How do you feel about killing opposition?

[ContrarianLemming]

I mean really, how does executions and guerrilla combat and actually putting rich folks against the wall make you feel? Disregarding all that "necessary" stuff.

Because it really is what is implicitly advocated in the theory, I don't buy into the "peaceful" revolution, that's never been the case, it's gonna go down like that when and if it happens in a bad way, the color is red for this very reason.

I think we are, over the question of classism, inherantly always defending ourselves, and pacifists arn't interested in defending themselves because the genocide of capitalism is never on the news - it's hard to defend yourself when you don't realize you're being attacked.

[Charles Xavier]

THis thread should be deleted or at least edited due to the illegality suggested in it.

[Tablo]

I don't wanna kill anyone. :(

[ContrarianLemming]

THis thread should be deleted or at least edited due to the illegality suggested in it.

I think you are being overly dramatic, we talk about it all the time, this isnt the thread thats gonna be pointed to in a court case, theres been far worse

[Charles Xavier]

I think you are being overly dramatic, we talk about it all the time, this isnt the thread thats gonna be pointed to in a court case, theres been far worse


Okay Officer Lemming.

[ContrarianLemming]

OK, lets PC it then, how do you feel about the deaths of oppositions in past revolutions?

[Charles Xavier]

OK, lets PC it then, how do you feel about the deaths of oppositions in past revolutions?

I swear I didn't do it Officer Lemming!

[Amphictyonis]

Capitalists won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons in order to protect their privilege/status/wealth. I imagine The Revolution being not so much a violent world war on battlefields as much as a mass shift in consciousness. The point isn't to only have so many people on board violence/repression is necessary- the point is to help facilitate an evolution in working class thought, a world view which is constantly being constipated by the bourgeois class.

Before you/we can even think about violence, even mention it, there would have to be monumental numbers of people ready to accept socialism. This isn't the case now. Any violence now would be silly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Revolution isn't a picnic, power comes from the barrel of a gun, we shall not enter into the kingdom of socialism in white gloves on a polished floor, blah blah blah etc. etc.

[bcbm]

inb4 the hardmen

[Psy]

Capitalists won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons in order to protect their privilege/status/wealth.

Actually they will hesitate as they as capitalists are not unified for example the USA using nukes on Venezuela would result in Russia nuking the USA not to defend Venezuela but because Russia can't tell were the nukes are going to land as Russian satellites detect a ICBM launch through thermal imaging of missile silos.

Then there is the problem that nukes destroy the means of production so it doesn't really protect property, on the contrary it wipes out property.

[Amphictyonis]

Actually they will hesitate as they as capitalists are not unified for example the USA using nukes on Venezuela would result in Russia nuking the USA not to defend Venezuela but because Russia can't tell were the nukes are going to land as Russian satellites detect a ICBM launch through thermal imaging of missile silos.

Then there is the problem that nukes destroy the means of production so it doesn't really protect property, on the contrary it wipes out property.

Capitalists are the only ones to ever use nukes. Why do you think they dropped them on Japan when WW2 was already won? To show Russia they meant business. Capitalists are psychopaths and will destroy the world. You have no idea how far they'll go to protect their privilege. I'll edit this post later and give you some reading material on CIA/cold war/John Dulls/capitalists containment policies (what they discussed and did). You'd be shocked.....And they wouldn't have to use nukes on Venezuela. A scenario likely to bring that about would be if the "third World" invaded the first world old school Maoist type fun.

[NGNM85]

As I've said before, it depends on the circumstances. In China or Russia any Libertarian political movement would virtually have to use violence at some point because these are incredibly oppressive police states with essentially no mechanisms for people to create change. In the West, we have garunteed legal rights, the United states, especially. We can assemble, we can form parties, we can agitate, we can vote. Non-violent means should be exhausted before one considers more severe methods. Second, the violence should not be morse than whatever it is directed against. Lastly, one should be as sure as one can reasonably be that said action won't make things significantly worse than they already are. We should heed the Hippocratic principle; "First, do no harm.."

[Weezer]

I could live without it.

[Pawn Power]

Insert quote from Mao, Lenin, Che, Huey P, Malcolm X, et al. about the need took take up arms for revolution. *Though never myself having been involved in anything close to a revolutionary situation or residing in a g20 country where the main revolutionary task is to organize workers, communities, schools, etc. I can't image a situation I would be when I would consider an 'execution' part of a revolutioanry strategy to achieve an egalitarian free society. This just doesn't me like significant question to consider for most leftists on this forum. I guess it could be talk about in terms of an ethical or moral stance, but in terms of strategy it seems so far removed from anything the majority of people on the left are actually organizing around.

Up against the wall cappie!

[Psy]

Capitalists are the only ones to ever use nukes. Why do you think they dropped them on Japan when WW2 was already won? To show Russia they meant business. Capitalists are psychopaths and will destroy the world. You have no idea how far they'll go to protect their privilege.

That was when the USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, now a nuclear war would result in total nuclear war there would be no winner in a full scale nuclear war. Major imperialist powers would be nuked back into pre-industrial age leaving the 3rd world actually have the strongest miliatries still operational not that would want the irradiated waste lands of the former imperialist powers that would no longer exist.

Basically nuclear war is nothing more then a suicide pact for imperialists.

[Crux]

In the West, we have garunteed legal rights, the United states, especially.
Oh boy. Not that I disagree about the importance agitating and organizing but...seriously? Jurisdiction is class warfare. We have no rights that we do not fight for.

As for the OP, I don't think anything worthwhile can come from this thread.

[bcbm]

communism is not a flower watered with blood

[Os Cangaceiros]

a tree that's been carved into a club can't grow leaves

[synthesis]

Are we having bumper sticker debates again?

All I can think of is something Nelson Mandela said, which I can only paraphrase as: "For all the time we spent calling the government fascists, we were caught completely by surprise when they began to actually act as fascists" - very loose paraphrase, I think.

[Crux]

Wait, I have a response to OP's question:
http://lolpics.se/pics/5084.jpg

What I am trying to say is, this will not lead anywhere. A discussion about killing people in a revolutionary situation will inevitably end the same way, I don't see any hope for any exciting new angle being brought up. Also, as some has noted, it's probably a stupid idea to have such a discussion here, no matter how hypothetical.

[Pierre.Laporte]

I think if we are to engage in violence, then we are no better than the capitalists that wage war to protect their wealth. If we are to be outraged by the police officer that mercillesly beats a protester, then we have no grounds to partake in the same acts of violence.

The only reason that they can do such things is because of us, and our support of their wars, corporations, and other ventures to abuse the lower classes. Instead of buying into this we should instead unilaterally end our support and watch them wither. Violence should only be reserved for purely defensive purposes.

Hopefully I'm not the only one that believes in the radical idea that all human life is sacred and should be protected...

[Amphictyonis]

That was when the USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, now a nuclear war would result in total nuclear war there would be no winner in a full scale nuclear war. Major imperialist powers would be nuked back into pre-industrial age leaving the 3rd world actually have the strongest miliatries still operational not that would want the irradiated waste lands of the former imperialist powers that would no longer exist.

Basically nuclear war is nothing more then a suicide pact for imperialists.

Think of it as a last ditch FU to the world from these sociopaths if they knew they were facing definite expropriation. I wouldn't put it past them.Also, the works I'll be posting momentarily describe the capitalists plans for massive first strikes from stealth bombers and subs. They devised ways around mutual destruction and there were plenty of crazy bastards willing to go through with it. You give capitalists too much credit. You're also assuming Russia is by any stretach of the imagination socialist. Also, as far as the third world, re-read my prior posts :)

Capitalists are sociopaths, you're not going to change my mind.

[NGNM85]

Oh boy. Not that I disagree about the importance agitating and organizing but...seriously? Jurisdiction is class warfare. We have no rights that we do not fight for.


Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. America has some advantage being a younger country, and having a constitution shaped by the Enlightenment. European governments tend to have regressive elements left over from the past. We're a newer model. I don't know very much about Sweden, from what I'm reading it looks alright. You're laws regarding free speech aren't quite as expansive, but more so than Germany, and England. You're parliamentary system sounds alright. You actually scored number one in the Democracy Index (Impressive.) while we scored an 18.(?!) That's depressing. Anyhow, you also have a much better healthcare system, more accessible education, etc, etc. My point was this is vastly different from the situation in China or North Korea, we do have rights, and we can initiate at least some change without being executed, or tortured, or something. In Russia they don't have that option.

[#FF0000]

Jesus Christ you guys are fucking stupid as.

I mean honestly do people who ask questions like this do anything but fucking posture on the internet

EDIT: Okay, I guess this discussion's about the use of violence and whether or not it's justified or not? Whatever. Goddamn.

[9]

Agree with Majakovskij, in spite of the image of the very ugly child.

Threads like this, which pop up from time to time, seem to exist solely for the purpose of dick-waving. There really isn't anything of substance to discuss, just a lot of posturing.

[#FF0000]

Hopefully I'm not the only one that believes in the radical idea that all human life is sacred and should be protected...

Except only the most braindead of pacifists think that violence is unjustified even in the case of self-defense, which is what revolution is.

Revolution is an act of self-defense on the part of the oppressed class against the ruling class. Violence that is conducive to bringing the working class into power and taking the bourgeoisie out is absolutely justified if not necessary, based on the fact that the bosses have, you know, cops and armies, and guns and are all about killing people who want to be treated fairly.

That doesn't mean it's a-okay to go hog wild AK's and bombs. I don't think a movement based on nothing BUT violence can accomplish all that much or do anything worthwhile with power, but at the same time, let's see how you can topple capital with a hunger strike (even though, hey, even this could accomplish something sometimes maybe i guess)

Also remember that violence isn't just the extreme stuff like shooting or blowing things up.

[9]

Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. America has some advantage being a younger country, and having a constitution shaped by the Enlightenment. European governments tend to have regressive elements left over from the past. We're a newer model. I don't know very much about Sweden, from what I'm reading it looks alright. You're laws regarding free speech aren't quite as expansive, but more so than Germany, and England. You're parliamentary system sounds alright. You actually scored number one in the Democracy Index (Impressive.) while we scored an 18.(?!) That's depressing. Anyhow, you also have a much better healthcare system, more accessible education, etc, etc. My point was this is vastly different from the situation in China or North Korea, we do have rights, and we can initiate at least some change without being executed, or tortured, or something. In Russia they don't have that option.

Wow, its pretty incredible that you call yourself an anarchist. The 'right' to 'free speech' is a total smokescreen. As soon as the ruling class senses a threat, your 'rights' become totally meaningless. Even most liberals I know understand this.

[NGNM85]

Wow, its pretty incredible that you call yourself an anarchist. The 'right' to 'free speech' is a total smokescreen. It only exists when your 'free speech' isn't a threat to the ruling class. Even most liberals I know understand this.


I have no idea what country you’re from. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not from the United States. What I said was the United States has the most expansive legal protection for free speech in the world. I said it because it's a fact. Go ahead and compare the laws, you’ll see I’m right.

[9]

I have no idea what country you’re from. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not from the United States. What I said was the United States has the most expansive legal protection for free speech in the world. I said it because it's a fact. Go ahead and compare the laws, you’ll see I’m right.

I am from the US. I never disputed any of the above, and yet I fail to see how it contradicts anything I said.

[~Spectre]

Education molded you into your master's image,
And you forgot who the fuck you were before the war was finished.

[maskerade]

I don't want to kill anyone :(

[Quail]

I thought this thread was going to be another hilarious "Who should we purge?" threads.

Personally, I don't like the idea of killing someone, but chances are, the opposition would kill me if they had the opportunity, so killing them in that case is necessary.

[Soviet dude]

Threads like this are useful for pointing out who the liberals are...

[maskerade]

Threads like this are useful for pointing out who the liberals are...

tough guy is tough

[Psy]

Think of it as a last ditch FU to the world from these sociopaths if they knew they were facing definite expropriation. I wouldn't put it past them.Also, the works I'll be posting momentarily describe the capitalists plans for massive first strikes from stealth bombers and subs. They devised ways around mutual destruction and there were plenty of crazy bastards willing to go through with it. You give capitalists too much credit. You're also assuming Russia is by any stretach of the imagination socialist. Also, as far as the third world, re-read my prior posts :)

Capitalists are sociopaths, you're not going to change my mind.

No I'm assuming that Russia if far more paranoid of NATO then the proletariat especially the proletariat in the US spear of influence. Also with the USA wanting to put missiles in Poland that could hit Moscow I doubt the ruling classes of the USA and Russia could every hope to form a united front against the proletariat.

[The Douche]

I will singlehandedly kill all those who oppose us.

Who's hard now?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Why the fuck do we have this thread?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. ion.

The US, on paper has a free media. However even a superficial look at the corporate controlled media will quickly show that its, well, corporate controlled.There have been media blackouts of many important stories-a demonstration of a million people in Mexico City in '05 against the arrest of the "leftist" then mayor Obrador, West Coast dockworkers strike, Cindy Sheehan giving Pelosi a run for her money, these aren't reported. At all. Left wing ideas are marginalized and there's a complete black out of anything to do with socialism.

The concentration of ownership of the media is very high. three major companies account for close to 80% of market share. Noam Chomsky's Manufacture of Consent discusses the basis of media control.
There is a small alternative media, running on a shoe string budget.The ruling class would love to either co-opt this or shut it down. There are contradictions within the system and there is room for dissent, but this isn't because the US model is somehow "freer".

Also it doesn't matter if the US system is a "newer model". Models are for poli sci textbooks and law students. What matters is class struggle from below to force change.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I hate violence. I used to consider myself a "militant pacifist". In revolutionary situations though most violence comes from the reaction. I don't have the exact stats off hand, but when the Paris Commune was crushed, around 30,000 people were shot. After the Spanish Republic and Chilean bourgeois democracy were destroyed 10s of thousands of people were killed. I have no doubt that if the Whites had taken Petrograd in the Russian Civil War, they would have exterminated the working class, to eradicate the idea that there ever had been a worker's state, however briefly.

The Marxist view of revolution isn't "capitalism sucks, let's kill the bastards". Far from it. The new society will be born out of the rotten husk of the old. Ruling classes never give up their power without a viscous fight. Marxists see the need for defense. Right now though, this neither here nor there.

[Robocommie]

Wow, its pretty incredible that you call yourself an anarchist. The 'right' to 'free speech' is a total smokescreen. As soon as the ruling class senses a threat, your 'rights' become totally meaningless. Even most liberals I know understand this.

Yeah he's a fun time. It's a rare treat to see a self-proclaimed leftist indulge in American exceptionalism. "You see, we here in the West..."

[Crux]

Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. America has some advantage being a younger country, and having a constitution shaped by the Enlightenment. European governments tend to have regressive elements left over from the past. We're a newer model. I don't know very much about Sweden, from what I'm reading it looks alright. You're laws regarding free speech aren't quite as expansive, but more so than Germany, and England. You're parliamentary system sounds alright. You actually scored number one in the Democracy Index (Impressive.) while we scored an 18.(?!) That's depressing. Anyhow, you also have a much better healthcare system, more accessible education, etc, etc. My point was this is vastly different from the situation in China or North Korea, we do have rights, and we can initiate at least some change without being executed, or tortured, or something. In Russia they don't have that option.
We, who?

[Kiev Communard]

I hate violence. I used to consider myself a "militant pacifist". In revolutionary situations though most violence comes from the reaction. I don't have the exact stats off hand, but when the Paris Commune was crushed, around 30,000 people were shot. After the Spanish Republic and Chilean bourgeois democracy were destroyed 10s of thousands of people were killed. I have no doubt that if the Whites had taken Petrograd in the Russian Civil War, they would have exterminated the working class, to eradicate the idea that there ever had been a worker's state, however briefly.

The Marxist view of revolution isn't "capitalism sucks, let's kill the bastards". Far from it. The new society will be born out of the rotten husk of the old. Ruling classes never give up their power without a viscous fight. Marxists see the need for defense. Right now though, this neither here nor there.

That's true. But the pacifistic dispositions of many of Proudhonist leaders of the Paris Commune was one of the principal causes of its downfall and the subsequent slaughter of the Parisian revolutionaries and a great part of the city's working class at large. Sometimes one has to deal a pre-emptive strike against the counter-revolution, lest the latter triumph.

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by NGNM85

Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. America has some advantage being a younger country, and having a constitution shaped by the Enlightenment. European governments tend to have regressive elements left over from the past. We're a newer model. I don't know very much about Sweden, from what I'm reading it looks alright. You're laws regarding free speech aren't quite as expansive, but more so than Germany, and England. You're parliamentary system sounds alright. You actually scored number one in the Democracy Index (Impressive.) while we scored an 18.(?!) That's depressing. Anyhow, you also have a much better healthcare system, more accessible education, etc, etc. My point was this is vastly different from the situation in China or North Korea, we do have rights, and we can initiate at least some change without being executed, or tortured, or something. In Russia they don't have that option.

You're going by the Economist's Democracy Index? The right wing Economist magazine's characterization of Democratic countries?

Oh lord, NGN, c'mon comrade, this is a new low. How could you come in here and act "leftier" than thou and cite centre-right nonsense as an indicator of how democratic a nation is?

[Barry Lyndon]

NGNM85 why the hell aren't you banned, or at least restricted in the 'Opposing ideologies' section? You are off the wall in your 'Land of the Free' twaddle.

It's pretty weird to hear a self proclaimed anarchist gush over the 'Enlightenment' ideals of the Founding Fathers- who were(with one or two exceptions) racist, sexist, slave owners and aristocrats who thought that only 'gentlemen' like themselves were responsible enough to make important political decisions(Alexander Hamilton referred to the lower classes collectively as 'The Beast').

There is zero class analysis in what you have written NGNM85. The only reason that there is any semblance of 'free speech' in the United States is because of the struggle and sacrifice of countless labor unionists, anarchists, Marxists, women, blacks, Latinos, and other marignalized and oppressed people.

People arent executed or tortured in this country? Really? Tell that to the 5% remnant of the Native Americans who once populated North America. Tell that to the ghost of Frank Little and Joe Hill, or the Haymarket Martyrs. Tell that to the family of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Tell that to the Vietnamese who experienced 'Operation Phoenix' and were tortured in bamboo cages. Tell that to blacks and Latinos who are 'picked up' by police in Chicago or LA. Tell that to those who went through Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay. Tell that to the families of countless people in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, El Salvador, Chile, Haiti, Honduras and many other countries whose loved ones were tortured and murdered by CIA-trained death squads.

Lenina has already thoroughly explained the corporate media's role in making legalized 'free speech' almost meaningless, so I won't get into that.
Seriously, your class/white privilege shines through in your insipid idealism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Barry, comrade, I would advise you not to deter the debate onto NGN's liberal-ish posts. He has sort of a protected status on here so I would recommend to just steer clear. Debate with him in a rational matter and show him why he is wrong on certain matters and lacks a clear materialist perspective.

I mean for one, how does he not account for imperialism's role in the list he offered as proof of Democratic freedom (one made by the Economist Magazine admittedly using the same criteria as Freedom House)?

I understand that things like this bother you Barry, but we must remain level headed otherwise we will be pigeon holed as being knuckle dragging ideologues.

In other words, let it go comrade.

[Barry Lyndon]

"When a murderer raises his knife over a child, may one kill the murderer to save the child? Will not thereby the principle of the “sacredness of human life” be infringed? May one kill the murderer to save oneself? Is an insurrection of oppressed slaves against their masters permissible? Is it permissible to purchase one’s freedom at the cost of the life of one’s jailers? If human life in general is sacred and inviolable, we must deny ourselves not only the use of terror, not only war, but also revolution itself...As long as human labor power, and, consequently, life itself, remain articles of sale and purchase, of exploitation and robbery, the principle of the “sacredness of human life” remains a shameful lie, uttered with the object of keeping the oppressed slaves in their chains."
-Leon Trotsky, 'Communism and Terror', 1920.

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery, it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained, or magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, and act of violence wherby one class overthrows another"- Mao Zedong, 'Report on the investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan', 1927.

That's pretty much all that can be reasonably said on this topic. No one likes violence, but if you are not prepared to accept that violence will be necessary at some stage to abolish a system that was founded on and is maintained by the routine use of violence, then you are not a leftist.

[Barry Lyndon]

I understand that things like this bother you Barry, but we must remain level headed otherwise we will be pigeon holed as being knuckle dragging ideologues.

In other words, let it go comrade.

If it makes one a knuckle dragging idealogue to object to such blatant white supremacist Western chauvinism, then I guess count me in.

I don't care if NGNM85 has protected status. The administrators can ban me if they like. I dare them.

[Q]

I will singlehandedly kill all those who oppose us.

Who's hard now?

With bare hands.

[The Douche]

With bare hands.

Actually, I'll only be employing my thumbs.

[Q]

Actually, I'll only be employing my thumbs.

Bad ass :cool:

Ontopic (well, on a serious note anyway): When is this moved to Chit-Chat? Really.

[bricolage]

"A revolution is not a dinner party...
aaaaahhhhh finally someone did it! they said dinner party!
who had their money on post 47?

[bricolage]

But yeah on the other thing NGNM85 is a waste of space.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Oh gawd, you guys are all a bunch of liberal pussies. Here's some much needed dick waving and Internet tough-guyness.

I mean really, how does executions and guerrilla combat and actually putting marxist-leninists against the wall make you feel? Disregarding all that "necessary" stuff.

Because it really is what is implicitly advocated in the theory, I don't buy into the whole Marxist-Leninist we are going to have a "working class" revolution, that's never been the case (Kronstadt...) , it's gonna go down like that when and if it happens in a bad way, the color is red/black for this very reason.

I think we are, over the question of classism, during a Red Revolution we are always defending ourselves, because Marxist-Leninists aren't interested in fighting for the working class, Kronstadt and Catalonia prove that - us Anarchists have to defend ourselves when we are being attacked.

[revolution inaction]

That's pretty much all that can be reasonably said on this topic. No one likes violence, but if you are not prepared to accept that violence will be necessary at some stage to abolish a system that was founded on and is maintained by the routine use of violence, then you are not a leftist.

i do :D

and i'm not a leftist

[Jim Profit]

I don't know if I'd want to EXECUTE capitalists. Maybe murder a few. Exection implies a state madated killing. That means we had the revolution, then took them to court, humilated them, waved our dicks in their faces, then went to hang them on a noose.

I'd rather give them the honor of dying by an individual. For personal reasons rather then to just publically degrade them and act like it's okay to kill people as long as everyone else is on it. So do I believe in executing capitalists? No. Do I believe in murderng capitalists? Maybe... probably depends on who you're talking about it really. But if we were discussing this from a purely hypothetical point, I would rather lone revolutionaries kill their personal demons rather then expect everyone to organize and do it for them. Because that just opens up more abuses which made us revolt in the firstplace!!!

[blake 3:17]

Threads like this are useful for pointing out who the liberals are...

I've known people who have killed people in the midst of social struggle. They've mostly been members of small guerrilla armies. This kind of violence may be at times necessary, but it doesn't make it any easier or more pleasant or healthier for those involved.

My father dropped thousands of pounds of bombs on Nazis and regular working class Germans during the second world war. It may have been better for the world -- I can't say -- but it damged him as a human being.

Making light of violence, including the most just and most revolutionary, does nothing to take away the horrors that it inflicts, both on those killed and those doing the killing.

It is stupid to be talking about this on a board like this -- it's very easy for some naive person to put forward threats that could criminalize them -- and it is a stupid framework for talking about the use of physical force in social change. In relatively peaceful, stable and wealthy countries social struggle does sometimes lead to violence which may kill or permanently injure someone. There are times where picket lines or demonstrations escalate to the point where it is likely someone will get seriously hurt or killed. There's nothing wonderful or marvelous or fantastic about it. I've been physically attacked at political events and am very grateful that I didn't suffer serious injury.

Genuine socialists (and I mean this in a very broad and inclusive term) want profound social change with the least harm done. A world of social justice, equality and democracy is not based on vendettas or murder.

[this is an invasion]

Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them. In America we have the most expansive laws protecting free speech in the world. America has some advantage being a younger country, and having a constitution shaped by the Enlightenment. European governments tend to have regressive elements left over from the past. We're a newer model. I don't know very much about Sweden, from what I'm reading it looks alright. You're laws regarding free speech aren't quite as expansive, but more so than Germany, and England. You're parliamentary system sounds alright. You actually scored number one in the Democracy Index (Impressive.) while we scored an 18.(?!) That's depressing. Anyhow, you also have a much better healthcare system, more accessible education, etc, etc. My point was this is vastly different from the situation in China or North Korea, we do have rights, and we can initiate at least some change without being executed, or tortured, or something. In Russia they don't have that option.
"I demand no right, therefore I acknowledge no right"

[NGNM85]

We, who?

Americans and Western Europeans. It should be fairly obvious that there are differences between Norway and North Korea with regards to democracy, free speech, etc. That shouldn't be controversial.

[NGNM85]

Yeah he's a fun time. It's a rare treat to see a self-proclaimed leftist indulge in American exceptionalism. "You see, we here in the West..."

You don't know what 'American exceptionalism' means. However, apparently, you aren't alone. All I said was America has broader legislation protecting free speech than any other country. I also said that the United States government is different in certain respects from European governments due to the relative youth of the United States combined with the particular circumstances of the American revolution. That is merely a statement of fact. American exceptionalism is a belief, an especially wrongheaded one, to which I don't subscribe.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Yes, Sweden isn't Saudi Arabia and Canada isn't the DPRK. Why is this? What are the processes which give rise to these differences? Its not enough to say, the West is more advanced and "free" and other places aren't. What are the linkages?What have been the historic relationships and processes connecting First World and Third World societies? Nothing exists in a vacuum. what are the material conditions and social relations which give rise to differences between societies?

[NGNM85]

The US, on paper has a free media.

You've already gone off the rails.


However even a superficial look at the corporate controlled media will quickly show that its, well, corporate controlled.There have been media blackouts of many important stories-a demonstration of a million people in Mexico City in '05 against the arrest of the "leftist" then mayor Obrador, West Coast dockworkers strike, Cindy Sheehan giving Pelosi a run for her money, these aren't reported. At all. Left wing ideas are marginalized and there's a complete black out of anything to do with socialism.

The concentration of ownership of the media is very high. three major companies account for close to 80% of market share.

That's totally true, and almost completely besides the point. This is an argument against capitalism, or what we're calling capitalism, and corporate consolidation, etc, those are all valid issues that are worthy of discussion. This, in no way, refutes or conflicts with what I said.


Noam Chomsky's Manufacture of Consent discusses the basis of media control.

Since you brought it up;

“Until World War I there was only a slender basis for freedom of speech in the United States, and it was not until 1964 that the law of seditious libel was struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court finally protected speech apart from ‘incitement to immanent lawless action.’ …The 1969 Supreme Court decision formulated a Libertarian standard which, I believe, is unique in the world. In Canada, for example, people are still imprisoned for promulgating ‘false news,’ recognized as a crime in 1275 to protect the king.

In Europe, the situation is still more primitive. England has only limited protection for freedom of speech, and even tolerates such a disgrace as a law of blasphemy." –Noam Chomsky, Containing the Threat of Democracy, 1990


There is a small alternative media, running on a shoe string budget.The ruling class would love to either co-opt this or shut it down. There are contradictions within the system and there is room for dissent, but this isn't because the US model is somehow "freer".

It is, and you’re confusing the issue.


Also it doesn't matter if the US system is a "newer model". Models are for poli sci textbooks and law students. What matters is class struggle from below to force change.

I’m enthusiastic about the prospect of mobilizing for political change. All I was saying is, unlike in China, we can do that without getting shot. We also can make said political change, or at least some political change, without shooting anybody, ourselves. That’s different from a police state.

[Rousedruminations]

The point is, violence is necessary and inevitable for during a social struggle where one class overthrows the other, certain situations create adverse reactions which are tremendously unpleasant for those involved in the revolutionary struggle. ' Killing the opposition' is not and will never be thoroughly enjoyed by those involved. The satisfaction comes in achieving their ends, the means to those are ends are probably the ugliest. The effects of the means will probably reverberate in their phsyce even until their dying days even perhaps privately as their muse about their ' revolutionary days', for the desperate expression of a man, woman or childs face, their screams are indeed echos of horror for most.

[FreeFocus]

The fact is that dead people can't oppose you. The ruling classes have understood this very well throughout history.

[La Comédie Noire]

"Inside every revolutionary is a gendarme" - Gorky.

[the last donut of the night]

idk about you guys, but over here in greece we need a lot of strong leftist mercenaries

[9]

Yeah he's a fun time. It's a rare treat to see a self-proclaimed leftist indulge in American exceptionalism. "You see, we here in the West..."

To be honest, though, I'm not sure its particularly helpful to address it the way that I did, and that others are doing. He is being polite enough, so when everybody starts calling him names, it seems sort of OTT.
Lenina Rosenweg is doing a much better job.

[NGNM85]

NGNM85 why the hell aren't you banned, or at least restricted in the 'Opposing ideologies' section? You are off the wall in your 'Land of the Free' twaddle.

You’re mischaracterizing what I said.


It's pretty weird to hear a self proclaimed anarchist gush over the 'Enlightenment' ideals of the Founding Fathers-

The Enlightenment produced some very good ideas, like democracy, secularism, the scientific method, and representative government, the idea that political power came from the people, and thus political systems should reflect their will. This is opposed to religious extremism, the divine right of kings, feudalism, etc. I’d say that’s an improvement.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment inspired Proudhon and Bakunin, etc., who built on those ideas. Marx was influenced by the enlightenment.


who were(with one or two exceptions) racist, sexist, slave owners and aristocrats who thought that only 'gentlemen' like themselves were responsible enough to make important political decisions(Alexander Hamilton referred to the lower classes collectively as 'The Beast').

Well, there’s the Enlightenment, and then there’s the American revolutionaries who are a much smaller subset. There were also differences of opinion between them. Thomas Paine, for example, stands out.


There is zero class analysis in what you have written NGNM85. The only reason that there is any semblance of 'free speech' in the United States is because of the struggle and sacrifice of countless labor unionists, anarchists, Marxists, women, blacks, Latinos, and other marignalized and oppressed people.

Like I said; ‘Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them.’

It depends on what you mean by ‘class analysis.’ If you mean, as Adam Smith observed that the ‘merchants and manufacturers’ play a substantial role in politics, and their interests are ‘most peculiarly attended to’, yeah. Marx would later come to that conclusion and call it ‘class analysis’, poor people have known it forever. That’s like saying; ‘water is wet.’


People arent executed or tortured in this country? Really? Tell that to the 5% remnant of the Native Americans who once populated North America. Tell that to the ghost of Frank Little and Joe Hill, or the Haymarket Martyrs. Tell that to the family of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Tell that to the Vietnamese who experienced 'Operation Phoenix' and were tortured in bamboo cages. Tell that to blacks and Latinos who are 'picked up' by police in Chicago or LA. Tell that to those who went through Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay. Tell that to the families of countless people in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, El Salvador, Chile, Haiti, Honduras and many other countries whose loved ones were tortured and murdered by CIA-trained death squads.

Now, what did I actually say? I said, in the context of an argument about the justification of political violence that it depends on circumstances, and the circumstances in various police states are different than in the US and Western Europe. Only among radical Leftists is the painfully obvious so hotly contested. This prompted your avalanche of bullshit.


Lenina has already thoroughly explained the corporate media's role in making legalized 'free speech' almost meaningless, so I won't get into that.

On that instance she happens to be wrong, not so much factually, but in her conclusions.


Seriously, your class/white privilege shines through in your insipid idealism.

I’m working class, and come from a working class family. I am white, however.

You’re dogmatic, religious Marxist-Leninist fundamentalism is hardly inconspicuous. It’s really absurd, you’re so locked into such simplistic binary thinking that even the suggestion that something the government does actually makes sense, serves a logical purpose, or, at the very least, is less bad than some alternatives, sends you into a paroxysm of frothing, primal rage.

[Barry Lyndon]

To be honest, though, I'm not sure its particularly helpful to address it the way that I did, and that others are doing. He is being polite enough, so when everybody starts calling him names, it seems sort of OTT.
Lenina Rosenweg is doing a much better job.

If you had to trudge through page after page of his inane bullshit, in which he calls Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair 'leftists', and described present-day American capitalism as 'corporate communism', as well as saying that Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are in the same intellectual tradition as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Noam Chomsjy, then you might understand why me and others have so little patience for his drivel.

[NGNM85]

Yes, Sweden isn't Saudi Arabia and Canada isn't the DPRK. Why is this? What are the processes which give rise to these differences? Its not enough to say, the West is more advanced and "free" and other places aren't. What are the linkages?What have been the historic relationships and processes connecting First World and Third World societies? Nothing exists in a vacuum. what are the material conditions and social relations which give rise to differences between societies?

It is absolutely impossible to do justice to that in less than a few million words.

Again, my point was the difference between the political and social structures in the United States and Western Europe are different from those you find in various police states, this difference needs to be taken into account when considering the justification for political violence. You don't necessarily need to shoot people to acheive a political objective here, in those countries you almost certainly do. You don't seem to be contesting this.

[NGNM85]

If you had to trudge through page after page of his inane bullshit, in which he calls Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair 'leftists', and described present-day American capitalism as 'corporate communism', as well as saying that Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are in the same intellectual tradition as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Noam Chomsjy, then you might understand why me and others have so little patience for his drivel.

That's about 60% true. Something tends to get lost in translation.

[Sexy Red]

I would never kill my opposition but I would fight back with great power if they attacked me and my comrades.

[ContrarianLemming]

Most you seem to have missed the point: how do you feel about it?

It's not some internet pisturing, dick waving prolier then thou nonsense, I really am interested in knowing how you feel about the killings in previous revolutions, not necessarily whther or not they were justified, that doesn't actually say anything about what you think of it, and it has nothing to do with stratagy.

In which case no, I've never seen this question asked, im so surprised everyone compeltely missed the point and went straight into strat and "it's necessary/its not".

[bcbm]

fair enough. i don't feel very good about it, i think bloodshed of any kind should be avoided as much as possible. class relations have been characterized by such misery that i have trouble imagining a communist world coming from more misery.

[RadioRaheem84]

That's about 60% true. Something tends to get lost in translation.


How does everyone keep misinterpreting what you're saying or end up not using the same language as you NGN? Your defense is weaker than ever.

How is it that you always manage to make outlandish things seem "leftist" and call other dogmatic for not seeing it your way?
Please, excuse us for not seeing the merits in the Economist Mag's measure of a Democratic society.
Excuse us dogmatic MLs for taking a materialist perspective and insisting that imperialism plays a role in that little list of yours.
And excuse us for overlooking the fact that the US has very liberal laws on free speech but exercises monopoly control over free speech thereby rendering it nearly useless unless one can muster enough economic clout.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What is freedom? Its a relative term. The US does have more more personal freedom than Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan or other places. More personal freedom that is, if one is a white middle class person. Dorchester in the Boston area is widely regarded by its residents as "occupied territory". The same is true for almost any inner city area. There's incredible police repression against minorities. If one is a transgendered person of color there's a huge chance of being beaten or killed by the police. There's an Amnesty International report about this.

Much repression is extra-legal.

Official public discourse is perhaps more open than it was in the 1920s. We can read James Joyce or DH Lawrence. This is a step forward. Chomsky and Herman write about how media manipulation and control was refined to a science by Walter Lippman (an ex-socialist), Edward Bernays and others.The US is a highly media soaked and celebrity oriented culture. The direction of the media is focused as an effective means of social control.

The US is "freer" than other societies. You can start a Wordpress blog calling Obama an asshole.This is allowed because its not a threat to the system. When dissent does become a threat, its stopped. COINTELPRO, the destruction of the BPP, the recent raids on Freedom Road and other organizations.Any activist who was beaten by the police during a demo (and I know a few) could tell you about this.

Saudi Arabia is widely seen as a repressive society. It was created by elements of the US ruling class in conjunction with repressive feudal elements in the Hijaz.Read the history of Aramco. There were other ways the Middle East could have developed.Putin's Russia is often called a dictatorship by the US media. The US, though Jeffry Sachs, Anders Aslund, Anatoly Chubais and others imposed neo-liberalism on that country.The collapse of Russia has to be one of the biggest tragedies in history. Half the population was plunged into poverty overnight.In the 90s I have seen elderly women, "babushki" dive for a rotten piece of fruit I threw into a dumpster.Living in neo-liberal Russia would be a radicalizing experience for anyone.Russia today is not fully under US hegemony. Therefore its a "dictatorship".

I'm not advocating a "vulgar Marxist " view-the US as the evil capitalist puppet master pulling the strings (although that's often not far from the truth) but we have to follow a dialectical and materialist approach, understanding systemic proccess and identify and assist areas of resistance.

[NGNM85]

What is freedom? Its a relative term. The US does have more more personal freedom than Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan or other places.


I hope that wasn't too excruciating. Can you translate this for the others?


More personal freedom that is, if one is a white middle class person.

Well, I'm a working class white person and I've managed to avoid being spirited off to a concentration camp or publicly executed.


Dorchester in the Boston area is widely regarded by its residents as "occupied territory". The same is true for almost any inner city area. There's incredible police repression against minorities. If one is a transgendered person of color there's a huge chance of being beaten or killed by the police. There's an Amnesty International report about this.

I'd be curious to read that report.

I don't hang out there often, but you're characterization of Dorchester is a little overstated.


Much repression is extra-legal.

Emphasis on 'extra-legal.'


Official public discourse is perhaps more open than it was in the 1920s.

Not 'perhaps', absolutely.


We can read James Joyce or DH Lawrence. This is a step forward. Chomsky and Herman write about how media manipulation and control was refined to a science by Walter Lippman (an ex-socialist), Edward Bernays and others.The US is a highly media soaked and celebrity oriented culture. The direction of the media is focused as an effective means of social control.

Yes. That's the 'problem of democracy.' What vexed men like Lippman was that we do have such a relatively free society, that was the problem, that was why sophisticated mechanisms had to be created. That's why the Trilateral Commission was bemoaning the 'crisis of democracy' in the '60's. The 'crisis' was that democracy was working, people were demanding things, and it was successful, to some extent.

It's totally different in Russia. Putin recently issued a public statement, I don't know the exact words, but he was addressing protesters, and he essentially said 'we're going to beat the living shit out of you', paraphrasing, of course. In Russia they don't need that kind of sophisticated mechanism because it's a police state.

Also most of what you describe is not centralized, it's internal regulation, just like much of the Red Scare. There's layers of filters and 'education' reinforcing certain attitudes.


The US is "freer" than other societies. You can start a Wordpress blog calling Obama an asshole.This is allowed because its not a threat to the system.

You can also distribute Anarchist polemics, NAMBLA materials, Neo-Nazi literature and instructions for making explosives using household products.


When dissent does become a threat, its stopped. COINTELPRO,

Most of the evidence gained through COINTELPRO was useless because it wasn't admissible.


the destruction of the BPP, the recent raids on Freedom Road and other organizations.

The Leninist organization? I don't know the details so I can't comment on these events.


Any activist who was beaten by the police during a demo (and I know a few) could tell you about this.

Again, that's not official policy.


Saudi Arabia is widely seen as a repressive society.

...Because it is.


It was created by elements of the US ruling class in conjunction with repressive feudal elements in the Hijaz.Read the history of Aramco. There were other ways the Middle East could have developed.Putin's Russia is often called a dictatorship by the US media. The US, though Jeffry Sachs, Anders Aslund, Anatoly Chubais and others imposed neo-liberalism on that country.

It was a dictatorship before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a dictatorship during and before the Soviet Union. However, you are right that the economic policies enacted after the collapse were, indeed, destructive.


The collapse of Russia has to be one of the biggest tragedies in history. Half the population was plunged into poverty overnight.In the 90s I have seen elderly women, "babushki" dive for a rotten piece of fruit I threw into a dumpster.Living in neo-liberal Russia would be a radicalizing experience for anyone.Russia today is not fully under US hegemony. Therefore its a "dictatorship".

No, it's a police state because they have virtually no legally protected rights, no political participation, dissidents or protesters live under constant fear of being killed, etc.


I'm not advocating a "vulgar Marxist " view-the US as the evil capitalist puppet master pulling the strings (although that's often not far from the truth)

That is the majority view, here, however.


but we have to follow a dialectical and materialist approach, understanding systemic proccess and identify and assist areas of resistance.

No, we don't. I admit not totally understanding Dialectical Materialism, but a lot of what I've read is fuzzy-minded nonsense. There's some truisms in it, but a lot more of it is just bullshit.

[Crux]

Americans and Western Europeans. It should be fairly obvious that there are differences between Norway and North Korea with regards to democracy, free speech, etc. That shouldn't be controversial.
That doesn't really answer my question. When you talk about the rights that, say, Swedes or Americans have, do you really think those are equal? Let me let you in on something. They're not. Not even just formally.
Let me take one brief example, purely legally, it is illegal for men who have sex with other men to donate blood.
This, of course, is a relatively minor example. You may call it a luxury problem compared to, say, the legal situation in Saudi Arabia. To which of course I would respond fuck your relativizing bullshit and your american and western exceptionalism. You're just a liberal, wake up and smell the coffee.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/stonewalled-a-report/page.do?id=1106610

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511172007?open&of=ENG-2M4

We shouldn't fetishize legality or the rule of law.In the US we have a bourgeois democracy. It does afford a relative degree of freedom to many people. This freedom has sharp limits.

There is the official law and then there is the way things actually operate. The state cannot be abstracted from the system of social relations from which it springs. In the 60s/70s abortion was legalized, there some safeguards, if only on paper, against police brutality as in Miranda, the draft was ended, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution along somewhat more pro-worker directions. This was because of mass protest from below. The legal system, the state is a reflection of class struggle.

I would say that at some level police repression against dissidents and minorities is official policy. Decisions are made. The "war against drugs" is quite obviously a war against poor people.The US has an astronomical incarceration rate. There are reasons for this directly connected to class rule.

I'm far from being a tankie and the fSU had severe problems.Elderly women eating from garbage bins wasn't one of them though. In the early 90s Russia witnessed one of the largest industrial collapses in history.Half the population was plunged into extreme poverty overnight. People's lives were vastly better under the Soviet Union. Wage differentials were lower, people led secure lives, and there was a widespread feeling of being involved in a common endeavor, building socialism.

Russia in the early 90s was very "democratic". Any "democracy" was very quickly subverted by the US backed rise of the oligarchs. Russia is a police state today because of the need to maintain the control of its ruling class. The control is more brutal and direct than that of the US ruling class (although the US ruling class certainly has its share of atrocities and blood on its hands, from Vietnam to El Salvador to Iraq).

There are other directions Russian society could have gone. Worker's councils directly controlling factories and means of production, challenging their own rulers as well as US imperialism. This wasn't in the cards though. The Soviet leadership, whether one calls them "revisionists" or "bureaucratic parasites of a degenerate workers state", had come up against the limits of an economy in transition. Failing a further development of socialist relations, the only option was for them to cave in to neo-liberalism. the result was a tragedy of monumental proportions.

[AK]

Why the fuck do we have this thread?
So that Psy's extensive military knowledge can be shared.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00334/ed_imgSNN2552B_435_334918a.jpg


Most you seem to have missed the point: how do you feel about it?

I feel bad about the mass executions that always seem to come around everytime some new revolutionary movement pops up. A lot of violence (especially against property, but sometimes against people too) doesn't bother me, but capital punishment is pretty fucked up, IMO. It deserves to be an unfortunate relic from another era.

[Barry Lyndon]

a)You’re mischaracterizing what I said.

b)The Enlightenment produced some very good ideas, like democracy, secularism, the scientific method, and representative government, the idea that political power came from the people, and thus political systems should reflect their will. This is opposed to religious extremism, the divine right of kings, feudalism, etc. I’d say that’s an improvement.

c)The philosophers of the Enlightenment inspired Proudhon and Bakunin, etc., who built on those ideas. Marx was influenced by the enlightenment.

d)Well, there’s the Enlightenment, and then there’s the American revolutionaries who are a much smaller subset. There were also differences of opinion between them. Thomas Paine, for example, stands out.

e)Like I said; ‘Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them.’

f)It depends on what you mean by ‘class analysis.’ If you mean, as Adam Smith observed that the ‘merchants and manufacturers’ play a substantial role in politics, and their interests are ‘most peculiarly attended to’, yeah. Marx would later come to that conclusion and call it ‘class analysis’, poor people have known it forever. That’s like saying; ‘water is wet.’

g)Now, what did I actually say? I said, in the context of an argument about the justification of political violence that it depends on circumstances, and the circumstances in various police states are different than in the US and Western Europe. Only among radical Leftists is the painfully obvious so hotly contested. This prompted your avalanche of bullshit.

h)On that instance she happens to be wrong, not so much factually, but in her conclusions.

i)I’m working class, and come from a working class family. I am white, however.

j)You’re dogmatic, religious Marxist-Leninist fundamentalism is hardly inconspicuous. It’s really absurd, you’re so locked into such simplistic binary thinking that even the suggestion that something the government does actually makes sense, serves a logical purpose, or, at the very least, is less bad than some alternatives, sends you into a paroxysm of frothing, primal rage.

a) Get some new material.

b) An improvement by the standards of 300 years ago. Youv'e got some catching up to do.

c) True, but the major contribution of the Marxist and Anarchist critique was that basis of Enlightenment ideals was the justification of the rule of the bourgeois class.

d) I specifically singled out Thomas Paine, who was by far the most radical of the Founding Fathers. He moved to France, because already in the 18th century the American Revolution was surpassed in radicalism by the French. Your extolling it as the pinnacle of human achievement is nothing short of hilarious.

e) No, you constantly imply that these rights are handed down by benevolent elites through court rulings. There is not a word from you about the struggle of working people from below to make these abstract 'rights' a concrete reality.

f) This shows you have no understanding of what Marx wrote. Adam Smith and many others had been writing about how the government was in the hands of rich men conspiring to protect their interests against the poor.
Marx's innovation in analysis was that the capitalists derive their wealth from the surplus they extract from the working class via exploitation of their labor. In other words, the very existence of the capitalist class is subsidized by the workers.

g) The difference in violence utilized by 'totalitarian' and 'liberal democratic' states is only that of the hypocrisy involved.
A police state that directly terrorizes its domestic population is not any different in my view from a state that imposes police states abroad and/or in selected ethnic enclaves.
The only thing that is 'obvious' is your combination of smug arrogance and willful ignorance.

h) She was basically summarizing the whole thesis of Manufacturing Consent, one of Noam Chomsky's major works. I know you like to pretend you have read Chomsky and agree with him, but this is just another piece of evidence that you have not.

i) So am I. The question is not your background per se, but through who's eyes you choose to see the world through. You have clearly chosen to see it through the eyes of the capitalist class, as evidenced by your reverence for figures provided by the Economist at face value.

j) My analysis is far from 'simplistic', but you interpret it as such because you possess a simplistic liberal mind.

[Robocommie]

To be honest, though, I'm not sure its particularly helpful to address it the way that I did, and that others are doing. He is being polite enough, so when everybody starts calling him names, it seems sort of OTT.
Lenina Rosenweg is doing a much better job.

Probably, but it's like talking to a brick wall. I've lost all patience for it.

[RadioRaheem84]

You can also distribute Anarchist polemics, NAMBLA materials, Neo-Nazi literature and instructions for making explosives using household products.

Yes, all under the watchful eye of the State.



Most of the evidence gained through COINTELPRO was useless because it wasn't admissible.


The point of the programs were not that they were legal, but illegal and would be found inadmissible in court. The programs were meant to create hell for the subversive groups.

Are you literally whitewashing the COINTELPRO program because it was found inadmissible in a court? As if covert operations by the National Security State are supposed to be Constitutionally bound?

My impression is that you're trying to show how the system redeems itself by showing every once in a while that it sides with the victims, even while the programs themselves still go on?



Again, that's not official policy.


So it has to be written down somewhere in an official book for it to count?

It is clear that you fundamentally lack a materialist perspective and don't know what you're talking about.

[Saorsa]

I will drink the blood of the capitalists and my golden piss will water the flowerbed of the proletariat

[El Rojo]

this thread must look fucking scary to newbies new to radical politcs.

[Saorsa]

I will drink the blood of the newbies

[Robocommie]

I myself am the Red version of John Rambo. I come out of the jungle with nothing but a machete and I don't return until I've taken the scalps of at least a hundred capitalist soldiers. I sleep on a pillow made of the fears of industrialists.

[Franz Fanonipants]

An initial revolution necessarily has to be violent, up to the point of surrender by capitalists. After that point, I believe reeducation and a judicial process should be the next step in reforming and punishing capitalists.

Reeducation would most likely look a lot like working to build infrastructure in communities and areas that capitalism purposely underdeveloped.

p.s. holy shit ngnm isn't banned yet?

[the last donut of the night]

The Enlightenment produced some very good ideas, like democracy, secularism, the scientific method, and representative government, the idea that political power came from the people, and thus political systems should reflect their will. This is opposed to religious extremism, the divine right of kings, feudalism, etc. I’d say that’s an improvement.

LOL

Along with being very idealist here -- democracy and secularism aren't ideas for one, they're systems --, you make the serious mistake of assuming that without Enlightenment thinkers we wouldn't be able to conceptualize the idea of freedom, democracy, or secularism. Which is fucking retarded, because those concepts existed well before the Enlightenment. We don't need rich white guys to tell us what freedom is. Finally, freedom and democracy to them was not our freedom that we conceive, it was freedom for the bourgeoisie to form modern property relations and the nation-state as we know it.

Just my 2 cents.

[RadioRaheem84]

Finally, freedom and democracy to them was not our freedom that we conceive, it was freedom for the bourgeoisie to form modern property relations and the nation-state as we know it.

This is the crucial part that I am glad you chimed in on Yet Humanity! NGNM85 has the tendency to think that all ideals concerning democracy are one and the same. That is why he can assert that Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton are leftists and that Winston Churchill made a good statement toward Democracy.

He doesn't examine presuppositions and lacks a materialist perspective. His analysis is not systemic. It's largely idealistic and naive.

[the last donut of the night]

Again, my point was the difference between the political and social structures in the United States and Western Europe are different from those you find in various police states, this difference needs to be taken into account when considering the justification for political violence. You don't necessarily need to shoot people to acheive a political objective here, in those countries you almost certainly do. You don't seem to be contesting this.

The fact that:

a) you use the term "police state", a highly misconceived and wrong term, simply because that the state, by definition, is a police state in the sense that it needs some policing force (the cops) to keep the ruling class protected and the status quo as it is

b) you don't include the USA as a police state (remember, about 3.2% of the population is behind bars, as of 2008)

can lead me to make three conclusions:

1. You're a revolutionary with deeply liberal tendencies.

2. You're just a liberal.

Or...

3. You're just deeply misguided.


All three of them suck, tbh.

[Apoi_Viitor]

p.s. holy shit ngnm isn't banned yet?

Why don't we just purge all the members that aren't Marxist-Leninists? :rolleyes:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200506--.htm

Q: How much do you see our civil liberties being impinged upon, especially with respect to freedom of the press?

A: Freedom of the press from state control is very high in the United States, much higher than any other place I know. So take, say, England. They recently had a government investigation of the BBC to see whether they’re too critical of the government – the Hutton Report. There was a lot of debate about it, but it was mostly about the content of the report, not about the fact that it took place. I don’t think that in the United States it would have been possible for such an inquiry to take place. The protest would have been too strong. I mean, what right does the government have to investigate whether somebody’s being too critical of it? But in England, it was acceptable. In fact, English libel laws are designed so they sharply constrain freedom of the press. In the British system, if I accuse you of libel, you have to prove that I’m wrong. In the American system, I have to prove that I’m right. That’s a substantial difference, and it has a highly intimidating effect. In fact, it’s been used by big media corporations to put small journals out of business. One journal had claimed to expose something that a big media corporation did, and their reaction was just to threaten them with a libel suit. A big corporation can command legal resources, and so on, that no small journal can possibly deal with, so the journal went out of business. That’s almost impossible in the United States.

[In the U.S.], there is some diversity in the media, but overwhelmingly, they naturally remain within the basic agenda that’s pretty much set by their owners and their market, which is other businesses. It’d be amazing if it departed very much from that. Also, [the media] is very closely linked to state power, and that gives you not literal censorship but constraints. It doesn’t mean you can’t say what you want, but it does mean that there’s a slight difference in voice level.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why don't we just purge all the members that aren't Marxist-Leninists?

C'mon man. You know why people have their doubts. Don't play dumb.


It doesn’t mean you can’t say what you want, but it does mean that there’s a slight difference in voice level.
NGN does have an issue with this too. I remember him saying that the only difference between socialist groups and Glenn Beck was that he had a bigger megaphone but that we both had the same amount of free speech. This totally dismisses the fact that one man (Beck) has more free speech and more access to communication than all of the socialist groups combined that he lambastes.

His argument though sets off alarm bells of a slight American exceptionalism bias. Alien to Chomsky's more materialist analysis.

[Magón]

C'mon man. You know why people have their doubts. Don't play dumb.

But they're so stupid. :)

[NGNM85]

An initial revolution necessarily has to be violent, up to the point of surrender by capitalists. After that point, I believe reeducation and a judicial process should be the next step in reforming and punishing capitalists.

Reeducation would most likely look a lot like working to build infrastructure in communities and areas that capitalism purposely underdeveloped.

p.s. holy shit ngnm isn't banned yet?

How lovely. The 'Christian Leftist' returns.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN: You don't necessarily need to shoot people to acheive a political objective here, in those countries you almost certainly do. You don't seem to be contesting this.

How much Chomsky do you really read NGN? Chomsky points out that what the bludgeon is to a police state, propaganda is to a liberal democracy. It's a statement that the population in a liberal democracy is successfully repressed vs. one that needs to be oppressed to keep the population in line.

Chomsky marvels at how politicians are able to command the populace to support wars against nations that no other population on Earth would dare deem a threat. He deems that as repression. It isn't a statement of saying one state is better than the other.

[RadioRaheem84]

How lovely. The 'Christian Leftist' returns.

Why do you mock that he is a Christian?

We could just as well mock you for claiming to be a leftist?

You and Tony Blair :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

But they're so stupid. :)
Referring to one person....

[NGNM85]

How much Chomsky do you really read NGN? Chomsky points out that what the bludgeon is to a police state, propaganda is to a liberal democracy. It's a statement that the population in a liberal democracy is successfully repressed vs. one that needs to be oppressed to keep the population in line.

Chomsky marvels at how politicians are able to command the populace to support wars against nations that no other population on Earth would dare deem a threat. He deems that as repression. It isn't a statement of saying one state is better than the other.

BroadcastingSilence beat me to it. I’ve never seen that interview before, but it’s excellent. That is essentially exactly what I was saying. Also, he makes the same point I made about Glenn Beck.


Why do you mock that he is a Christian?

So many reasons… I think it’s funny. Not to mention the absurdity of the proposition that Jesus (Whose existence, in any form, as an actual historical personality is at best highly contentious.) was born of a virgin and is the son of the ‘one true god’ and all the horseshit that goes with it. I feel perfectly comfortable contesting that. You may disagree with what I say, but nothing I have ever said is as preposterous or unsubstantiated as that.


We could just as well mock you for claiming to be a leftist?

You and Tony Blair

You’d have to be able to define it, first.

[RadioRaheem84]

BroadcastingSilence beat me to it. I’ve never seen that interview before, but it’s excellent. That is essentially exactly what I was saying. Also, he makes the same point I made about Glenn Beck.


No he doesn't NGN. You're bonkers if you think that.

Chomsky notes that laws in the States are more liberal than in the UK, but this is all fruitless considering the amount of capital behind you propagating certain interests. Even if Chomsky wanted to make the argument that having some more liberal laws on free speech, it would be entirely an idealist viewpoint, certainly not a materialist one as it offers no real systemic analysis.

The State will come down on free speech when the constraints of marginalization do not do the trick. How can you even deny this and call yourself a leftist?



So many reasons… I think it’s funny. Not to mention the absurdity of the proposition that Jesus (Whose existence, in any form, as an actual historical personality is at best highly contentious.) was born of a virgin and is the son of the ‘one true god’ and all the horseshit that goes with it. I feel perfectly comfortable contesting that. You may disagree with what I say, but nothing I have ever said is as preposterous or unsubstantiated as that.

I find it funny that a Christian has a more material and leftist perspective than you. Instead all your good for is arrogant mocking.



You’d have to be able to define it, first.


Au contraire, mon frere. Please define it for us. I really want you to define it for all of us.

[NGNM85]

a) Get some new material.

It’s a legitimate complaint.


b) An improvement by the standards of 300 years ago. Youv'e got some catching up to do.

I still think secularism, democracy, the scientific method, and representative government (To the extent that government as a discrete entity should exist.) are very good ideas.


c) True, but the major contribution of the Marxist and Anarchist critique was that basis of Enlightenment ideals was the justification of the rule of the bourgeois class.

That’s a very slanted perspective.


d) I specifically singled out Thomas Paine, who was by far the most radical of the Founding Fathers. He moved to France, because already in the 18th century the American Revolution was surpassed in radicalism by the French.

That is all true.


Your extolling it as the pinnacle of human achievement is nothing short of hilarious.

I said nothing of the sort. I said the United States AND Western Europe represent the best models constructed so far. I also said the United States has the broadest parameters for protected speech in the world. That’s true. I also said there are respects in which European countries are significantly superior to the United States, namely healthcare and education, they also have less crime, lower infant mortalities, better environmental regulation, and at least most of them have far more sensible drug laws.


e) No, you constantly imply that these rights are handed down by benevolent elites through court rulings. There is not a word from you about the struggle of working people from below to make these abstract 'rights' a concrete reality.

2X; “Yes, we enjoy the rights we have in the West because generations of men and women fought for them.”

The history of civil rights in the United States is a long one, it isn’t over, either. However, I was referring to the very end of the fight for free speech in the US, that was in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case established solidified freedom of speech in the United States, that’s how it ended, there was a long struggle leading up to that.



f) This shows you have no understanding of what Marx wrote. Adam Smith and many others had been writing about how the government was in the hands of rich men conspiring to protect their interests against the poor.
Marx's innovation in analysis was that the capitalists derive their wealth from the surplus they extract from the working class via exploitation of their labor. In other words, the very existence of the capitalist class is subsidized by the workers.

Was that before or after he healed the sick, revived the deceased, and ascended bodily into the heavens?


g) The difference in violence utilized by 'totalitarian' and 'liberal democratic' states is only that of the hypocrisy involved.
A police state that directly terrorizes its domestic population is not any different in my view from a state that imposes police states abroad and/or in selected ethnic enclaves.
The only thing that is 'obvious' is your combination of smug arrogance and willful ignorance.

Again, only among radical Leftists is the painfully obvious so heatedly contested. I said that the United States and Western Europe are comparatively more free societies than China and North Korea and it has generated a veritable blitzkrieg of horseshit. This is clear evidence of the degree of binary thinking and religious dogmatism.


h) She was basically summarizing the whole thesis of Manufacturing Consent, one of Noam Chomsky's major works. I know you like to pretend you have read Chomsky and agree with him, but this is just another piece of evidence that you have not.

You apparently missed the fact that I was paraphrasing it. I have the book and the documentary by Achbar and Wintonick. She got the fquotes about right but her thesis was incorrect. This is also covered in the interview BroadcastingSilence posted.


i) So am I. The question is not your background per se, but through who's eyes you choose to see the world through. You have clearly chosen to see it through the eyes of the capitalist class, as evidenced by your reverence for figures provided by the Economist at face value.

I have an appointment with the optometrist, I’ll see if he has anything for ‘capitalist’ eyes.

I didn’t take it at face value. I looked at the criteria, and I looked at the results. It wasn’t particularly shocking. I don't see any major biases in the methodology or the results.


j) My analysis is far from 'simplistic', but you interpret it as such because you possess a simplistic liberal mind.

Your insight is shattering.

[synthesis]

Was that before or after [Marx] healed the sick, revived the deceased, and ascended bodily into the heavens?How could you possibly think that was a good response to what he was saying?

[RadioRaheem84]

I cannot believe we always have to go in circles with this guy!



I still think secularism, democracy, the scientific method, and representative government (To the extent that government as a discrete entity should exist.) are very good ideas.


Yes, so is anti-racism, lollipops, and chocolate. What the hell is your point? No one denies the impact of the Enlightenment, Marxists extol it (especially the French vareity). The point is that the basis for the Enlightenment was not total liberation for all, but liberation of the bourgeoisie class from the monarchy. Read Engels!



That’s a very slanted perspective.


There is nothing slanted about it. If you cannot grasp this, then you are not a leftist. You are a liberal.



I said nothing of the sort. I said the United States AND Western Europe represent the best models constructed so far. I also said the United States has the broadest parameters for protected speech in the world. That’s true. I also said there are respects in which European countries are significantly superior to the United States, namely healthcare and education, they also have less crime, lower infant mortalities, better environmental regulation, and at least most of them have far more sensible drug laws.


A.) Liberal laws on free speech mean nothing from a systemic pov. The only reason why you think it means something so grand is because you lack a materialist systemic perspective and harbor a boorish idealistic one.

B.) Do you know nothing of primitive accumulation, exploitation, the history of imperialism, neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism? The history of class struggle in the West, which is the only true basis for any modicum of higher and better living standards for people. Second, it having to do with the massive investments the upper classes have in the foreign world which allowed for them to bow to concessions. Lending out foreign debt traps to the global south, while reaping the rewards of past colonial ventures with new free enterprise concessions won by the extension of Western capital (World Bank, IMF).

Class struggle is all I chalk up to for the "best" possible models. Not some vague idealistic beliefs and hero myths of the Enlightenment that only naive liberals like you believe in.



However, I was referring to the very end of the fight for free speech in the US, that was in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case established solidified freedom of speech in the United States, that’s how it ended, there was a long struggle leading up to that.


Formal COINTELPRO programs didn't end until the 70s and you're saying that "free speech" was solidified in 69 with a "landmark" case? God, this is shit that should be on Huffington Post not Revleft.


Was that before or after he healed the sick, revived the deceased, and ascended bodily into the heavens?


Even Anarchists embrace the inovation in analysis that Marx brought into political economic discourse. Are you mad? Barry said nothing that would've attributed Marx as a saint but merely a brilliant man who smashed classical economic presuppositions into pieces and his work has been improved upon by other brilliant people.

You're fucking arrogant. Fucking arrogant for no reason.


Again, only among radical Leftists is the painfully obvious so heatedly contested. I said that the United States and Western Europe are comparatively more free societies than China and North Korea and it has generated a veritable blitzkrieg of horseshit. This is clear evidence of the degree of binary thinking and religious dogmatism.

Are you not a radical leftist too, NGN? Why do you word it as if we're in a different class than you?

Do you not examine why a nation like the US can be so free while others cannot?

Do you not examine materially why the conditions of many nations are in social disarray?

Why do you go by such narrow definitions of what constitutes freedom? Definitions that lead to idealistic nonsense and a shallow examination of the nations you accuse of?

That is why you cite nothing but liberal and mainstream sources because they back up your idealistic viewpoints.


I didn’t take it at face value. I looked at the criteria, and I looked at the results. It wasn’t particularly shocking. I don't see any major biases in the methodology or the results.


Methodology borrowed from Freedom House, NGN.

Please do not tell me that you support Freedom House, do you?


At present the best known measure is produced by the US-based Freedom House organization.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DfJWKL2sllcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf+economist+democracy+in dex+freedom+house&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXLoeesI0k3BQ4WWyW2tYtjWyjtGlVgXf_vK0c ZP8jwZ5N17EtY_PMed2wBHmPwnD3yKe9K56VDBDo4x5xMM7KIj JFtvbxhHKKsdYkKzn6tzsiMduoNXuLeDeDsFcYWM9ixzER&sig=AHIEtbT0XZACm1xjrMXlhJeg4AnFo_qTUA

[~Spectre]

It depends on what you mean by ‘class analysis.’ If you mean, as Adam Smith observed that the ‘merchants and manufacturers’ play a substantial role in politics, and their interests are ‘most peculiarly attended to’, yeah. Marx would later come to that conclusion and call it ‘class analysis’, poor people have known it forever. That’s like saying; ‘water is wet.’

Have you read Smith or Marx? I know you've read Chomsky since you've ripped off another of his talking points above. I don't think you understand quite what it is that you're talking about.

[~Spectre]

How lovely. The 'Christian Leftist' returns.

If Christianity precludes one from being a leftist, then I'm glad you finally admit to having been full of shit when you called Clinton, a well known Christian, a leftist.

[RadioRaheem84]

If Christianity precludes one from being a leftist, then I'm glad you finally admit to having been full of shit when you called Clinton, a well known Christian, a leftist.

or Tony Blair for that matter.

[~Spectre]

Have you read Smith or Marx? I know you've read Chomsky since you've ripped off another of his talking points above. I don't think you understand quite what it is that you're talking about.






And just to pre-empt the inevitable whining when you claim you didn't plagiarize Chomsky yet again.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

Ctrl + F the relevant terms. Almost verbatim.

[RadioRaheem84]

And just to pre-empt the inevitable whining when you claim you didn't plagiarize Chomsky yet again.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

Ctrl + F the relevant terms. Almost verbatim.

If stuff like this interview that makes me re-examine Chomsky. I don't know if I would've labeled Von Humboldt, Smith, and John Stuart Mill, "libertarian socialists".

IDK, would you guys say that "true" classical liberalism = libertarian socialism?


This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them

- Chomsky, "Education is Ignorance"

:confused:

Chomsky cites their disdain for wage labour. Well I've read several right wing Libertarian accounts against the minimum wage.

What the heck is Chomsky talking about here?

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/96/Issues

In his defense, could it be that right wing libertarians take bit and pieces of the old thinkers and construct their neo-classical distortions from it?

[~Spectre]

Chomsky is essentially just trolling right wingers by saying that their idols had a lot of what would now be considered in the U.S. far left ideas, "in context".

[9]

He isn't "trolling right-wingers".


Originally Posted by Norm Champsky
This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read themThis is at the heart of the problem with Chomsky. To Chomsky, anarchism IS liberalism. That is why we have people like NGNM who uphold the tenets of classical liberalism (the ideology of the revolutionary bourgeoisie during capitalism's inception) and are confused into thinking their views are anarchist views. It is exactly Chomsky who is to thank for the existence of this confusion among liberals in the US and its odd that people here find it so appalling when its coming from Chomsky's followers, but seem to want to conveniently ignore it when its coming from Chomsky himself.

[NGNM85]

Have you read Smith or Marx?

Yes. I have read the Manifesto, parts of Das Kapital, and assorted fragments that have been quoted or cited by other people. I’ve read parts of Wealth of Nations, it was part of the curriculum in Economics.


I know you've read Chomsky

Two or three posts ago I was accused of being totally unfamiliar with his work. Which is it? I don’t think it matters because I think these are spurious criticisms.



since you've ripped off another of his talking points above. I don't think you understand quite what it is that you're talking about.



Why is it ‘ripped off’? What does that mean? This sounds bogus to me.

If you have some deeper insight, feel free to share it. It’s about as simple and straightforward as it could possibly be. Smith’s statement was not particularly cryptic. Policy tends to conform to the needs of the wealthy elites. Marx read Smith’s work and no doubt encountered this idea which he also expressed. If there’s some secret code or hidden message or anagram in there, be my guest.


If Christianity precludes one from being a leftist, then I'm glad you finally admit to having been full of shit when you called Clinton, a well known Christian, a leftist.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t. It just means one subscribes to irrational beliefs. Incidentally, Christians don’t havwe a monopoly on that.


And just to pre-empt the inevitable whining when you claim you didn't plagiarize Chomsky yet again.


http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

Ctrl + F the relevant terms. Almost verbatim.

You never asked. You were wrong, before, and you’re still wrong about that. Yes, I’ve read that article. I’ve also read the paragraph he’s citing;

"It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it."
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

I said, essentially, the same thing he did. In fact, I had this article in mind at the time. The reason, incidentally, was that it happens to be true, however, you didn’t contest that. So,….well done,(???) I guess.

[NGNM85]

Chomsky is essentially just trolling right wingers by saying that their idols had a lot of what would now be considered in the U.S. far left ideas, "in context".

No, he's citing them because he's read them and they were an influence on his philosophical and intellectual development. He describes himself as a 'child of the Enlightenment.' He also likes to point out that these men and their ideas have been usurped by the right and perverted to represent something substantially different. This is not unique. It's just like how nobody knows Hellen Keller became an ardent Socialist, or we never hear what Martin Luther King said about Vietnam. Their legacies have been revised and repackaged for obvious political reasons.

[Barry Lyndon]

He also likes to point out that these men and their ideas have been usurped by the right and perverted to represent something substantially different. This is not unique. It's just like how nobody knows Hellen Keller became an ardent Socialist, or we never hear what Martin Luther King said about Vietnam. Their legacies have been revised and repackaged for obvious political reasons.

Funny, that's kind of like what you do with classical Anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin, to make it seem like they have something in common with the New Atheists.

[Vagelis Papatheodorou]

Stalin said ones <<You can't do a revollution wearing silk gloves>>

[9]

Funny, that's kind of like what you do with classical Anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin, to make it seem like they have something in common with the New Atheists.

If by 'the New Atheists', you mean people like Hitchens, I'd say Kropotkin certainly has something in common with them: support for an imperialist war.

[~Spectre]

Yes. I have read the Manifesto, parts of Das Kapital, and assorted fragments that have been quoted or cited by other people. I’ve read parts of Wealth of Nations, it was part of the curriculum in Economics.



You've read "parts" of Wealth of Nations?

So you steal lines from Chomsky, where he's going into his usual skit about how right wingers are assholes that cite Smith without knowing what it is that he said, and you cite Smith without having read beyond the "parts" that they made you read in what passes for an Economics course? You are your own punchline.





Two or three posts ago I was accused of being totally unfamiliar with his work.
I never accused you of that. I think you just rip him off for sophistry purposes, and don't understand him much beyond that, but you're definitely very familiar with him.



Why is it ‘ripped off’? What does that mean? This sounds bogus to me.You steal entire paragraphs from him and attempt to pass it off as your own stuff.

You're literally that guy from good will hunting at the bar who gets owned by the title character:


Chuckie: All right, are we gonna have a problem?
Clark: There's no problem. I was just hoping you could give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the early colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War the economic modalities, especially of the southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian pre-capitalist and...
Will: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: [taken aback] Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of--
Will: ..."Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth..." You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County," Page 98, right? Yeah I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us- you have any thoughts of- of your own on this matter? Or do- is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage and then you pretend- you pawn it off as your own- your own idea just to impress some girls? Embarrass my friend?[I][Clark is stunned]
Will: See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
Go read that over while you sit in a corner and rethink your life.







If you have some deeper insight, feel free to share it. It’s about as simple and straightforward as it could possibly be. Smith’s statement was not particularly cryptic. Policy tends to conform to the needs of the wealthy elites.
Smith was railing against mercantilism in the statement Chomsky exposed you to. He's arguing that the policy, by way of the backwardness of the day's economic theory, is antagonistic to the most powerful elite- the monarch, because the kingdom might otherwise be wealthier with more properly designed policy.

That's not "policy tends to conform to the needs of the wealthy elites" (you haven't read smith), nor is "policy tends to conform to the needs of wealthy elites" the Marxist analysis.






Unfortunately, it doesn’t. It just means one subscribes to irrational beliefs. Incidentally, Christians don’t havwe a monopoly on that.
OK. So you put it in quotes for no apparent reason. Stop doing pointless things to cover your sophistry.

[black magick hustla]

He isn't "trolling right-wingers".

This is at the heart of the problem with Chomsky. To Chomsky, anarchism IS liberalism. That is why we have people like NGNM who uphold the tenets of classical liberalism (the ideology of the revolutionary bourgeoisie during capitalism's inception) and are confused into thinking their views are anarchist views. It is exactly Chomsky who is to thank for the existence of this confusion among liberals in the US and its odd that people here find it so appalling when its coming from Chomsky's followers, but seem to want to conveniently ignore it when its coming from Chomsky himself.

tbh anarchism did emerge from classical liberal thought. it didnt start to become red until bakunin came and even in those times anarchism paid its respect to classical liberal thought. if you flip through rudolph rockers´book "nationalism and culture" he praises a lot classical liberals and talks a lot of shit about marxs´"mechanistic view of history". the whole anti authoritarian rhetoric is a left over of liberal thought. i am not saying anarchists are liberal but they do clearly owe some of their intellectual roots to people like locke.

[~Spectre]

No, he's citing them because

He's being sarcastic to the perversion of American discourse when he infers that Smith is giving you a Marxist analysis.

[Summerspeaker]

Emotionally I'm both horrified and seduced by the idea of putting the bosses up against a wall. Intellectually I consider guerrilla warfare far too messy and prone to authoritarianism, but sometimes I'd welcome a purge on its own merits. Seeing the mighty fall has perennial appeal. In practice, though, I suspect I dislike physical pain too much to intentionally inflict it on another intelligent being.

[RadioRaheem84]

Damn Spectre, good post!:thumbup1:

[NGNM85]

Funny, that's kind of like what you do with classical Anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin, to make it seem like they have something in common with the New Atheists.

This thread has already drifted horribly awry. I'm not going to start a discussion about religion, there are other threads for that, you can contribute to them, or you can PM me.

[Apoi_Viitor]

tbh anarchism did emerge from classical liberal thought. it didnt start to become red until bakunin came and even in those times anarchism paid its respect to classical liberal thought. if you flip through rudolph rockers´book "nationalism and culture" he praises a lot classical liberals and talks a lot of shit about marxs´"mechanistic view of history". the whole anti authoritarian rhetoric is a left over of liberal thought. i am not saying anarchists are liberal but they do clearly owe some of their intellectual roots to people like locke.

Yeh, and Socialism wasn't red until Marx came in... I'm sure you can be nit-picky and find certain "Anarchists" who fail to look at phenomena from a materialist perspective (I haven't read 'Nationalism and Culture', so I can't comment on your specific example), but I don't think they should be representative of the Anarchist movement as a whole. I for one, don't give too much praise to classical liberals, nor do I reject Marx's "mechanistic view of history". Also, I fail to see how 'anti-authoritarian' rhetoric is in any way, a left-over of 'liberal' thought.

[black magick hustla]

I for one, don't give too much praise to classical liberals, nor do I reject Marx's "mechanistic view of history". Also, I fail to see how 'anti-authoritarian' rhetoric is in any way, a left-over of 'liberal' thought.

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[9]

tbh anarchism did emerge from classical liberal thought. it didnt start to become red until bakunin came and even in those times anarchism paid its respect to classical liberal thought. if you flip through rudolph rockers´book "nationalism and culture" he praises a lot classical liberals and talks a lot of shit about marxs´"mechanistic view of history". the whole anti authoritarian rhetoric is a left over of liberal thought. i am not saying anarchists are liberal but they do clearly owe some of their intellectual roots to people like locke.

Basically I agree with you (particularly with regard to "'anti-authoritarian' rhetoric"), although I wasn't disputing that traditional anarchism had its origins in classical liberalism. My point, though, is that I don't think serious (i.e. class-struggle-oriented) anarchism today is - on the whole - liberal, and overall I don't think it has very much in common with classical liberalism (although there are certainly some aspects of it where the influence is still there). Chomsky, in contrast, is basically a classical liberal who calls himself an "anarchist", essentially because he sees them as being more or less the same thing, which they are not. Chomsky is not an "anarchist" at all, he is just confused.

[Franz Fanonipants]

How lovely. The 'Christian Leftist' returns.

Hey, homie, we're all allowed our shortcomings.

Your inability to think coherent political thought is yours. Mine is Christianity.


So many reasons… I think it’s funny. Not to mention the absurdity of the proposition that Jesus (Whose existence, in any form, as an actual historical personality is at best highly contentious.) was born of a virgin and is the son of the ‘one true god’ and all the horseshit that goes with it. I feel perfectly comfortable contesting that. You may disagree with what I say, but nothing I have ever said is as preposterous or unsubstantiated as that.

lol. is it the crazy, dangerous appeal of loud and retarded objections to baby's first theology that appeals to you about the new atheism, or is it the unabashed hatred of Browns that gets you off main?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why don't we just purge all the members that aren't Marxist-Leninists? :rolleyes:

I'm actually just about purging liberal dickholes posing as "anarchists" from this discourse.

What's hilarious is that you all (collectively non-Marxists or liberals, however you want to read it)fail so hard at understanding on the ground conditions that you're basically defending a man who claims you can have democracy in capitalism. Anarchists. Defending. Democracy. In. Capitalism.

Disown that NGNM dude. He's substituted pithy Bill Maher (e. I apologize, and Noam Chomsky) quotes and thinking Crass is rad for actual political statements and positions. I appreciate the contribution of Anarchist thought to the left in terms of envisioning a decentralized power structure, but I don't think I've ever heard NGN actually coherently say anything about his political position or anarchism other than:

"THE PROJECT OF THE WEST IS SUPERIOR! THERE IS DEMOCRACY IN CAPITALISM!"

Now, tell me, homie, is that an anarchist, or even leftist political thesis?

p.s. this really points to why you guys really do need a level of material analysis that's lacking.

[RadioRaheem84]

:thumbup1:

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

rahhhghgh i'll kill zillions for socialism, fuck you hippies

[RadioRaheem84]

hippies are nice. I couldn't hurt them.

[NGNM85]

You've read "parts" of Wealth of Nations?

“Parts.” Like ‘fragments’, ‘sections’, etc. As in; pieces of a larger whole.


So you steal lines from Chomsky,

No.


where he's going into his usual skit about how right wingers are assholes that cite Smith without knowing what it is that he said, and you cite Smith without having read beyond the "parts" that they made you read in what passes for an Economics course? You are your own punchline.


This is absolutely meaningless. Chomsky is criticizing the version of Smith that has been popularized, that most people are familiar with. He’s criticizing people who are generally unfamiliar with his work that buy into this fictional creation as opposed to the real Smith. However, while I haven conducted an exhaustive survey of his work, if I had referenced the popularized version of Smith, you’d have a point.


I never accused you of that.

‘..so far.’


I think you just rip him off for sophistry purposes, and don't understand him much beyond that, but you're definitely very familiar with him.

You steal entire paragraphs from him and attempt to pass it off as your own stuff.

No, I don’t.



Go read that over while you sit in a corner and rethink your life.


I have the movie. It’s pretty decent. For what it’s worth you’ve quoted it accurately, although it’s out of context. This is just bullshit posturing.



Smith was railing against mercantilism in the statement Chomsky exposed you to. He's arguing that the policy, by way of the backwardness of the day's economic theory, is antagonistic to the most powerful elite- the monarch, because the kingdom might otherwise be wealthier with more properly designed policy.

Now, at least you’ve finally said something meaningful, or close to it. Yes, Smith was criticizing Mercantilism, you are also correct in that I first encountered that quote via Chomsky.


That's not "policy tends to conform to the needs of the wealthy elites" (you haven't read smith),

“It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.”

There aren’t that many ways to interpret this paragraph. He was railing against the merchants and the manufacturers, the businessmen, who were deliberately pursuing an economic policy that was destructive to the general public, also, that the needs of the business community were being ‘most peculiarly attended to’ by the state. So, yeah, it’s pretty much as I described it.


nor is "policy tends to conform to the needs of wealthy elites" the Marxist analysis.

I’m not going to bother to contest that because it will inevitably produce another arcane, tedious thread with dozens of people citing obscure passages of Marx’s work and arguing over minutiae, there are over a hundred of those threads, already.



OK. So you put it in quotes for no apparent reason. Stop doing pointless things to cover your sophistry.

No, I did it for a very deliberate reason, you just don’t know why.


He's being sarcastic to the perversion of American discourse when he infers that Smith is giving you a Marxist analysis.

This really undermines you’re charges about misunderstanding since you can’t tell he was being sincere.

[NGNM85]

Hey, homie, we're all allowed our shortcomings.

Your inability to think coherent political thought is yours. Mine is Christianity.

I have yet to see anything substantial from you on any subject.

At least you’ve recognized it’s a flaw. That’s good, that’s a first step. The next step is to stop believing in it. I would be happy to assist in this capacity.



lol. is it the crazy, dangerous appeal of loud and retarded objections to baby's first theology that appeals to you about the new atheism, or is it the unabashed hatred of Browns that gets you off main?

First of all, this ‘new atheism’ is really a fictional construct. Atheism, itself, is no dofferent than it ever was. However, there have been developments in biology, physics, anthropology, etc. which were not always available, and this new data should inform our perspective on religion. Second, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, while they are all atheists, have significant philosophical differences, and and focus on different aspects of religion and it’s role in society, there’s overlap, but they can’t just be conflated together as if they were the same person. Also, views they might have on other subjects, like the war in Iraq, (Hitchens supports it, Dawkins and Harris are against it.) have nothing to do with Atheism, ‘new’ or otherwise.

Second, none of these men can honestly be described as racist. That is a completely spurious and cowardly accusation.

Third, nothing I have ever said can honestly be described as racist. That is a completely spurious and cowardly accusation.



I'm actually just about purging liberal dickholes posing as "anarchists" from this discourse.

What's hilarious is that you all (collectively non-Marxists or liberals, however you want to read it)

That is dishonest at best. This is a false dichotomy. My biggest influences when I was just getting into politics were Emma Goldman, and Alexander Berkman, as well as others like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Murray Bookchin, etc.

[QUOTE=Franz Fanonipants;1889728]fail so hard at understanding on the ground conditions that you're basically defending a man who claims you can have democracy in capitalism. Anarchists. Defending. Democracy. In. Capitalism.

You mutilate what I said beyond the point of recognition.


Disown that NGNM dude. He's substituted pithy Bill Maher (e. I apologize, and Noam Chomsky) quotes and thinking Crass is rad

This just proves you’re just slinging shit. (There’s a lot of that going around.) I think Crass were retarded. Even by punk ‘emotion-over-technique-standards it’s bad, and their politics were fairly dubious as well. Or, as I said way back when; “I think Crass are a seriously mixed bag. .. I think a lot of their ideas were fairly dubious and they could be major hypocrites.. They were also essentially 'lifestyle Anarchists’.. Musically, even for stripped-down, bare bones streetpunk it's really bad. The Germs and the Dead Kennedys weren't exactly virtuosos, but they were better than that.”
Try again.



for actual political statements and positions.

Again, I have never seen anything valuable from you.

I appreciate the contribution of Anarchist thought to the left in terms of envisioning a decentralized power structure, but I don't think I've ever heard NGN actually coherently say anything about his political position or anarchism other than:


"THE PROJECT OF THE WEST IS SUPERIOR! THERE IS DEMOCRACY IN CAPITALISM!"


Now, tell me, homie, is that an anarchist, or even leftist political thesis?

p.s. this really points to why you guys really do need a level of material analysis that's lacking.

You either don’t understand what I was saying, or you’re deliberately misconstruing it.

[MellowViper]

I mean really, how does executions and guerrilla combat and actually putting rich folks against the wall make you feel? Disregarding all that "necessary" stuff.

Because it really is what is implicitly advocated in the theory, I don't buy into the "peaceful" revolution, that's never been the case, it's gonna go down like that when and if it happens in a bad way, the color is red for this very reason.

I think we are, over the question of classism, inherantly always defending ourselves, and pacifists arn't interested in defending themselves because the genocide of capitalism is never on the news - it's hard to defend yourself when you don't realize you're being attacked.

I think the revolution will happen, when the majority becomes class conscious enough to vote for political parties that represent their common, class interests. Even Marx had strong opinions against capital punishment. I'm not saying I wouldn't kill out of self defense though, but it wouldn't be for political purposes at all, just self preservation. Killing is to be avoided at all costs though.

[NGNM85]

Yes, so is anti-racism, lollipops, and chocolate. What the hell is your point? No one denies the impact of the Enlightenment, Marxists extol it (especially the French vareity). The point is that the basis for the Enlightenment was not total liberation for all, but liberation of the bourgeoisie class from the monarchy. Read Engels!

Not these Marxists.

That’s not entirely accurate.


There is nothing slanted about it. If you cannot grasp this, then you are not a leftist. You are a liberal.

That is not the fundamental determinant of being a ‘liberal.’

It’s extremely biased, and simplistic, as well as being not entirely accurate. You’re essentially doing the same thing as the others.



A.) Liberal laws on free speech mean nothing from a systemic pov. The only reason why you think it means something so grand is because you lack a materialist systemic perspective and harbor a boorish idealistic one.

They mean something if they are upheld. Part of that burden rests on the public. However, while this has been and will continue to be debated liberal democracies are actually inherently structurally superior to police states or military juntas.


B.) Do you know nothing of primitive accumulation, exploitation, the history of imperialism, neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism? The history of class struggle in the West, which is the only true basis for any modicum of higher and better living standards for people. Second, it having to do with the massive investments the upper classes have in the foreign world which allowed for them to bow to concessions. Lending out foreign debt traps to the global south, while reaping the rewards of past colonial ventures with new free enterprise concessions won by the extension of Western capital (World Bank, IMF).

Class struggle is all I chalk up to for the "best" possible models. Not some vague idealistic beliefs and hero myths of the Enlightenment that only naive liberals like you believe in.

That’s far too dense to untangle.


Formal COINTELPRO programs didn't end until the 70s and you're saying that "free speech" was solidified in 69 with a "landmark" case? God, this is shit that should be on Huffington Post not Revleft.

You keep bringing that up. Yes, freedom of speech was finally established in 1969. It was a long journey. It’s guaranteed in the first Amendment, but we also had the Alien and Sedition acts which essentially completely undermined it. The Alien and Sedition acts were finally overturned in ’65. However, freedom of speech as we now know it wasn’t established until 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Yes, it was an important case, just like Roe v. Wade, Or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. These cases had significant, lasting effects on American law.


Even Anarchists embrace the inovation in analysis that Marx brought into political economic discourse.

There are individual statements that I like, he had some good ideas, and definitely had a profound influence on a lot of people. However, I am not a Marxist, and neither are the philosophers that I’m inspired by. I mean, it’s not completely divorced from him, but it’s
very diluted.


Are you mad? Barry said nothing that would've attributed Marx as a saint but merely a brilliant man who smashed classical economic presuppositions into pieces and his work has been improved upon by other brilliant people.

It was a bit flippant, but there is a preoccupation among many here, which can only be characterized as religious.


Are you not a radical leftist too, NGN? Why do you word it as if we're in a different class than you?

No, I didn’t mean it like ‘you leftists’, I include myself in that group and am not entirely immune to the aforementioned tendency, just not in this case. However, it is a pattern of behavior that seems to be unique to the left, especially the radical left, throughout history.


Do you not examine why a nation like the US can be so free while others cannot?

That’s a very broad question. I certainly have thought about it.


Do you not examine materially why the conditions of many nations are in social disarray?

They keyword there being ‘materially.’ You’ve never really clearly explained what you, specifically mean by this, but from bits and pieces I can tease out a rough idea. I disagree with this vaguely defined perspective because I think you’re not looking at the whole picture.


Why do you go by such narrow definitions of what constitutes freedom? Definitions that lead to idealistic nonsense and a shallow examination of the nations you accuse of?

Again, I’m going to come up against a wall of dogmatic Marxist-Leninism. It comes down to core differences in fundamental beliefs about rights, and freedom.

Again, also, it should be obvious that the United States government is fundamentally structurally superior to North Korea. There are many different systems, but if we compare western democracies to military juntas or police states we can see they are inherently better.
There are many different ways to organize a society, and none of them are perfect, but some are clearly worse than others.


That is why you cite nothing but liberal and mainstream sources because they back up your idealistic viewpoints.

Well, ‘idealistic’ in this sense really means ‘non-dogmatic-Marxist-Leninist.’

I don’t cite purely mainstream sources, but I do make an effort to cite credible sources. See, there’s that binary thinking; the government, mainstream media, etc, are objectionable, so everything they say or do must be bad or objectionable. You have to take things individually and actually look at them. By this simplistic perspective you should support the GOP or the so-called ‘Tea Partiers’; they want to drastically reduce the government, namely, terminating all social welfare programs, all environmental protection programs, they want to privatize education, you name it.

What should matter is not who said it, but that it’s true.


Methodology borrowed from Freedom House, NGN.

Please do not tell me that you support Freedom House, do you?

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache fJWKL2sllcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf+economist+democracy+in dex+freedom+house&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXLoeesI0k3BQ4WWyW2tYtjWyjtGlVgXf_vK0c ZP8jwZ5N17EtY_PMed2wBHmPwnD3yKe9K56VDBDo4x5xMM7KIj JFtvbxhHKKsdYkKzn6tzsiMduoNXuLeDeDsFcYWM9ixzER&sig=AHIEtbT0XZACm1xjrMXlhJeg4AnFo_qTUA (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DfJWKL2sllcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf+economist+democracy+in dex+freedom+house&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXLoeesI0k3BQ4WWyW2tYtjWyjtGlVgXf_vK0c ZP8jwZ5N17EtY_PMed2wBHmPwnD3yKe9K56VDBDo4x5xMM7KIj JFtvbxhHKKsdYkKzn6tzsiMduoNXuLeDeDsFcYWM9ixzER&sig=AHIEtbT0XZACm1xjrMXlhJeg4AnFo_qTUA)[

I’m not really familiar with this organization. What accusation are you making? Again, this methodology looks pretty good, the results aren’t really surprising, they are about what you’d expect. Was there any fucking ice-cube’s-chance-in-hell that any kind of study of democracy across the globe would have North Korea or Saudi Arabia at the top of the list? Isn’t there, in fact, a perfectly logical explanation for this? I don’t see that you have a point.

[RadioRaheem84]

Someone fucking restrict this liberal asshole, NGN, please!

This is getting utterly ridiculous. NGN cannot even materially explain to me why liberal democracies are better off than "police states". He can explain it to me in the most naive idealistic sense but he cannot explain to me the root cause as to why western nations fair better than their undeveloped counterparts in the global south.



However, while this has been and will continue to be debated liberal democracies are actually inherently structurally superior to police states or military juntas.



Why is that though, NGN? Why are they allowed to be structurally better than juntas? How would a lot of juntas even survive public revolts without the backing of these grand and mighty liberal democracies?



However, freedom of speech as we now know it wasn’t established until 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio.


Significant gains were made due to class struggle. What is your point? It has nothing to do with the inherent structure of the country which was ulitmately designed to benefit the oppulent.

Even still there is an obvious divide between marginalized groups and corporate backing of right wing shrills. On paper the field is somewhat leveled but in practice the people with all the money get on tv.

How did you miss this simple observation?



However, it is a pattern of behavior that seems to be unique to the left, especially the radical left, throughout history.



What a joke!



That’s a very broad question. I certainly have thought about it.



Well you should think about it some more and get back to us when you decide to become a leftist.



I disagree with this vaguely defined perspective because I think you’re not looking at the whole picture.


You're acting as if we do not factor in several other matter that lead to a nation's social condition but we simply advocate that the main thrust is political economics.

If you cannot grasp this, then you are a liberal not a leftist. You're extremely idealist and naive to boot.



Again, also, it should be obvious that the United States government is fundamentally structurally superior to North Korea. There are many different systems, but if we compare western democracies to military juntas or police states we can see they are inherently better.
There are many different ways to organize a society, and none of them are perfect, but some are clearly worse than others.



What kind of an examination is this? That seems more vague and utterly naive than the material perspective.

You do not even take into account just who props up juntas in the third world and why places like North Korea end up adopting military governments because of constant siege. Did you forget that the US went to total war to topple the little country and established a hostile neighbor to it's south? Imposed economic terrorism on it? The nation ended up becoming a beuracratic mess rife with corruption, yet even after all that it still manages to give their people somewhat of a decent standard of living over other juntas that the US fundamentally supports!

Are you that naive, NGN?



Well, ‘idealistic’ in this sense really means ‘non-dogmatic-Marxist-Leninist


No. I idealistic in the sense that you're really a naive liberal.



What should matter is not who said it, but that it’s true.



What matters is what interests does the said source support!

The Economist obviously conjured up a little list of freedom loving countries based on a methadology created Freedom House, a government sponsored NGO that promotes liberal democracy abroad, i.e. capitalism.


I’m not really familiar with this organization. What accusation are you making? Again, this methodology looks pretty good, the results aren’t really surprising, they are about what you’d expect. Was there any fucking ice-cube’s-chance-in-hell that any kind of study of democracy across the globe would have North Korea or Saudi Arabia at the top of the list? Isn’t there, in fact, a perfectly logical explanation for this? I don’t see that you have a point.

It doesn't take into account imperialism, economic domination through supra-national organizations, class struggle at home, etc.

What kind of leftist would actually buy into such an organization as Freedom House?

Do your homework before you come in here acting all smug and pretentious in front of us and pretending your leftier than thou because you support Freedom House.

Ban this troll!

[Obs]

NGNM, you realise that the wider implications of your position are that laws actually mean something, right? You don't see how that makes your claim of being an anarchist a teeeeeeensy bit sketchy?

Also this thread got resurrected? holy shit

[Barry Lyndon]

“I’m not going to bother to contest that because it will inevitably produce another arcane, tedious thread with dozens of people citing obscure passages of Marx’s work and arguing over minutiae, there are over a hundred of those threads, already.

Also because it will expose you as a liberal phony who attacks 'dogmatic Marxist-Leninism' without having read a word of Marx in your life.

It's not some sort of 'arcane' detail. Your missing(or misrepresenting) the core of Marx's entire analysis.

[Robocommie]

Also because it will expose you as a liberal phony who attacks 'dogmatic Marxist-Leninism' without having read a word of Marx in your life.

It's not some sort of 'arcane' detail. Your missing(or misrepresenting) the core of Marx's entire analysis.

Ideological rigor is lame, bro

[cyu]

Only somewhat related to this. I was going to post in a new thread, but decided to put it here instead. Excerpts from http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/ab/text.pl?issue=20100920;lang=eng;article=01

US Counterinsurgency Guide 2009

The COIN Guide must be studied to enable us to more sharply monitor and grasp the operations and schemes not only of US troops but the aggressive networking being done by US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr., the successive visits of high-ranking US officials, the USAID's prominent role, the enhanced military and economic aid, the psywar experts' hype of "Cory's legacy" upon her death and the support for Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III's candidacy and the aggressive promotion of reformist illusions after the election.

If the illusion of a government that implements reforms, addresses the people's interests and advances the agenda of economic development can be created, they can supposedly "eliminate the reason for the insurgency's existence," win the people's support, marginalize the "insurgent" armed force and violently suppress it.

The components of the massive psywar operation, dubbed in the document as the "population-centric aproach" are the following:

1. setting up a credible government

2. creating so-called genuine indicators of economic development

3. mobilizing the reactionary armed forces in non-traditional military tasks such as participating in socio-economic projects and providing assistance during calamities in order to create an image of public service

4. implementing so-called reforms in the security sector which comprises the police, armed forces and judiciary in order to strengthen the reactionary state

5. actively seeking and collating information from the population to shape their psywar propaganda in the mass media and manipulate public opinion in favor of reactionary rule and against armed uprising

US counterinsurgency strategy favors a political atmosphere that cultivates an image of reform in order to assert the legitimacy of the ruling system and government.

US imperialism also calls this the "release valve," a way of channeling heat whenever dissent intensifies and the people are determined to wage resistance.

the US played a direct role, from choosing Noynoy Aquino as the favored candidate after sensing the people's sentiments upon former Pres. Corazon Aquino's death, helping form a "psywar team" that worked with the mass media in contesting other rival candidates for the presidency, manipulating the results of the automated elections to make it appear that Noynoy Aquino won through a landslide victory, and drumming up praise for the automated polls as an example of a clean and successful election.

choosing a puppet who is acceptable to the people and is able to project a reformist image. This type of puppet can be used to continue creating the illusion among the exploited and oppressed people that there is "hope for change."

implementing selective reforms that will not touch on substantive social issues, but are designed to deceive the people and lead them to "believe" in the ruling regime.

Among the examples that can be cited are President Aquino's pronouncements and steps focusing on small and shallow reforms--a ban on the use of sirens by VIPs, the revocation of midnight appointments, an alleged call to respect human rights, the implementation of economic projects mainly attuned to providing infrastructural support for foreign investments, the establishment of a Truth Commission--while purposely avoiding the issues of implementing genuine land reform and genuine industrialization, raising workers' wages and defending national sovereignty.

[IndependentCitizen]

I wouldn't kill anyone unless they were armed. Even fascists, just make them publically known such as burning a swastika into their foreheads so everyone points and laughs at their stupidity.

If they had a weapon in hand, they're my armed enemy. If they have nothing in their hands, they're an opposition. Which has different methods of attack, most verbally.


Alternatively, we could just have one big game of paintball, and sign contracts about changing views if lost.

[Mood]

Hopefully I'm not the only one that believes in the radical idea that all human life is sacred and should be protected...

Well, that is a rather bourgeois idea. Individual human life isn't really sacred, in the grand scheme of things.


There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the “horrors of the… momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror – that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

[Reznov]

The main problem with this kind of thought is, is what is exactly opposition?

And I am pretty sure we can all agree, none of us what anymore Stalinist Purges.

[Psy]

The main problem with this kind of thought is, is what is exactly opposition?

And I am pretty sure we can all agree, none of us what anymore Stalinist Purges.
The way I see it this would be a revolutionary army preforming its role in defense of the revolution, the opposition in this cause would armed hostiles against the proletariat and revolution.

Yet killing would not be the main goal, for example if said opposition surrenders there would be no need to kill them.

So yhea I agree Stalinist purges would be counter-productive but if we are trying to defend a young revolution from fascist paramilitary forces we'd probably have to actually engage in lethal combat.

[Nolan]

Love it.

[Jazzratt]

I feel totally emotionless about it and am a cold, efficient killing machine. I'd probably beat every capitalist to death with my manly fists and enormous manhood.

Do I win? Can we stop having these inane threads all the fucking time now?