on the false premise that the working class controlled the means of production -- i.e., that socialism existed -- in any of the places alluded to.

[Skooma Addict]

More or less, though I'm familiar with Quine only in passing and Duhem not at all. I'm very much an amateur when it comes to the philosophy of science.

If it is a subject which interests you, this book is the best intro there is.

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Reality-Introduction-Philosophy-Foundations/dp/0226300633

[Publius]

If it is a subject which interests you, this book is the best intro there is.

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Reality-Introduction-Philosophy-Foundations/dp/0226300633

I'll second that.

This was the book used in my philosophy of science course and it's very good.

[Sentinel]

Hello, LSD. Nice to see that you are still alive and kicking. You were in my honest opinion by far the best admin this site ever had -- I never came to even close your level myself -- and it was a shame (but obviously necessary) that your adminship should end.

Back in those days, I was also greatly influenced by your political views, your arguments amongst others on this board did a lot to convince me to choose the 'libertarian' side, and anarchism instead of some form of leninism which was my natural starting position in left politics due to my parent's views.

Are you still a social democrat then? These are interesting times for you in that case, as the soc dem movement at least in Europe (England and hopefully now also Sweden, most crucially) seems to be trying to find back to it's ideological roots. This after realising that people aren't voting for them anymore due to the drift towards the right and neoliberalism.

Perhaps people like you can make social democracy more radical again in Canada as well. I wouldn't ever become a social democrat, but a shift towards the left within that movement on a global scale would be most welcome due to it's influence.

But I'm afraid I'd just be a foolish optimist if I actually believed in that. In any case, I wish you all the best! Take care.

Edit: I had not seen this thread when it was posted -- as I'm a little sporadic as member here these days -- and it's a little bit old. I hope you will see this post, and reply, LSD.

[Lt. Ferret]

you sound smart, so yeah props to you.

[Raúl Duke]

Hi, welcome back, I remember you a bit.


But I must admit I'm disappointed to see that the era of collective governance has come to a close, however limited and deeply flawed it may have been. I think it was part of what made this place special; not necessarily because of what it did (it often did very little), but because of what it represented: a collective belief in collective rule.

I agree.


You all realize two things: he became this way after a sitting in on a Trotskyist meeting and he probably hasn't logged in since he posted.

Not surprising, selling newspapers and deluding yourself that your trot org is going to be the vanguard and lead a revolution by itself is dumb.

Although, LSD, socialism/working-class struggle/etc is not solely about trot groups or activist left groups at all. There have been small attempts to break out of that old mold and try to find something new (the text nihilist communism might be doing something like this in the realm of ideas, while RAAN is in a way an expression of an attempt to do something new). I believe, if you want, that you should look for something new instead of leaving old troskyism/leftism for old social-democracy because none of that old shit has really gotten us closer to a better society at all.


TINA

What's that?

[revolution inaction]

What's that?

There Is No Alternative (to capitalism)

[Bud Struggle]

There Is No Alternative (to capitalism)

You can say that again! :D

[Hiero]

Back in those days, I was also greatly influenced by your political views, your arguments amongst others on this board did a lot to convince me to choose the 'libertarian' side, and anarchism instead of some form of leninism which was my natural starting position in left politics due to my parent's views.

Using Sentinel's quote as a spring board, the reason why LSD influenced people was because his statements were so simple and that made it easy to believe because they lacked in depth discussion.

This is LSD convincing people towards libertarian side of politics and Leninist:

We done need a vanguard to tell us what to do, people have the capablity to decide things for themselves!

LSD's contribution to the forum was a more or less of the above style. And that made it so easy to agree with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Using Sentinel's quote as a spring board, the reason why LSD influenced people was because his statements were so simple and that made it easy to believe because they lacked in depth discussion.

This is LSD convincing people towards libertarian side of politics and Leninist:

We done need a vanguard to tell us what to do, people have the capablity to decide things for themselves!

LSD's contribution to the forum was a more or less of the above style. And that made it so easy to agree with.

It's easy to agree with because it's true. The last thing the modern proletariat needs is some hoity-toity middle-class vanguard party poking their noses everywhere and bossing everyone around "for their own good".

[revolution inaction]

Using Sentinel's quote as a spring board, the reason why LSD influenced people was because his statements were so simple and that made it easy to believe because they lacked in depth discussion.

This is LSD convincing people towards libertarian side of politics and Leninist:

We done need a vanguard to tell us what to do, people have the capablity to decide things for themselves!

LSD's contribution to the forum was a more or less of the above style. And that made it so easy to agree with.

i thought he was a trotskyists?

[RGacky3]

You can say that again! :D

There was no alternative to monarchies as well.

[Hiero]

It's easy to agree with because it's true. The last thing the modern proletariat needs is some hoity-toity middle-class vanguard party poking their noses everywhere and bossing everyone around "for their own good".


Well my point was that he provides simple statements that any person can really agree with, Leninist, Anarchist or Republican. It works perfect for people who think they have society and individuals all worked out.

[RGacky3]

Well my point was that he provides simple statements that any person can really agree with, Leninist, Anarchist or Republican. It works perfect for people who think they have society and individuals all worked out.

I gotta agree, from what I saw in the past most of LSDs posts were sweaping statements that sound good, but don't have any specific concrete meanings.

[Bud Struggle]

I gotta agree, from what I saw in the past most of LSDs posts were sweaping statements that sound good, but don't have any specific concrete meanings.

Though an improvement over you statements that postulate a dreary world of dull servile worker/citizens picking beans and talking politics. But we can always sing while we plot--as I learned with the IWW. :D

[RGacky3]

Though an improvement over you statements that postulate a dreary world of dull servile worker/citizens picking beans and talking politics.

What the hell are you talking about Bud?

[RedAnarchist]

What the hell are you talking about Bud?

I think he was writing a LSD-esque post, although I may be wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

What the hell are you talking about Bud? Touchy, aren't we?

[RGacky3]

No, I just have no idea what your talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

No, I just have no idea what your talking about. Sigh. Man, you are postulating one DULL world. Just so you know.

[Sentinel]

i thought he was a trotskyists?

LSD used to identify as an anarcho-syndicalist, overall he represented the 'workerist' wing of anarchism. He still supports union struggle afaik.

Lol at the discussion between Hiero and NoXion btw. I remember how LSD, and especially his fondness towards bolding words, used to annoy the shit out of leninists.

I obviously agree with NoXion about the content of his politics.

[Bud Struggle]

LSD used to identify as an anarcho-syndicalist, overall he represented the 'workerist' wing of anarchism. He still supports union struggle afaik.



I gotta agree, from what I saw in the past most of LSDs posts were sweaping statements that sound good, but don't have any specific concrete meanings.

:lol:

Gack--that nailed it. Checkmate.

[RGacky3]

Sigh. Man, you are postulating one DULL world. Just so you know.

You do realize this is a website to discuss socio-economic problems right? Heres something a little more suited to you. (http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/)

[Bud Struggle]

You do realize this is a website to discuss socio-economic problems right? Heres something a little more suited to you. (http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/)

As I said---Checkmate. :D :D :D

[RGacky3]

take the king, I'm all about the pawns.

[Bud Struggle]

take the king, I'm all about the pawns.

Brother (if I may call you that) you don't even know who your brothers are. You just fight. That gets you nowhere. You may call yourself an Anarchist--but in your heart you are a Stalinist.

It's about a better world--not beating the other guy. Really.

[RGacky3]

you don't even know who your brothers are. You just fight. That gets you nowhere.

I don'nt know, I've organized a workplace before (obvoiusly not alone), and I do know who my brothers are, they are the sons of my mother.


You may call yourself an Anarchist--but in your heart you are a Stalinist.

It's about a better world--not beating the other guy. Really.

Yeah, I know ... ... Thats what I believe.

But you believe in wolves and lambs and winning and beating the other guy ... At least thats what I've heard from you, that the winners DESERVE what they have because they've worked for it (ignoring all the facts), and the poor, we'll they are just lambs.

But I don't believe that personally, I believe we were all equal and deserve equal rights and liberty, I want to achieve a better world for everyone.

As far as I've seen your only goal is to justify the status quo.

[Bud Struggle]

I don'nt know, I've organized a workplace before (obvoiusly not alone), and I do know who my brothers are, they are the sons of my mother.

IWW.




Yeah, I know ... ... Thats what I believe.

But you believe in wolves and lambs and winning and beating the other guy ... At least thats what I've heard from you, that the winners DESERVE what they have because they've worked for it (ignoring all the facts), and the poor, we'll they are just lambs.

But I don't believe that personally, I believe we were all equal and deserve equal rights and liberty, I want to achieve a better world for everyone.

As far as I've seen your only goal is to justify the status quo. You have been putting words into my mouth for a while now. Now I'm doing it to you--not to pleasent is it? It is pretty easy, though.

[RGacky3]

IWW.


Thats a Union I'm part of ..... :), are you saying they are my brothers?


You have been putting words into my mouth for a while now. Now I'm doing it to you--not to pleasent is it?

Ok Bud, What IS your world view? So I don't get it wrong in future.

[The Red Next Door]

I can understand why anybody would become disillusioned with 'revolutionary leftism' in first world countries.
Have you ever been to some of these 'revolutionary protests' in Britain recently - They are generally mothers meeting consisting of 21st century hippies and middle class labour aristocrats that only ever pay lip-service to revolution. - And when they talk about Revolution, it usually consists of a topic related to criticizing other revolutionary movements that are actually involved in a real revolution, rather than just mouthing words of Marxism because they are romantically attracted to the idea of being a 'liberator', whilst at the same time they are drinking Coca Cola and benefiting from the rape and pillage of the third world. -

I hope I didn't offend anybody on this board by saying that, who are reading this post at present whilst ignoring the fact that they too are middle class labour aristocrats that only ever pay lip-service to revolution. - Meanwhile, I’m waiting for the response of being labelled an ’Evil Thirdworldist’ or something similar to those lines which conviently justifies the critic to continue benefiting from the rape and pillage of the Third World.

I don't know you're story LCN, but I've always been interested in hearing how people can go from being a class conscious communist to a self-proclaimed Capitalist, ever since that leading member of the Red Army Faction went from the most militant of Communists willing to risk their life, to becoming a straight-up outspoken Nazi. - It's a phenomenon I have never quite come to terms with.
I’m not being nice here, make no mistake about it, I’d wouldn’t brink at the opportunity of making you dig your own grave right before I made you permanently lye in it.

I believe the reason is that, they take what people tell them to much to heart about how socialism will never work or they are impatient or They once belong to a party that was like the o and they think that the left as a whole is fuck up in the head; that why i stop being a communist for a while.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats a Union I'm part of ..... :), are you saying they are my brothers? When I was part of the VERY SAME union. we called ourselves "Brothers."


Ok Bud, What IS your world view? So I don't get it wrong in future.Not something gray and sad and devoid of humor. "Humor", Gack, look it up in the dictionary.

[revolution inaction]

LSD used to identify as an anarcho-syndicalist, overall he represented the 'workerist' wing of anarchism. He still supports union struggle afaik.


but i thought that what disillusioned him was going to a trotskyist meeting?

workerist like only factory workers are proletariat / only work place struggle matters / supporting working class culture uncritical?

[Sentinel]

Ok Bud, What IS your world view? So I don't get it wrong in future.


He an idealist who sees himself as a benevolent patriarch and a 'good christian'. He owns a factory but cares about his workers, he doesn't want them to suffer and listens to them. Hell, it's probably really nice to work for him!

What he doesn't realise is that the workers do not need welfare and rights within capitalism, that's not what this is about. They need actual power over their own lives and over society which is impossible as long as the economically privileged ones have the final say and private property exists.

No matter how good a boss he is, he's still a boss -- one other bosses, who don't share his idealistic mentality, probably laugh at. There will never be a just society within the frame of capitalism, because all bosses will never be like Tom, and that's why we have a problem.



but i thought that what disillusioned him was going to a trotskyist meeting?


Yes, but he was an anarcho-syndicalist none the less. He says he was dragged into a trot meeting by CyM, another former admin who is a trotskyist, and claims that it was during this meeting (listening to the trotskyists) that he finally lost faith in the entire revolutionary leftist cause.



workerist like only factory workers are proletariat / only work place struggle matters / supporting working class culture uncritical?


Workerist, as opposed to insurrectionist, lifestylist, primitivist etc brands of anarchism.

[RGacky3]

When I was part of the VERY SAME union. we called ourselves "Brothers."

Yeah, are you my brother? Sure. Look Bud, I'm sure your a nice guy, I'm sure if I mett you in person you'd be great to hang out with, but this is a economic political website, we discuss economic political issues, thats why I come here, when I attack your positions, or try and point out inconsitancies, I'm not attacking you personally, even if I call you a hypocrite, what I'm doing is pointing out inconsistancies in your arguments.

Sometimes I say something that might be too much of a personal attack, and when I do that I'm wrong, and I appologise for that, however, when I disagree with you, and I find inconsistancies or patterns of arguments, I'll point them out. I think you have your head on straight overall, compared to a lot of people here, but this is a social-economic forum, and I make arguments.


Not something gray and sad and devoid of humor. "Humor", Gack, look it up in the dictionary.

My world view is'nt devoid of humor .... But, when I'm discussing Capitalism and the problems of Capitalism, I leave humor aside, thats what I'm here for bud, come join me at the bar if you want to tell jokes, check out the honies and make sarcastic comments. But for me at least, revleft is to talk about serious issues, issues, that you've experienced, or seen people experience, are not nessesarily things to be joked about.

[RGacky3]

He an idealist who sees himself as a benevolent patriarch and a 'good christian'. He owns a factory but cares about his workers, he doesn't want them to suffer and listens to them. Hell, it's probably really nice to work for him!

What he doesn't realise is that the workers do not need welfare and rights within capitalism, that's not waht this is about. They need actual power over their own lives and over society which is impossible as long as the economically privileged ones have the final say and private property exists.

No matter how good a boss he is, he's still a boss -- one other bosses, who don't share his idealistic mentality, probably laugh at. There will never be a just society within the frame of capitalism, because all bosses will never be like Tom, and that's why we have a problem.

You hit it on the head.

[Bud Struggle]

He an idealist who sees himself as a benevolent patriarch and a 'good christian'. He owns a factory but cares about his workers, he doesn't want them to suffer and listens to them. Hell, it's probably really nice to work for him!

What he doesn't realise is that the workers do not need welfare and rights within capitalism, that's not what this is about. They need actual power over their own lives and over society which is impossible as long as the economically privileged ones have the final say and private property exists.

No matter how good a boss he is, he's still a boss -- one other bosses, who don't share his idealistic mentality, probably laugh at. There will never be a just society within the frame of capitalism, because all bosses will never be like Tom, and that's why we have a problem.


Well, thanks, I guess. :rolleyes:

But I honestly think--and I mean this--I'm the best workers are ever going to get. I think I am what the future is going to look like. I'm working class as you can get, and then when I got the idea to move up--it's not "join me fellow workers" (and the thought NEVER occured to me at the time--really) it's I''ve got this plan and I'm going to move up.

The idea to "advance" (me and then bussiness and then society) is singular and personal. The real plan is to "socialze" bosses. get more bosses from the working class--stop rich people from passing on wealth from generation to generation.

Comrades--when you look into the face of Bud Struggle--you see the future of the world. (Kidding there-a bit.;) )

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, are you my brother? Sure. Look Bud, I'm sure your a nice guy, I'm sure if I mett you in person you'd be great to hang out with, but this is a economic political website, we discuss economic political issues, thats why I come here, when I attack your positions, or try and point out inconsitancies, I'm not attacking you personally, even if I call you a hypocrite, what I'm doing is pointing out inconsistancies in your arguments. Nothing personal here either. But--you have to know, all this is "pretend." There are a lot of these IWW guys give the Vulcan "live long and prosper" sign also.


Sometimes I say something that might be too much of a personal attack, and when I do that I'm wrong, and I appologise for that, however, when I disagree with you, and I find inconsistancies or patterns of arguments, I'll point them out. I think you have your head on straight overall, compared to a lot of people here, but this is a social-economic forum, and I make arguments. I know no problem. I take a lot of shit-- no problem, but you have to be able to take it too.


My world view is'nt devoid of humor .... But, when I'm discussing Capitalism and the problems of Capitalism, I leave humor aside, thats what I'm here for bud, come join me at the bar if you want to tell jokes, check out the honies and make sarcastic comments. But for me at least, revleft is to talk about serious issues, issues, that you've experienced, or seen people experience, are not nessesarily things to be joked about.Do what ever you want, Comrade. You are getting a bit too touchy, feely for me.:rolleyes:

[Apoi_Viitor]

I’m not being nice here, make no mistake about it, I’d wouldn’t brink at the opportunity of making you dig your own grave right before I made you permanently lye in it.

I think posts such as these are why he became disillusioned with the revolutionary left....

[RGacky3]

There are a lot of these IWW guys give the Vulcan "live long and prosper" sign also.


So what? Theres wierd people everywhere.


Nothing personal here either. But--you have to know, all this is "pretend."

This is a discussion forum Bud, I'll remind you of that, for discussion, a lot of us are actually involved in workers struggles, but this here is an internet discussion forum.


but you have to be able to take it too.


If your tying to attack my statements or viewpoints then sure.


You are getting a bit too touchy, feely for me.

If you don't want to discuss actual problems in the world then I don't know why your here in revleft, if you actually don't care about them, or don't care about discussing socio-economic issues, then use your time better.

[Bud Struggle]

If you don't want to discuss actual problems in the world then I don't know why your here in revleft, if you actually don't care about them, or don't care about discussing socio-economic issues, then use your time better.

Brother, You slammed LSD for being an air head, a person who has and has always has the EXACT SAME political viewpoint as you.

How seriously do you think I should take you posts? You are a hypocrite. You were pandering for +points and you got caught.

Just admit you are a hypocite and maybe we could start again.

[RGacky3]

But I honestly think--and I mean this--I'm the best workers are ever going to get.

Fidel Castros a good boss too.


I think I am what the future is going to look like.

based on what? Because based on reality, the future is'nt looking like that at all. (I.e. just really nice bosses), but in the fairy world of Bud, where you just gotta REALLY want something maybe, in the real world theres class warfare, desperate poverty, oppression, and so on.


The idea to "advance" (me and then bussiness and then society) is singular and personal.

For you it was, yeah ... But thats a really convenient philosophy for the ruling class.


The real plan is to "socialze" bosses. get more bosses from the working class--stop rich people from passing on wealth from generation to generation.

How does that solve anything?

Also I guess HUGE inheretance taxes are the only way to do the latter, but there are loop holes.

But Bud, I'm sure you realize by now, the "American Dream" was never the way the world worked, at least I hope you do.


Brother, You slammed LSD for being an air head, a person who has and has always has the EXACT SAME political viewpoint as you.


I did'nt call him an air head, I said he made a lot of sweeping statements that end up being meaningless, when it comes to discussion I don't care what viewpoint people have, we are here to discuss issues and for that its good to keep things honest.

As you said, this is'nt the real world, its a discussion forum.


How seriously do you think I should take you posts? You are a hypocrite. You were pandering for +points and you got caught.

I'm a hypocrite because I attacked the arguments of someone who's overall viewpoint I agree with? I think I'd be a hypocrite if I attacked someone else for making sweeping meaningless statements and then let it go when someone who I generally agree with does them.

Thats actually the opposite of what you do. I'm NOT a hypocrite because I hold everyone to the same standard of honesty.

YOU are a hypoctive because you have 2 standards, one for "your team" and another for everyone else.


Just admit you are a hypocite and maybe we could start again.

I don't care if you admit your a hypocrite or not, just stop having 2 standards, I have one, because I, unlike you, am here to engage in honest discussion.

[Bud Struggle]

Fidel Castros a good boss too. And I imagine that he's the best the world is going to get--at least in the political sphere.


based on what? Because based on reality, the future is'nt looking like that at all. (I.e. just really nice bosses), but in the fairy world of Bud, where you just gotta REALLY want something maybe, in the real world theres class warfare, desperate poverty, oppression, and so on. Well good bosses really do esist in this world. Anarchism doesn't exist anywhere. Most likely it never really has.


For you it was, yeah ... But thats a really convenient philosophy for the ruling class. When people from the Proletariat have an idea for a business--they NEVER (or almost never) join together to form a collevtive with their brother workers and start the business sholder to sholder. They break off from the herd and do it themselves and become--class trators. It happens all the time that way.


Also I guess HUGE inheretance taxes are the only way to do the latter, but there are loop holes. Actually now there are NO inheritance taxes. ZERO. The taxes will go back into effect at the end of this year is Congress doesn't continue them. Whuich--I hope they don't. Here I agree with you. This is I think the reason for the huge financial growth in the ranks of the top 1%.


But Bud, I'm sure you realize by now, the "American Dream" was never the way the world worked, at least I hope you do. It works if you are good enough and smart enough and if people like you. The problems is that a lot of people in America and I assume the world are rather marginal in their business capabilities. Did you ever hire people to put labels on bottles using a fool proof bottle labeling maching? Well you have to go through quite a few to find one that can actually do the job. You would think HS grads could follow some easy instruction--nope. Your guess is as good as mine what will become of people like that.



I did'nt call him an air head, I said he made a lot of sweeping statements that end up being meaningless, when it comes to discussion I don't care what viewpoint people have, we are here to discuss issues and for that its good to keep things honest. LSD has exactly the SAME ideology as you do.


As you said, this is'nt the real world, its a discussion forum. Is that any reason to be a nasty negative bastard?


I'm a hypocrite because I attacked the arguments of someone who's overall viewpoint I agree with? I think I'd be a hypocrite if I attacked someone else for making sweeping meaningless statements and then let it go when someone who I generally agree with does them.

Thats actually the opposite of what you do. I'm NOT a hypocrite because I hold everyone to the same standard of honesty.

YOU are a hypoctive because you have 2 standards, one for "your team" and another for everyone else. You have tunnel vision--only your way is correct no matter how ridiculous it is. The entire world is deluded as to the truth, but you. And I'm not saying there is some reasonablness to the Anarchist ideas--there are, but there has to be a major rethinking of how to make that system palatable to the people of the world. I don't think it is even close at the present time.


I don't care if you admit your a hypocrite or not, just stop having 2 standards, I have one, because I, unlike you, am here to engage in honest discussion. I demonstrated beyond any reason of doubt that you are a hypocrite. If you want to deny the facts--go ahead.

[The Grey Blur]

I've been to old dusty buildings with old dusty Trotskyists talking about very old dusty ideas like the materialist dialectic and class struggle. Unlike LSD though I realise that no matter how old and dusty and unfashionable these ideas are and the people who propound them - they are the correct ones.

[Sentinel]

Anarchism doesn't exist anywhere. Most likely it never really has.


Alright, hold your horses, let's slow down a little bit here.. :rolleyes:

To take perhaps the most well known -- but far from only -- example: anarchism not only 'existed', but was successfully practised in large parts of Spain, before Franco's fascists crushed it.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bV7uNLJlNg&feature=related

[Dimentio]

One could also argue that Europe during the dark- and early middle ages had many regions which could be characterised as semi-anarchistic, since the political and military rulers were challenged by local authorities and communes and had to negotiate to get their will through. That was especially the case in for example Catalonia during the Middle Ages.

[Wanted Man]

Lol at the discussion between Hiero and NoXion btw. I remember how LSD, and especially his fondness towards bolding words, used to annoy the shit out of leninists.

It wasn't really his fondness, it was RS2K's.

During his time of activity, RS2K had a gaggle of followers who imitated not only his politics, but also his writing style of short paragraphs and lots of bold.

All of those discussions involving them were pretty interesting, because of the sheer self-importance of all involved, and their utter belief in their own infallibility.

Including the people who pretended to be unorthodox and open-minded, but basically had their own little party line.

[Sentinel]

I really recommend this excellent clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw&feature=related

In it is explained how the spanish workers took control over their workplaces, how money was replaced with vouchers, etc. Before everything, of course, it demonstrates that anarchism not only has existed as a real world social system, but that it also worked exceptionally well as such.

[Bud Struggle]

I've been to old dusty buildings with old dusty Trotskyists talking about very old dusty ideas like the materialist dialectic and class struggle. Unlike LSD though I realise that no matter how old and dusty and unfashionable these ideas are and the people who propound them - they are the correct ones.

In what sense correct? Best or workable? I'm no expert on Trotsky, but in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that.

In the many many tries that Communism has gotten it has never come close to producing those kinds of results. LSD has noted--and I think correctly, is that the shape Communism has taken in the world in the past is the shape it WILL ALWAYS take. Gather ye theories all ye may, it turns out to be something gray and dull and often autocratic and painful that it doesn't seem a pleasant alternative to the way is working now.

Further, with so many variation and tenancies it seems that Communist theory contains no center for realization into practice. It is a muddle of schemers and dreamers that Capitalism can dismiss with a laugh. It's pretty obvious the Capitalist world views the children of Allah as a vastly greater threat than anything Communist.

The real problem of Communism is that it never has seemed to be the default position of a Revolution. When the Soviet block fell--it devolved into Capitalism pretty easily. Yea, there were the usual collection of bad guys that helped it along, but no defining leader. Each Communist Revolution, needs it's Lenin or it's Mao or its Fidel or its vanguard to mold and shape the raw Revolution into Communism--and often these guys are just as much adventurers as they are Communists.

I think there is less difference between Lenin and Bill Gates then one might first assume.

[Barry Lyndon]

In what sense correct? Best or workable? I'm no expert on Trotsky, but in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that.

In the many many tries that Communism has gotten it has never come close to producing those kinds of results. LSD has noted--and I think correctly, is that the shape Communism has taken in the world in the past is the shape it WILL ALWAYS take. Gather ye theories all ye may, it turns out to be something gray and dull and often autocratic and painful that it doesn't seem a pleasant alternative to the way is working now.

Further, with so many variation and tenancies it seems that Communist theory contains no center for realization into practice. It is a muddle of schemers and dreamers that Capitalism can dismiss with a laugh. It's pretty obvious the Capitalist world views the children of Allah as a vastly greater threat than anything Communist.

The real problem of Communism is that it never has seemed to be the default position of a Revolution. When the Soviet block fell--it devolved into Capitalism pretty easily. Yea, there were the usual collection of bad guys that helped it along, but no defining leader. Each Communist Revolution, needs it's Lenin or it's Mao or its Fidel or its vanguard to mold and shape the raw Revolution into Communism--and often these guys are just as much adventurers as they are Communists.

I think there is less difference between Lenin and Bill Gates then one might first assume.

I think there is too much emphasis on the 'right ideas', frankly, among those on the Left. You can have the best ideas in the world, their still not going to be able to stop bullets.
The fact is that virtually every attempt to construct an alternative to capitalism has been subjected to invasion, aerial bombing, blockades, coup de tats, secessionist movements and countless other forms of subversion and attack at the hands of capitalist powers. Name me one attempt to construct a socialist society that was done in conditions of peace and prosperity. Name one.
To blame these revolutions entirely on the revolutionaries themselves for not working when they have spent their entire existence under siege is absurd and ahistorical.

[Bud Struggle]

Alright, hold your horses, let's slow down a little bit here.. :rolleyes:

To take perhaps the most well known -- but far from only -- example: anarchism not only 'existed', but was successfully practised in large parts of Spain, before Franco's fascists crushed it.


I've been doing my homework, too. And I didn't make my point above altogether blindly. Lately I've been reading some on the Spanish CW and was pretty suprised to find some very first had books on the war:

Stanley G. Payne, The Franco Regime: 1946-1975 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).

Burnett Bolloten, The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991).


Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain: An Oral History of the Spanish Civil War (NY: Pantheon Books, 1986).

The Oral History is pretty dynamic and pretty ugly--it lists in first hand accounts the authoritarianism and fanaticism of the Anarchinsts. I'll go through the books at a later date and explain their points. For the most part though the defeat of Anarchism came as a relief to most Spaniards.

[Dimentio]

In what sense correct? Best or workable? I'm no expert on Trotsky, but in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that.

In the many many tries that Communism has gotten it has never come close to producing those kinds of results. LSD has noted--and I think correctly, is that the shape Communism has taken in the world in the past is the shape it WILL ALWAYS take. Gather ye theories all ye may, it turns out to be something gray and dull and often autocratic and painful that it doesn't seem a pleasant alternative to the way is working now.

Further, with so many variation and tenancies it seems that Communist theory contains no center for realization into practice. It is a muddle of schemers and dreamers that Capitalism can dismiss with a laugh. It's pretty obvious the Capitalist world views the children of Allah as a vastly greater threat than anything Communist.

The real problem of Communism is that it never has seemed to be the default position of a Revolution. When the Soviet block fell--it devolved into Capitalism pretty easily. Yea, there were the usual collection of bad guys that helped it along, but no defining leader. Each Communist Revolution, needs it's Lenin or it's Mao or its Fidel or its vanguard to mold and shape the raw Revolution into Communism--and often these guys are just as much adventurers as they are Communists.

I think there is less difference between Lenin and Bill Gates then one might first assume.

Capitalism will exceed its own resource base, and in the second half of the 21st century, the ecological base will collapse. For me, the issue of capitalism vs post-capitalism isn't an issue of some kind of notion, but of human dignity. Its not even about capitalism vs communism, but about post-capitalism reminiscent of communism vs post-capitalism reminiscent of Lord of the Flies.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, but he was an anarcho-syndicalist none the less. He says he was dragged into a trot meeting by CyM, another former admin who is a trotskyist, and claims that it was during this meeting (listening to the trotskyists) that he finally lost faith in the entire revolutionary leftist cause.

thats why i thought he was a trotskyist, i can understand how an internet trotskyist could give up after encountering troskists in real life, but not how an anarchist could.
I would guess that if the nature of troskyists bothered him so much, then most likely there were problems with his understanding of anarchism



Workerist, as opposed to insurrectionist, lifestylist, primitivist etc brands of anarchism.

i think the word for that is class struggle anarchist, workerist usually means a kind of crude analyses that deny's the importance of any struggle outside the workplace and may only considers factory/manual workers as working class.

[Sentinel]

For the most part though the defeat of Anarchism came as a relief to most Spaniards.

A highly debatable statement. In any case, my main point was to demonstrate that contrary to what was stated, anarchism really has been put to practice, and functioned as a system during modern history.



in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that


This is the unfortunate flaw in your line of reasoning when analysing communism.. See those things -- material and social equality -- are crucially important parts of it, but it's the demand for an equal distribution of power that makes communism as an idea superior to idealist ones about benevolent rule from above.

That's what makes our ideas so appealing to thinking people amongst the working class -- we actually aren't satisfied with our basic human rights, but want some real influence over our lives as well. How outrageous, isn't it?

Wanted Man: It's funny how different things seem from different povs, isn't it? I think that I will, at least temporarily, increase my use of bold and italics in the memory of the good old times. :)

[Sentinel]

thats why i thought he was a trotskyist, i can understand how an internet trotskyist could give up after encountering troskists in real life, but not how an anarchist could.
I would guess that if the nature of troskyists bothered him so much, then most likely there were problems with his understanding of anarchism

He rarely spoke about his personal activities, and was thus accused by some to be an armchair revolutionary -- something he neither confirmed or denied properly afaik. He was quite knowledgeable theoretically and extremely intelligent, but about his practical class struggle experience we can only speculate.

So in that regard you might have a point -- he might have lacked (real-life, outside the internet) contact with the actual anarchist movement, and thus knowledge about the conditions. I don't hold it impossible that the realities of day-to-day anarchist struggle might have acted equally demoralising to someone who never saw them in real lif before.

But we really can't know for sure imo, unless he posts and replies.



i think the word for that is class struggle anarchist, workerist usually means a kind of crude analyses that deny's the importance of any struggle outside the workplace and may only considers factory/manual workers as working class.


Indeed, class struggle anarchist is a more fitting name for it. I used workerist to mean roughly anyone who focuses on workers struggle. English isn't my first language, sorry.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism will exceed its own resource base, and in the second half of the 21st century, the ecological base will collapse. For me, the issue of capitalism vs post-capitalism isn't an issue of some kind of notion, but of human dignity. Its not even about capitalism vs communism, but about post-capitalism reminiscent of communism vs post-capitalism reminiscent of Lord of the Flies.

Well yea. But that is the Capitalism we have now. But as we all know Capitalism adapts and changes with the different conditions that affect it. Capitalism has been killed about 20 times in just the last 100 years but it keeps changing and growing and being reborn. As you may have noticed--those very qualities have been absent from the various attempts at Communism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well yea. But that is the Capitalism we have now. But as we all know Capitalism adapts and changes with the different conditions that affect it. Capitalism has been killed about 20 times in just the last 100 years but it keeps changing and growing and being reborn. As you may have noticed--those very qualities have been absent from the various attempts at Communism.

Wow, capitalism is like Jesus...is there a Church or something, cause I'd like to join if it possesses such magical skills!?

[Bud Struggle]

A highly debatable statement. In any case, my main point was to demonstrate that contrary to what was stated, anarchism really has been put to practice, and functioned as a system during modern history. I'll have to go throught the oral history book and bring up quotes--as far as I could tell the interviewer was being fairly objective. Maybe it was only the people that disliked Anarchism that survived. The great complaint about Anarchism is that the Anarchists tended to round up anyone that have any religious faith and as they said: "took them for a ride."


This is the unfortunate flaw in your line of reasoning when analysing communism.. See those things -- material and social equality -- are crucially important parts of it, but it's the demand for an equal distribution of power that makes communism as an idea superior to idealist ones about benevolent rule from above. I agree with you there. Power is the main point--and power almost always concentrates. I doubt you can show me many cases where it has defused. One of the big complaints against the Spanish Anarchists--was their authoritarianism. Don't get me wrong--IT WOULD BE NICE. But people with greater abilities always take power away from those with less.


That's what makes our ideas so appealing to thinking people amongst the working class -- we actually aren't satisfied with our basic human rights, but want some real influence over our lives as well. How outrageous, isn't it? I'm not saying it is not a great idea. I have a warm spot in my heart for Communism. But look how gracefully Lenin and Stalin and Mao all claimed to be the will of the people while concentrating more and more power in their own hands. North Korea is the perfect example of Communism comming full circle right back to monarchy. It is quite poetic in a way.

[Dimentio]

Well yea. But that is the Capitalism we have now. But as we all know Capitalism adapts and changes with the different conditions that affect it. Capitalism has been killed about 20 times in just the last 100 years but it keeps changing and growing and being reborn. As you may have noticed--those very qualities have been absent from the various attempts at Communism.

Oh yes, some kind of very rudimentary capitalism would exist after the ecosystems have collapsed, but it would most likely consist of a system with a small upper and middle class living in secluded inner cities or arcologies with life-support systems and artificial ecosystems, and large, starving urban sprawls characterised by warlordism, mafia capitalism and general despair. So, yes, if you only are concerned with the survival of capitalism, then I guess it would move on fine. If you care for more, like quality of human life and human rights, then you should start to look upon alternatives.

I guess its a bit trickier to debate against a technocrat, since technocracy has not had any chance to fuck up anything during the 20th century, and that technocrats generally are seeing ideology as subordinate to results and goals.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh yes, some kind of very rudimentary capitalism would exist after the ecosystems have collapsed, but it would most likely consist of a system with a small upper and middle class living in secluded inner cities or arcologies with life-support systems and artificial ecosystems, and large, starving urban sprawls characterised by warlordism, mafia capitalism and general despair. So, yes, if you only are concerned with the survival of capitalism, then I guess it would move on fine. If you care for more, like quality of human life and human rights, then you should start to look upon alternatives. I've seen that movie, too! :D If the future plays out that way--it indeed would be bad. But as I said, Capitalism could change in ways unknown to us now. What Capitalism could do (speculation here) with Technocracy, is what it has done with Socialism--absorb the parts that work for it and discard the rest. Capitalism could learn to use the scientific method to create a better functioning world--not out of altruism but out of a desire to expand markets. Same end--but just different motives.


I guess its a bit trickier to debate against a technocrat, since technocracy has not had any chance to fuck up anything during the 20th century, and that technocrats generally are seeing ideology as subordinate to results and goals. and I really don't have much problem with technocrats--if they can posit and then test and then expand an idea of a better world, it makes a LOT of sense. I don't see technocracy at the end of some Revolutionary gun, though. I see it as a series of sales pitches moving Capitalism step by step into the future.

[AnthArmo]

In what sense correct? Best or workable? I'm no expert on Trotsky, but in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that.

In the many many tries that Communism has gotten it has never come close to producing those kinds of results. LSD has noted--and I think correctly, is that the shape Communism has taken in the world in the past is the shape it WILL ALWAYS take. Gather ye theories all ye may, it turns out to be something gray and dull and often autocratic and painful that it doesn't seem a pleasant alternative to the way is working now.

You're playing the "Common Sense" card. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, what evidence we use, what reasoning we provide. We are always wrong, because of "Common Sense".


The real problem of Communism is that it never has seemed to be the default position of a Revolution. When the Soviet block fell--it devolved into Capitalism pretty easily. Yea, there were the usual collection of bad guys that helped it along, but no defining leader. Each Communist Revolution, needs it's Lenin or it's Mao or its Fidel or its vanguard to mold and shape the raw Revolution into Communism--and often these guys are just as much adventurers as they are Communists.

I wouldn't use words like "Devolved" when describing transitions. It is simply one state ideology and system replacing another. I'm fairly certain that Yeltsin was the figurehead that brought in Capitalism for Russia.

In terms of genuine Worker's Control, you would be suprised. Often Revolutions, even non-socialist ones, seem to take a very Socialist character. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is my favourite example. In opposing "Communism", workers set up worker councils to help run the economy in a democratic fashon. Worker's self-management and direct democracy seems to always arise naturally whenever power is being opposed. This would suggest that it's neither "Capitalism" nor "Communism" that is the default position, but, funnily enough, Anarchism :cool:


Further, with so many variation and tenancies it seems that Communist theory contains no center for realization into practice. It is a muddle of schemers and dreamers that Capitalism can dismiss with a laugh. It's pretty obvious the Capitalist world views the children of Allah as a vastly greater threat than anything Communist

If we're dead, why on earth do you keep coming to this forum? What's your purpose?

[Wanted Man]

Wanted Man: It's funny how different things seem from different povs, isn't it? I think that I will, at least temporarily, increase my use of bold and italics in the memory of the good old times. :)

Now we just need to bring back Severian to complain about all the kids on his lawn who are blindly following "pope Redstar" and using too goddamn much bold text.

[Bud Struggle]

You're playing the "Common Sense" card. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, what evidence we use, what reasoning we provide. We are always wrong, because of "Common Sense". Sorry about that. :(


I wouldn't use words like "Devolved" when describing transitions. It is simply one state ideology and system replacing another. I'm fairly certain that Yeltsin was the figurehead that brought in Capitalism for Russia. I agree about Yeltsin--but he was no mastermind like Lenin by any stretch of the imagination. He just oversaw what was happening anyway.


In terms of genuine Worker's Control, you would be suprised. Often Revolutions, even non-socialist ones, seem to take a very Socialist character. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is my favourite example. In opposing "Communism", workers set up worker councils to help run the economy in a democratic fashon. Worker's self-management and direct democracy seems to always arise naturally whenever power is being opposed. This would suggest that it's neither "Capitalism" nor "Communism" that is the default position, but, funnily enough, Anarchism :cool: Yes--I will agree with that. Unfortunately we don't know how the Hungarian Revolution would have played out--it was trumped by tanks from another Revolution that happened forty years previous. It would have been interesting to see what whould have happened. But usually these kinds of thing that begin with a hopeful start end up with some very old revolutionary handing over the reins of government to a close family member.


If we're dead, why on earth do you keep coming to this forum? What's your purpose? I actually find you (not you personally) very interesting. Anyway--there is nothing duller for a Capitalist than visiting a forum where he agree with everyone. A Capitalist is by nature contra mundum. ;)

[AnthArmo]

Sorry about that. :(

Well when you apologise like that.... :blushing:


I agree about Yeltsin--but he was no mastermind like Lenin by any stretch of the imagination. He just oversaw what was happening anyway.

Lenin was far from a mastermind. He didn't show up until the Provisional Government opened up free-speech laws. Even then, the Soviets had already amassed enourmous power and influence, and the Bolsheviks had already begun to dominate and influence the soviets by that point. It was just a point of walking into the White Palace (quite literally) and declaring themselves government. I think one right-wing historian described it as Lenin "blundering" into power.

So yea, moral of the story; Yeltsin and Lenin weren't that different. Both had different State ideologies, both really "went with the flow". I don't buy the whole "Capitalism is default" position. The Eastern bloc adopted Capitalism because the east had lost the ideological war, Capitalism was the only other government system that existed, so they went with it.


Yes--I will agree with that. Unfortunately we don't know how the Hungarian Revolution would have played out--it was trumped by tanks from another Revolution that happened forty years previous. It would have been interesting to see what whould have happened. But usually these kinds of thing that begin with a hopeful start end up with some very old revolutionary handing over the reins of government to a close family member.

In this particular case, you're probably right. The Hungarian Revolution didn't have socialism in mind. It would have probably resulted in some liberal democratic government taking power.

Your whole contention about socialism is essentially that all revolutions will devolve into despotism, somehow, someway. I don't think there is anything I can actually tell you to convince you otherwise (once again, it seems to be based off of Common Sense :cool:).

I kinda agree with you, kinda. The vast majority of Revolutions fail, either internally or externally. But that doesn't take away their worth. Look at the Spartacus uprisings, those were harshly suppressed. Yet today, we still look back at that as a noble struggle. The slave revolt failed, and I'm sure there were many more after that that failed, so what? Does that mean society cannot function without slavery?


I actually find you (not you personally) very interesting. Anyway--there is nothing duller for a Capitalist than visiting a forum where he agree with everyone. A Capitalist is by nature contra mundum. ;)

I'm going to take a guess here. We are interesting in the same way a King would find a conversation with radical republicans interesting, amiright? :D

[Sentinel]

The great complaint about Anarchism is that the Anarchists tended to round up anyone that have any religious faith and as they said: "took them for a ride."

Some of the spanish anarchists foresaw the negative effect an intact church would have on the future of the revolution -- as it would act as a constant counter-revolutionary force and a brake for human progress -- and took pre-emptive measures. In retrospect we can see, that it was although brutal, fully understandable.

In my opinion one of the great mistakes of marxist-leninists of the Soviet Bloc, one of many which lead to their failure, was their leniency towards organised religion. The church was one of the main forces of the 1980's and 90s counter-revolution in the Eastern Bloc countries.

This lesson of history is something the left of today is wise to remember, to avoid going down the same path again. A radical approach against religion is necessary.

[Bud Struggle]

Lenin was far from a mastermind. He didn't show up until the Provisional Government opened up free-speech laws. Even then, the Soviets had already amassed enourmous power and influence, and the Bolsheviks had already begun to dominate and influence the soviets by that point. It was just a point of walking into the White Palace (quite literally) and declaring themselves government. I think one right-wing historian described it as Lenin "blundering" into power. Well, I can't argue here. But the Lenin lovers on revLeft will be standing you up against a wall before very long. Nice knowing you! :D


So yea, moral of the story; Yeltsin and Lenin weren't that different. Both had different State ideologies, both really "went with the flow". I don't buy the whole "Capitalism is default" position. The Eastern bloc adopted Capitalism because the east had lost the ideological war, Capitalism was the only other government system that existed, so they went with it. Seriously though. I disagree with you there. I think the Bolshevik assumption of authority was strategically well thought and executed. And if Lenin was no genius--Trotsky certainly was. There was an inner core of pretty bright people dedicated to a common goal in the easly years of the USSR that I just don't think was there in the days of it's fall.


I'm going to take a guess here. We are interesting in the same way a King would find a conversation with radical republicans interesting, amiright? :D No, not at all. Capitalists are WAY TOO DULL for me to talk to. Communist are way more fun. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Some of the spanish anarchists foresaw the negative effect an intact church would have on the future of the revolution -- as it would act as a constant counter-revolutionary force and a brake for human progress -- and took pre-emptive measures. In retrospect we can see, that it was although brutal, fully understandable.

In my opinion one of the great mistakes of marxist-leninists of the Soviet Bloc, one of many which lead to their failure, was their leniency towards organised religion. The church was one of the main forces of the 1980's and 90s counter-revolution in the Eastern Bloc countries.

This lesson of history is something the left of today is wise to remember, to avoid going down the same path again. A radical approach against religion is necessary.

A radical appoach against religion if the quickest way to failure. I think the USSR did the best it could against religion without creating a mass revolt. Further--if you start a systematic mind control program in Communism, what happens to freedom? You are discribing the exact type of Communism that they used to scare young kids with when I was a boy here in the USA.

If you don't trust people to make their own decisions for themselves--why stop at religion? Why not make EVERY decision for them?

And then what do you have?

[Robert]

In my opinion one of the great mistakes of marxist-leninists of the Soviet Bloc, one of many which lead to their failure, was their leniency towards organised religion. The church was one of the main forces of the 1980's and 90s counter-revolution in the Eastern Bloc countries.

Sentinel, if you had had the power, what exactly would you have done against organised religion?

[Dimentio]

A radical appoach against religion if the quickest way to failure. I think the USSR did the best it could against religion without creating a mass revolt. Further--if you start a systematic mind control program in Communism, what happens to freedom? You are discribing the exact type of Communism that they used to scare young kids with when I was a boy here in the USA.

If you don't trust people to make their own decisions for themselves--why stop at religion? Why not make EVERY decision for them?

And then what do you have?

The best way of dealing with religion is to do like in Sweden, have a church where people are electing the church leaders, have secular propaganda in media, and a system where most priests that get a degree are basically left-wing. The Lutheran Church is marrying gays, giving money to Palestine and attacking capitalism.

As for capitalism, whom have said that we cannot co-opt capitalism rather than the other way around? ^^

[AnthArmo]

TomK, I'm curious as to how the Anarchists actually went about burning down these churches. Was it something akin to the tearing down of the Bastille, a popular act of rage against an oppressive structure, or was it the result of an armed, organised and unelected militia running around being coercive?

If it is the former, then I don't see how that's necessarily authoritarian, perhaps a little bit brutal, but not authoritarian. If we're looking at the latter, there is only really a problem if this group wasn't accountable to the community.

[Sentinel]

A radical appoach against religion if the quickest way to failure. I think the USSR did the best it could against religion without creating a mass revolt.


Much should have been done differently in the USSR. But for all their faults I think it might have been possible for the Bolsheviks to add the rooting out of religion to their accomplishments if they had been consistent enough, rather than half-hearted as they were.

Yes, there would have been discontent due to it being a centrally implemented decision (which I don't support), but I believe it could have been done. It is fully possible to extinguish any religion by force, one just has to look at what happened to the old Pagan religion when the Christians took over the Roman Empire.

But one doesn't necessarily need to stoop to their level and persecute people for their beliefs -- controlling the role of religion in society the key, see my reply to Robert.


If you don't trust people to make their own decisions for themselves--why stop at religion? Why not make EVERY decision for them?

Firstly, as an anarchist, I don't advocate a revolution with a central government or a state, but rather grassroot level self-organisation, in unions, councils etc.

Thus I'm obviously advocating modern anti-religion actions to be decided by councils operating on the principles of direct democracy and implemented as popular measures. There can hardly be 'mass revolt' against what the masses themselves decide, can there?

This may sound all unrealistic to you, but you have to consider that I don't live in the US, but in Sweden, one of the most secularised countries in the world where according to some surveys 80% no longer believe in God, and there is generally a totally different (much more distanced) attitude towards religion.



Sentinel, if you had had the power, what exactly would you have done against organised religion?


This depends entirely on the situation, ie how strong a grip the religion has of the population, plus the state of enlightenment and education, and the amount of agnostics/atheists among the working class. The further the society already has progressed under capitalism, the stronger methods can be applied from the start.

But the main rule is that the organised religion must be deprived of all forms of influence, public funding and propaganda opportunies. Like the redstar2000 quote in my signature says: All we really need to do is drive reaction out of public life altogether -- and it will "wither away".

At the same time massive education campaigns promoting an enlightened and scientific worldview are to be launched. The school system must be totally reformed to ensure that all children receive a high quality secular education. So, while it's naturally impossible to force people into believing in science, if the society actively works against religion in the ways I have described it will very soon die by itself.

All this said, of course in a revolutionary situation these rules don't necessarily apply, as involvement of priests etc in counterrevolutionary activity may force the revolutionaries into more drastic and immediate methods.

[Robert]

So, while it's naturally impossible to force people into believing in science, if the society actively works against religion in the ways I have described it will very soon die by itself.Very soon, yes. Of course, if not soon enough, we can always hurry the process along with -- what did you call them? -- "stronger methods"? :eek:

There are educated people who believe, people who don't, and people who hedge their bets, knowing they really have no idea. And there are scientific people who are also religious and who don't try to reconcile the two realms. They are clearly of a superior intelligence. What do we say of them? Are they insane? All of them? For whatever reason, atheism doesn't work for them. You're smarter than they are? All of them?

It's sad that anyone, much less a state, would actively oppose their freedom to deal with ultimate questions of ethics and philosophy and morality in private or in private groups, using religious sources as their starting point, guide, and inspiration.

[Hiero]

In what sense correct? Best or workable? I'm no expert on Trotsky, but in general Communist ideas ARE good ones. Fairness, equality, good working conditions, everyone gladly pulling their weight, no starvation, etc. And in a perfect world we would have evolved, or would be evolving into that.

She was talking about the social theory and change. That is your biggest problem, you often ignore the sociological, anthropological, economcs and political science contributions of Marxism. You reduce everything to a discussion of morals. Which does not exist in Marxist theory, only in propoganda at the mass level. Either this your limit in regards to social theory or your a troll. I am not sure which one.

Class struggle either happens, it doesn't happen or it happens but not in the extent in that Marxist sense. It does not relate to ideas based on morals that can be considered good or fair.

[Dimentio]

As for religion, I think Sweden has been most successful in establishing secularism.

[RGacky3]

And I imagine that he's the best the world is going to get--at least in the political sphere.

Well, whatever, I want to get rid of bosses, good and bad (they come from the same place).


Well good bosses really do esist in this world. Anarchism doesn't exist anywhere. Most likely it never really has.


Anarchism is a philosophy and tendancy, not a system, and the tendancy is toward getting rid of and lessening power, and good bosses exist, but the less power the bosses have, the better, thats what we are fighting for.


When people from the Proletariat have an idea for a business--they NEVER (or almost never) join together to form a collevtive with their brother workers and start the business sholder to sholder. They break off from the herd and do it themselves and become--class trators. It happens all the time that way.


No shit, thats how the system is made, if I was a peasant, and I had the opportunity to become a king OF COARSE I'd take it, I would'nt abolish the kingship, but that does'nt justify it, I'm for abolishing the kingship.


Here I agree with you. This is I think the reason for the huge financial growth in the ranks of the top 1%.


Its part of it, yes.


It works if you are good enough and smart enough and if people like you. The problems is that a lot of people in America and I assume the world are rather marginal in their business capabilities. Did you ever hire people to put labels on bottles using a fool proof bottle labeling maching? Well you have to go through quite a few to find one that can actually do the job. You would think HS grads could follow some easy instruction--nope. Your guess is as good as mine what will become of people like that.


We can argue all day about what it takes be become a buisiness man, skill, luck, kiss-assery, cut-throatary, or whatever, but it ends up the same, do we REALLY want a system where it pays to step on people and the reward is power.

In the dark ages there was another merit system, the muscle and steel merit, to get ahead you needed to be able to kill well and be a bad ass, but its not a good way to run society, niether is Capitalism.


LSD has exactly the SAME ideology as you do.

So? That does'nt mean that he can make statements and arguemnts that don't make sense.


Is that any reason to be a nasty negative bastard?

Nope, which is why I'm not one.

I'm the positive one that thinks things can get better, you seam to think the way things are (which for over 95% of the world are creappy) are the way things MUST be (which is just historically and rationally untrue).


You have tunnel vision--only your way is correct no matter how ridiculous it is.

The whole point in having a belief, or thought process is believing its true, if I am proven otherwise I'll change my viewpoint, so far though you have never presented me with any evidence to change my viewpoint, other than what your buddies have said, or how you think people are, thats not evidence.


The entire world is deluded as to the truth, but you.

Bud, more people look at the world the way I do, than the way you do, most people have a sense of morality, a sense of justice, and a sense that men are created equal (not as lambs and wolves), most people believe oppression and exploitation are wrong, and most people believe things can get better. So no, its not just me Bud.


And I'm not saying there is some reasonablness to the Anarchist ideas--there are, but there has to be a major rethinking of how to make that system palatable to the people of the world. I don't think it is even close at the present time.


You don'nt understand what ANarchism is, I support European socialist parties AND Zapatista collectives, I support African Socialism AND South AMerican Socialism, I support unions and single payer healthcare, I support things that make the world a better place, its not ALL or nothing, although you seam to think thats what ANarchism is about, its not, its about making things better.


I demonstrated beyond any reason of doubt that you are a hypocrite.

Actually all you proved is that I hold people who I agree with accountable to make honest arguments, thats the opposite of a hypocrite Bud.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are educated people who believe, people who don't, and people who hedge their bets, knowing they really have no idea. And there are scientific people who are also religious and who don't try to reconcile the two realms. They are clearly of a superior intelligence. What do we say of them? Are they insane? All of them? For whatever reason, atheism doesn't work for them. You're smarter than they are? All of them?

Being a believer isn't a matter of being stupid or insane, it's a matter of not applying critical thinking and evidence to said beliefs, even if one does so in other areas.

Humans are perfectly capable of holding mutually incompatible beliefs (AKA doublethink), and they can be more rational about some things than others.

The goal of anti-theism is to eliminate such phenomena, or at least render them inconsequential.

[Robert]

Being a believer isn't a matter of being stupid or insane, it's a matter of not applying critical thinking and evidence to said beliefs, even if one does so in other areas.I know what you mean. The problem has always been that rational thinking can't answer the question of whether the cosmos self generated, was never generated but rather was always extant, or was generated by something else, some primordial cause that deserves respect if not adoration.

Those are reasonable questions.

If critical thinking cannot provide a satisfying and complete answer, we must forgive the rational mind if it thinks "there must be an answer that the senses and the human mind can't discern."

[Jazzratt]

You're playing the "Common Sense" card. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, what evidence we use, what reasoning we provide. We are always wrong, because of "Common Sense". It's an annoying tactic but you've got to remember it is deployed by people who are literally unable to reply with anything else. A recent blog post on spEak You're bRanes [ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com] put it fantastically:


Common sense, and the people who eulogise it – is anything more depressing? Obviously, leave aside all the wars and shit, and the senseless brutality of nature, and the sheer futility of all human endeavour, and the fact that each one of us is ultimately alone, captive on a rock hurtling through a godless universe towards its eventual destruction, and all the other stuff. Put all that to one side, then ask yourselves: is anything more depressing than common sense and the people who eulogise it? Surely not.


Common sense is the artificial inflation of the value of meagre knowledge. It’s the intellectual equivalent of ‘having a good personality’. It’s the consolation prize for those too dim to achieve anything beyond remembering to breathe for long enough to reproduce. It’s the same level of earthy wisdom that deems modern art ‘crap’, pure research ‘a waste of time’ and Strictly Come Dancing ‘entertainment’. It’s the undentable armour of the stupid, and you’ll never catch them without it. You take it away from them, they’ve got nothing. They’re left naked in the laughing face of their own inferiority, with no choice but to confront the meandering pointlessness of their lives. Which is a lot to confront all in one go.


They cling to it out of fear. Pity them.


Left naked in the laughing face of their own inadequacy indeed.

[Sentinel]

Very soon, yes. Of course, if not soon enough, we can always hurry the process along with -- what did you call them? -- "stronger methods"? :eek:

No, there will be no need for that, deprivation of publicity and public funding really should do the trick. You see, it was ultimately that, and not the bloody repressions, that killed Paganism as a force in the example i provided earlier.


There are educated people who believe, people who don't, and people who hedge their bets, knowing they really have no idea. And there are scientific people who are also religious and who don't try to reconcile the two realms. They are clearly of a superior intelligence. What do we say of them? Are they insane? All of them? For whatever reason, atheism doesn't work for them. You're smarter than they are? All of them?

NoXion has dealt with this part.


It's sad that anyone, much less a state, would actively oppose their freedom to deal with ultimate questions of ethics and philosophy and morality in private or in private groups, using religious sources as their starting point, guide, and inspiration.

Well, I don't support actively opposíng the right of anyone to 'deal with ultimate questions of ethics and philosophy and morality in private or in private groups, using religious sources as their starting point, guide, and inspiration', nor would I support any state doing so.

This is what I support: total secularisation of society, total secularisation of education and total deprivation of publicity and public funding for all religions. By total I mean total.

I'm convinced that as soon as these reforms are implemented as popular measures, religion will disappear by itself during the course of a relatively short period. It would not only be unsmart to antagonise more people than necessary by even more dramatic methods at that point, it would also be unnecessary.

By reducing religion into a private matter (except in cases where the safety of children in any way is compromised), by confining it into the privacy of people's homes, while actively educating and propagandising against it outside of them -- in schools, int the labour unions, in the media, not least on the internet -- we will indeed make it wither away.

It will go from being an accepted part of everyday life down the same drain as all other redundant historical baggage that hinders human progress in no-time. :)¨


***

Imo, at least 2 new topics could be spilt from this one: The Spanish Revolution, and Religion & the Revolution.

[Robert]

Is this a private brawl or can anyone get in on it?

Reviewing the exchange between Bud and AnthArmo, Bud said:

In the many many tries that Communism has gotten it has never come close to producing those kinds of results. LSD has noted--and I think correctly, is that the shape Communism has taken in the world in the past is the shape it WILL ALWAYS take. Gather ye theories all ye may, it turns out to be something gray and dull and often autocratic and painful that it doesn't seem a pleasant alternative to the way is working now.

if there is a problem with that, isn't it more that it is an "Appeal to Tradition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)"? The first few attempts at manned flight failed too, etc. That's what you should be arguing, I think.

And I don't know anyone who thinks you are "always wrong." I think you are often right. I'm sure Bud does, too. Hell, he says so out loud. (I mutter it resentfully and under my breath because I am petty and ungracious.)

But you (Marxists) are trying to build on a foundation whose reputation (if not merit) is irretrievably tarnished by 20th century history.

And anarchy won't work either. That's just, how can I put this ... common sense.

I'M KIDDING, YOU BASTARDS.

[Robert]

Just saw this, Sentinel ....

No, there will be no need for that, deprivation of publicity and public funding really should do the trick. You see, it was ultimately that, and not the bloody repressions, that killed Paganism as a force in the example i provided earlier.I assume you refer to the conversion to Christianity by Germanic kings (Clovis, e.g.) and Constantine I. That's an interesting point, but I don't think Christianity is currently flourishing in the USA because elected officials go to church. It's the other way around if anything. And the courts are quite vigilant in prohibiting government support of religion. I think you are British(?) In the states, teachers cannot organize prayer in schools, Christmas creches (mangers) are regularly forced off of public squares, and there can be no religious invocations at public school athletic events.

What else?


total secularisation of society, total secularisation of education and total deprivation of publicity and public funding for all religions. By total I mean total.Oh, I'm sure you do, comrade.:lol: And you mean official deprivation, which takes us right back to force, which means a state blah blah. Stopping the public finding is no big deal. We are mostly there anyway, except for tax exempt status for churches which I do oppose. Plus we have the added problem in the USA of constitutionally protected free exercise of religion. That translates into guaranteed access to the airwaves to promote sex, fiscal restraint, sports, and ... religion. They have to pay for the license like anyone else, so there's no "public funding."



while actively educating and propagandising against it outside of them -- in schoolsIn schools? Sorry, but you'll never get to first base on that one without repealing the First (as in most fundamental) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You really may as well get some guns and start shooting if this is your goal. It's about the same in the UK, right?


Human Rights Act, Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises[.]

Your philosophy, therefore, contemplates "active propagandising against" human rights.

How's about living and letting live?

[Pawn Power]

They always come back...

Good luck wit the move!

[Robert]

Uh ... you too. Where are we going?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know what you mean. The problem has always been that rational thinking can't answer the question of whether the cosmos self generated, was never generated but rather was always extant, or was generated by something else, some primordial cause that deserves respect if not adoration.

Those are reasonable questions.

Yes, and the reasonable answer right now is "we don't know" rather than "Goddidit".


If critical thinking cannot provide a satisfying and complete answer, we must forgive the rational mind if it thinks "there must be an answer that the senses and the human mind can't discern."

If it can't be discerned by humans, then as far as we are concerned it doesn't actually exist

[Robert]

I think I can agree with all that, but if you believe this:


Yes, and the reasonable answer right now is "we don't know" rather than "Goddidit".
I don't see how you can feel comfortable with this part of Sentinel's view:


This is what I support: total secularisation of society, total secularisation of education and total deprivation of publicity and public funding for all religions. By total I mean total ...

while actively educating and propagandising against it outside of them -- in schoolsYou're gonna join Sentinel in this "active propaganda" campaign of his, knowing in your heart that "we don't know" (your words) whether religion has merit after all?

[Dean]

No, there will be no need for that, deprivation of publicity and public funding really should do the trick. You see, it was ultimately that, and not the bloody repressions, that killed Paganism as a force in the example i provided earlier.
There's a problem with this though. I know you're pretty sane so you probably support a decentralized (or "centralized" for those who misuse the term...) mode of power-dispersion overseeing the collectivized assets of society.

Whether it is a "centralist" ("federalist") or decentralized mode of power, I think we both agree that the public funding will be managed by the working masses / masses in general.

Well, do we really expect humans to shed their religion before this new regime is implemented? For what its worth (and its not gospel of course), Marx felt this wasn't the case:


We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. ....we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions.

In fact, I disagree with him: religion is a manifestation of cultural norms. And I don't believe that an empowerment of the working class will dissuade their unique cultural identities from being asserted - quite the contrary.

Now, there are many bad cultural norms - like Genital Mutilation, Patriarchy, Privation and Homophobia - all of which stem from power structures and their maintenance. I don't think I have to explain these dynamics.

However, any economic and political empowerment of the people in a collectivist manner will assert the social character of the above norms, remove their power-structuralist characteristics and ultimately deincentivize them.

However, I don't see any feasible incentivization to give up religion besides some of the facts of productive, dispersed education.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think I can agree with all that, but if you believe this:

I don't see how you can feel comfortable with this part of Sentinel's view:

You're gonna join Sentinel in this "active propaganda" campaign of his, knowing in your heart that "we don't know" (your words) whether religion has merit after all?

Just because we know next to nothing about ultimate origins doesn't mean we can't rule out religions based on what we actually know.

Adam and Eve never existed. The global flood did not occur. Thus we can conclude that Abrahamic religions aren't some kind of window into the ultimate truth, but are in fact the myths of a bunch of bronze age primitives that have since transmogrified into a self-serving belief system that is patently false.

Let's be honest here; religion isn't a sincere attempt to explain the origins of the universe, that's just something tacked on to suck in the gullible. Otherwise, why would any religion attempt to regulate behaviour? Description is not the same thing as prescription.

[Robert]

I agree with most of that and I thank you for stopping conspicuously short of Sentinel's call for systematic jihad against religion.:cool:


Let's be honest here; religion isn't a sincere attempt to explain the origins of the universe

I don't know what you mean by sincere. I guess you mean that church founders know perfectly well that their belief systems are bogus. There are some con men, sure. But I don't think Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul, the mullahs of Iran, or the penniless monks in Tibet are all con men. You don't think that either.

But more to your point: religion as practiced today, by people who are satisfied that there was no real Adam or Eve, don't worship and pray to "explain the origins of the universe." I think most pray to deal with it, not explain it, though fear of death and the lack of a better explanation than "God did it" is probably at the root of it.

Whatever their myriad reasons, the active, purposeful, systematic discouragement of their doing so should be avoided (it's a short step from there to prohibition, then persecution, then a backlash by the people you are trying to liberate.)

It's clear that you don't believe in state sponsored hostility to religion, which is thankfully illegal in my country and yours now anyway. I don't really care about the rest of it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree with most of that and I thank you for stopping conspicuously short of Sentinel's call for systematic jihad against religion.:cool:

You misunderstand; I am fully in favour of eliminating religion from human life, I just use different language, and possibly advocate different methods.


I don't know what you mean by sincere. I guess you mean that church founders know perfectly well that their belief systems are bogus. There are some con men, sure. But I don't think Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul, the mullahs of Iran, or the penniless monks in Tibet are all con men. You don't think that either.

The fact remains that "explaining the origin of the universe" or whatever is fundamentally secondary to religious practice. What kind of explanation ignores the evidence in favour of some pre-supposed "grand plan"?


But more to your point: religion as practiced today, by people who are satisfied that there was no real Adam or Eve, don't worship and pray to "explain the origins of the universe." I think most pray to deal with it, not explain it, though fear of death and the lack of a better explanation than "God did it" is probably at the root of it.

It's entirely possible to face one's mortality and one's smallness in the face of the cosmos without resorting to comforting delusions. Expecting salvation or succor from the supernatural is not only wrong, but disempowering; a single pair of hands doing work achieves far more than a thousand clasped in prayer.


Whatever their myriad reasons, the active, purposeful, systematic discouragement of their doing so should be avoided (it's a short step from there to prohibition, then persecution, then a backlash by the people you are trying to liberate.)

Slippery slope fallacy.


It's clear that you don't believe in state sponsored hostility to religion, which is thankfully illegal in my country and yours now anyway. I don't really care about the rest of it.

I'm only opposed to state-sponsored hostility to religion (by which I assume you mean active persecution) because it doesn't work - it only creates martyrs.

I am in favour of whatever works to reduce the influence of religious ideas in society.

[Robert]

You misunderstand; I am fully in favour of eliminating religion from human life, I just use different language, and possibly advocate different methods."Possibly"? What is with all this hedging? First you leave a loophole to accomodate the possibility of God, and now you're doing a dance between me and Sentinel. Will it kill you to come out and say "I join Robert, King of All Reactionaries, in upholding the Human Rights Act of 2000 and in opposing the systematic persecution of religious people everywhere!"

Come on, man, say it. You'll be a legend.


A single pair of hands doing work achieves far more than a thousand clasped in prayer.Is that a Little Red Book in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? And is it okay with you and Dear Leader if I take off on Sunday and utter ejaculations during my quiet time? And don't try to be funny ... i mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation_%28grammar%29).

And go to bed. It must be after midnight where you are. (Don't forget to say your prayers.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Possibly"? What is with all this hedging?

Because I'm not a mind-reader and I don't know everything.


First you leave a loophole to accomodate the possibility of God, and now you're doing a dance between me and Sentinel. Will it kill you to come out and say "I join Robert, King of All Reactionaries, in upholding the Human Rights Act of 2000 and in opposing the systematic persecution of religious people everywhere!"

Come on, man, say it. You'll be a legend.

It depends on what you mean by "persecution". In my experience religion and it's defenders tend to see any criticism or limitation of its influence as persecution. Just look at the way believers try to paint outspoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins as the Devil himself, despite his articulate and eloquent arguments.


Is that a Little Red Book in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? And is it okay with you and Dear Leader if I take off on Sunday and utter ejaculations during my quiet time? And don't try to be funny ... i mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation_%28grammar%29).

Ha-ha, I appear to have touched a nerve. Despite my recognition that torture and murder aren't the best way of eliminating religion, you are still moved to make absurd allusions.

Seems to me that is what you are really afraid of - the possibility that humans may one day be finally liberated from such nonsense.


And go to bed. It must be after midnight where you are. (Don't forget to say your prayers.)

What would be the point of that?

[AnthArmo]

Just my two cents on this religion thing.

Religion is something that is designed by its very nature to make an individual weak and servile. By removing all meaning in life and placing it into an after life. By encouraging prayer rather than action, people are more likely to have a servile attitude, and hierarchial power structures are more likely to dominate.

For this reason, I've always been under the impression that if a Revolution occurs, religion won't be a problem. The very act of revolution implies that everybody has already ditched all that nonesense and have decided to take their lives into their own hands.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Religion is something that is designed by its very nature to make an individual weak and servile. By removing all meaning in life and placing it into an after life. By encouraging prayer rather than action, people are more likely to have a servile attitude, and hierarchial power structures are more likely to dominate.

Oh how Nietzschean of you! However, I don't think the "slave morality" of the three major monotheistic religions is characteristic of religion as a whole.

[AnthArmo]

Oh how Nietzschean of you! However, I don't think the "slave morality" of the three major monotheistic religions is characteristic of religion as a whole.

Hey! Nietzsche is cool. Well, mostly.

And I think God (http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/) himself would disagree with you there ;)

[eyedrop]

Well, do we really expect humans to shed their religion before this new regime is implemented? For what its worth (and its not gospel of course), Marx felt this wasn't the case:

Sentinel probably has different conditions than you in that he already lives in one of the most atheistic countries, especially the younger generation. When the old generation die off in Scandinavia religion will mostly already be defeated.

I also would suspect that the younger part of the proletariat (20y-40y) will be the dominant faction in restructuring society.

[Dean]

Sentinel probably has different conditions than you in that he already lives in one of the most atheistic countries, especially the younger generation. When the old generation die off in Scandinavia religion will mostly already be defeated.
Monotheism didn't really get a good footing in Sweden afaik, so I think your example don't prove the point - though it can explain why Sentinel has higher hopes than me for the idea.

[Ocean Seal]

Socialism is dead and discredited, everybody. Just don't tell Latin America!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113902/opinion-briefing-latin-america-leftists.aspx

Ahh thank you seeing this stats has actually inspired me to be even more revolutionary. Viva la revolucion.

[Bud Struggle]

Ahh thank you seeing this stats has actually inspired me to be even more revolutionary. Viva la revolucion.

So all those people "believe" their countries are Socialist? All this shows is that there is a new definition of socialism and it looks a lot like Capitalism. :D

[RGacky3]

So all those people "believe" their countries are Socialist? All this shows is that there is a new definition of socialism and it looks a lot like Capitalism. :D

More consider themselves to be socialist than their country, keep in mind, insane right wingers everywhere, will call their countries socialist no matter what, so keep that in mind (The American far right calls Obama socialist).

Also socialism is an extremely broad term, from Norway to the USSR, to kibutz.

[Bud Struggle]

Also socialism is an extremely broad term, from Norway to the USSR, to kibutz.

It works the same with Capitalism--it is an extremely broad term, too. All are Capitalist--All are Socialist. Want to call it Communist, too? That works also.

Wecome to the future of the world. Call it what you want--it looks like this. :D

[RGacky3]

All are Capitalist--All are Socialist. Want to call it Communist, too? That works also.


While were at it lets keep going, all are fascist, all are lindsey lohan.


Wecome to the future of the world. Call it what you want--it looks like this.

Semantics?

Hopefully it looks more socialist, and by socialist I mean more public control, and less capitalist, and by capitalist I mean less capitalist control.