Opposing Ideologies [Archive]

balaclava

31st October 2010, 09:42

When I saw the topic title ‘Opposing Ideologies’ I presumed it was an area of this forum where members would discuss opposing ideologies. Having recently learned that I am restricted to this area pending my “inevitable ban;” I am now wondering. I am wondering whether those running this forum want to restrict the membership and consequent discussion solely to those who believe the same things? I have encountered that before and put it down to insecurity i.e. some people are frightened that alternative argument may shake their belief.

Before I am banned I’d like to take a little time to tell you something about the person you are about to ban. Yes I would have to agree that it is likely that what I believe is, in the main, contrary to the ‘revolutionary left.’ So why am I here? I am 65 years old a retired mathematician, starved of intellectual conversation. My working life was problem solving, deep thinking and structured evidenced argument on a solution. In retirement I live with a wife who refuses to watch the news let alone discuss the deep issues. From time to time I have joined fora on different topic issues for no reason other than interest in the topic and a desire for intellectual stimulus. Some years back after watching a TV documentary programme on Islam (which answered some rudimentary questions I had in the back of my head) I joined an Islamic forum. Some banned me within days simply for asking probing questions. I didn’t join those fora to ‘cause trouble’ I really was and am interested to understand. And, that’s the same here, I don’t want to join a forum with members sharing the same views as me just to have them reinforce my views I want to debate with those who hold alternative views to try and understand why they hold those views. I eventually came across an Islamic forum that was patient enough to tolerate me and 3 years later I know a lot about Islam and most of my questions on that topic have been answered. At the start of my study of Islam I was open to conversion; by that I mean I knew absolutely nothing about the subject and if someone had been able to convince the cold logic of my brain that Allah was God and his message was Gods word I’d have been in the mosque every day of my short life. Similarly if anyone here can convince me that communism is the answer to the worlds problem than I’ll be waving the hammer and sickle singing the internationale. I didn’t convert to Islam and I don’t expect to become a communist. I have irritated a lot of Muslim members of my Islamic forum not because I have been discourteous or disrespectful but because I have presented them with cold, structured evidenced argument and asked for the same in return. I try to explain to them that for me to understand I cannot simple accept the answer that “Islam is the true religion because the Qu’ran is beautiful” I need to put forward the argument that Islam is not the true religion because of x y z and hope that someone will come back with an evidenced argument that x y and z are not correct. Similarly if I am not banned from here I will, with due courtesy and respect, present an opposing view.

OK, rambling over, I suspect that most here know more about left and right wing ideology than I and so I struggle to understand how you could fear my argument when all I have is a life experience and cold logic; like – if you can’t agree what a fascist is and do agree that the label is overused and often hijacked, how come fascists are banned from this topic area and how come you have a topic area solely for anti-fascist. And just for the record I am not a fascist (but that’s within mine and the English dictionary’s definition of what a fascist is).

synthesis

31st October 2010, 10:02

You're saying that a world religion is holistically fascist. This isn't mathematics; there's very few genuine QEDs here. You have an agenda and your ability to pursue it is restricted on this forum. It's a start, I guess.

Nolan

31st October 2010, 10:05

This forum is intended to be a community for leftists. A place for leftists to discuss politics, theory, chit chat, etc. with others of similar mindset. Other ideologies are tolerated, but they are restricted to OI. By all means, feel free to tell us how communism is the stupidest thing ever - but keep it to OI. Not like you'll have any choice.

The only opposing ideologies banned are fascism and/or extreme nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. This pretty much means if you come for the sole purpose of spamming 14/88 everywhere or telling us how gays should burn in hell, you'll be banned, hanged, drawn, and quartered. If you're the average libertarian cappie, you're welcome in OI.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

31st October 2010, 10:11

Â¿Que?

31st October 2010, 10:44

Why would anyone want to enter into this discussion with you. Based on what you said about Muslims, it's clear you didn't learn anything. Maybe you have an intellectual understanding of the different Muslim sects, but you don't feel it's necessary to mention anything about these differences, when telling your story. So I suppose you'll do the same with us.

So what I'm saying is, with your little narrative here, you're already revealing that you have presumptions about how things are and that all that talking did was gain you a certain type of knowledge, but not any real "understanding" of Islam.

So before we can even get into Marxism or communism or any other left ideology, why not tell us what epistemological premises you base your views on? Or are you afraid of revealing that?

balaclava

31st October 2010, 11:39

wow - so much anger; what'd I say?

I don't know what epistemological means but I'll look it up as it looks like to kind of word I might like to use in the future if I want to impress someone.

Â¿Que?

31st October 2010, 11:43

wow - so much anger; what'd I say?

I don't know what epistemological means but I'll look it up as it looks like to kind of word I might like to use in the future if I want to impress someone.
Just go on fooling yourself about being a reasonable intellectual, guy. Not buying it. You blend so eloquently the insult and facade, it's hard to tell when one begins and the other one ends. You're clearly a professional bulshitter, but you're not as good as you think you are.

Widerstand

31st October 2010, 12:40

The Islam=Fascist discourse is a classical far right strategy to justify anti-Arab sentiment and discrimination. It's also a crass generalization and displays a misunderstanding of what both Islam and fascism are and are not. Defending such a discourse reflects a lack of reflection on your own part, and is as unacceptable for leftists as sexism, racism, homo/transphobia are.

poppynogood

31st October 2010, 12:41

wow - so much anger; what'd I say?

I don't know what epistemological means but I'll look it up as it looks like to kind of word I might like to use in the future if I want to impress someone.

We live and learn eh, I didn't know what epistemological means until, wow, my knowledge expands beyond belief.

I didn’t convert to Islam and I don’t expect to become a communist. I have irritated a lot of Muslim members of my Islamic forum not because I have been discourteous or disrespectful but because I have presented them with cold, structured evidenced argument and asked for the same in return. I try to explain to them that for me to understand I cannot simple accept the answer that “Islam is the true religion because the Qu’ran is beautiful” I need to put forward the argument that Islam is not the true religion because of x y z and hope that someone will come back with an evidenced argument that x y and z are not correct.

Yo. you have the symptoms of having a very healthy mind.:thumbup1:

IcarusAngel

31st October 2010, 13:06

Read Robert Paxton to see why Islam can't be considered fascism. I agree that Islam is the more violent religion in today's world, although historically Christianity has committed even more crimes than Islam.

Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.
-- Voltaire

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire,

What kind of mathematical research did you do? Chaos theory? Differential equations?

Share.

Bud Struggle

31st October 2010, 13:13

wow - so much anger; what'd I say?

I don't know what epistemological means but I'll look it up as it looks like to kind of word I might like to use in the future if I want to impress someone.

WELCOME TO REVLEFT! Most of the "Comrades" on here are a bit snippy until they get to know you, then they aren't all that bad. First of all only committed Communists are allowed on the "big board" (i.e. fighting for the revolution either in jungles of their mom's basement) which is really just fine because nothing much happens there. Yea, lots of talk about getting the "Stalin look" to your mustache and getting the right gel Trotsky pompador, and lots of solidaritary with guys running around in jungles in their underware with AK-47s, but not much beyond that. The really interesting place is here in Opposing Ideologies. This is where Communism hits the real world.

Also, there's some real questions about how one could become a committed RevLeft STYLE Communist without going through serious questioning of Communist theory with long and thoughtful periods of introspection. So if one were to REALLY become a Communist--without a doubt OI is the best place to start. You can ask serious questions without always having to look over your sholder wondering if you asked the wrong question or formed the wrong conclusion.

OI is the place for you if you have an open mind and what to learn a bit. I can say (as a person somewise over the RevLeft median age of 17) that if you take the opportunity RevLeft can truly be an enriching intellectial experience. There's a lot of ways of thinking of the world that just aren't presented in the First World educational systems and media and you can find those alternatives here. And even if you don't become a Communist (I haven't) you can insights on global events and form sympathies for people's struggles around the globe.

It ain't a bad place. I hope you stay.

Nolan

31st October 2010, 17:22

WELCOME TO REVLEFT! Most of the "Comrades" on here are a bit snippy until they get to know you, then they aren't all that bad. First of all only committed Communists are allowed on the "big board" (i.e. fighting for the revolution either in jungles of their mom's basement) which is really just fine because nothing much happens there. Yea, lots of talk about getting the "Stalin look" to your mustache and getting the right gel Trotsky pompador, and lots of solidaritary with guys running around in jungles in their underware with AK-47s, but not much beyond that. The really interesting place is here in Opposing Ideologies. This is where Communism hits the real world.

"Guys running around in the jungle in their underwear" is a recurring theme with you. I'd like to know where it comes from.

Bud Struggle

31st October 2010, 17:34

"Guys running around in the jungle in their underwear" is a recurring theme with you. I'd like to know where it comes from.

Well this is what I look like!

http://johndiesattheend.com/new/photos/brotherguns.jpg

:D

#FF0000

31st October 2010, 17:56

You know better than to post photographs of yourself here, Bud!

Ele'ill

31st October 2010, 19:00

Perhaps I should write up a piece on why there is an OI and why there are rules on this forum- so that it can be sticky'd in this section.

I feel obligated to respond to nearly every post questioning restriction or the removal of fascists and conversation regarding such.

To put it into cliff notes here in this thread- it's because there is plenty of conversation on this forum critiquing leftist ideas- this is done by leftists- if we allowed OI into the regular forums- the forum would become completely disjointed and erratic in nature- from thread creations all the way down to posts.

We understand that OI doesn't agree with our ideas outright or with specific aspects of varying leftist ideas- the varying aspects of leftist ideas are critiqued by leftists enough as it is-

Consider this forum to be the house of an activist that has opened their doors for leftist community to come in and discuss various ideas. The rules, guidelines and organization of the forum are structured around this notion.

balaclava

31st October 2010, 19:43

The only opposing ideologies banned are fascism and/or extreme nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. This pretty much means if you come for the sole purpose of spamming 14/88 everywhere or telling us how gays should burn in hell, you'll be banned,

My problem is that I know what homophobia is (albeit that the term phobia has been hijacked) and I know what sexism, I’m a little shaky on what is and is not racism and not only do I not know what fascism is, no other member of this forum knows or worse everyone knows what it is but it’s different for everyone. Someone (and I think the revleft might be that someone) has hijacked the words fascism and racism. From your (revleft) perspective a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your views. The problem with the stand point is, if a real fascist appears you’ve made him look almost respectable as he’s in the same box with all the other fascists and the next problem is, if you (revleft) can label any Tom Dick or Harry as a fascist based upon the flimsiest of criteria I can do the same. What you do is you take words which are universally agreed as bad (fascist, racist, spammer) and label anyone you who doesn’t agree with you as a fascist, racist, spammer.

And I don’t know what 14/88 is!

Bud Struggle

31st October 2010, 19:50

My problem is that I know what homophobia is (albeit that the term phobia has been hijacked) and I know what sexism, I’m a little shaky on what is and is not racism and not only do I not know what fascism is, no other member of this forum knows or worse everyone knows what it is but it’s different for everyone. Someone (and I think the revleft might be that someone) has hijacked the words fascism and racism. From your (revleft) perspective a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your views. The problem with the stand point is, if a real fascist appears you’ve made him look almost respectable as he’s in the same box with all the other fascists and the next problem is, if you (revleft) can label any Tom Dick or Harry as a fascist based upon the flimsiest of criteria I can do the same. What you do is you take words which are universally agreed as bad (fascist, racist, spammer) and label anyone you who doesn’t agree with you as a fascist, racist, spammer.

And I don’t know what 14/88 is!

You couldn't be more wrong about all of that.

And I don't know what the 14 stand for, but an 88 is an Oldsmobile from the 1970s.

Ele'ill

31st October 2010, 19:50

My problem is that I know what homophobia is (albeit that the term phobia has been hijacked) and I know what sexism, I’m a little shaky on what is and is not racism and not only do I not know what fascism is, no other member of this forum knows or worse everyone knows what it is but it’s different for everyone. Someone (and I think the revleft might be that someone) has hijacked the words fascism and racism. From your (revleft) perspective a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your views. The problem with the stand point is, if a real fascist appears you’ve made him look almost respectable as he’s in the same box with all the other fascists and the next problem is, if you (revleft) can label any Tom Dick or Harry as a fascist based upon the flimsiest of criteria I can do the same. What you do is you take words which are universally agreed as bad (fascist, racist, spammer) and label anyone you who doesn’t agree with you as a fascist, racist, spammer.

And I don’t know what 14/88 is!

This is like the exact opposite of what occurs on this forum.

Ele'ill

31st October 2010, 19:54

We're pretty specific when it comes to our witty insults- and those we absolutely love.

Widerstand

31st October 2010, 19:54

And I don't know what the 14 stand for, but an 88 is an Oldsmobile from the 1970s.

It's alphabet code. 88 (HH) stands for "Heil Hitler", and is a common Nazi symbol. 14 I have no idea though, AD? Maybe a reference to Christianity, idk.

Dimentio

31st October 2010, 19:56

Balaclava:

Most revleft kiddies uses fascism for whatever they want to, while we older ones are using it for a very specific set of ideologies originating in post WW1 Europe. When you start to claim that islamists (or muslims in general!) are fascists, you actually do exactly what you are accusing us of.

Dimentio

31st October 2010, 19:57

It's alphabet code. 88 (HH) stands for "Heil Hitler", and is a common Nazi symbol. 14 I have no idea though, AD? Maybe a reference to Christianity, idk.

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"

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

Â¿Que?

1st November 2010, 00:56

Remember when I said this to balaclava:

Based on what you said about Muslims, it's clear you didn't learn anything. Maybe you have an intellectual understanding of the different Muslim sects, but you don't feel it's necessary to mention anything about these differences, when telling your story. So I suppose you'll do the same with us.
Now balaclava is saying this:

Someone (and I think the revleft might be that someone) has hijacked the words fascism and racism. From your (revleft) perspective a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your views. The problem with the stand point is, if a real fascist appears you’ve made him look almost respectable as he’s in the same box with all the other fascists and the next problem is, if you (revleft) can label any Tom Dick or Harry as a fascist based upon the flimsiest of criteria I can do the same. What you do is you take words which are universally agreed as bad (fascist, racist, spammer) and label anyone you who doesn’t agree with you as a fascist, racist, spammer.

He seems to be lumping everybody on revleft into one broad category. Just like he did when he was "learning" about Muslims. I don't know, from here it totally looks like I had him pegged correctly. And my gut tells me he's in cahoots with poppynogood.

Inevitable ban indeed. But it won't be because of any intolerant attitude on revleft. It'll be because this guy is clearly putting on a facade of reasoned, critical inquiry, when in fact he's probably a racist, fascist, nationalist or some such thing, and it's only a matter of time before his reasoned critical intellectual posturing comes into conflict with his real views. At this time, he will either have to misrepresent himself, in which case he will be able to continue posting here, or he will not be able to resist expressing what he really thinks, and this will get him banned.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2010, 08:38

balaclava

1st November 2010, 09:21

There's a very easy way to find what a word means; google. Just search "define: epistomological"
What he was asking of you was to line out the basics of your worldview in bullet form;
1. Human creative processes rarely do not involve labor
2. Systems of private ownership are based on thousands of years of coercion and statist expropriation, and as such are naturall consolidative
3. Consolidation of wealth is consolidation of power
4. authoritarianism is anti-thetical to free expression and human progress
5. Those w/o ownership of goods only have one choice, to sell their labor to a capitalist. This relationship is naturally exploitive, and authoritarian; (the man in the desert analogy)

Therefore; smash the capitalist state, and put ownership in the hands of the people at large, inevitably allowing us to evolve past the market.

^ something like that

OK here’s mine

1. Human creative processes rarely do not involve labour
2. Systems of private ownership are based on thousands of years of coercion and statist expropriation, and as such are natural consolidative
3. Consolidation of wealth is consolidation of power
4. authoritarianism is anti-thetical to free expression and human progress
5. Those w/o ownership of goods only have one choice, to sell their labour to a capitalist. This relationship is naturally exploitive, and authoritarian; (the man in the desert analogy)
6. Justice is a concept based upon perfection but implemented by imperfect people in an imperfect world.
7. Because a concept is perfect does not mean that it’s implementation will succeed.

Therefore; find what works and try and make it work better

balaclava

1st November 2010, 09:28

Balaclava:

Most revleft kiddies uses fascism for whatever they want to, When you start to claim that islamists (or muslims in general!) are fascists, you actually do exactly what you are accusing us of.

Of course I am, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. OK let's make a pact, they stop doing it and I'll stop doing it :)

synthesis

1st November 2010, 09:29

Wait, so your point was that we use words incorrectly?

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2010, 09:39

How does calling all muslims fascists, and complaining about your OI restriction help to make the political-economic situations of the working class/es better?

balaclava

1st November 2010, 09:43

Wait, so your point was that we use words incorrectly?

Come on, surely you can do better than that – troll me.

balaclava

1st November 2010, 09:51

Balaclava:
Most revleft kiddies uses fascism for whatever they want to, while we older ones are using it for a very specific set of ideologies originating in post WW1 Europe.

Whoever is running this forum has a notice on OI section saying no fascists and there is an anti-fascist section which definition of fascist are they using? Are the anti-fascist (for whom this forum has set aside a section) organising themselves to oppose another invasion from the Nazi armies? Are we under threat from a political party which wants in install a dictator? Or is the case that those running this forum want to extend the definition of fascist to anyone who opposes their views because it suites their purpose? My next ‘new thread’ might be ‘Justify why you have an anti-fascist section when there are no fascists.”

synthesis

1st November 2010, 09:53

Come on, surely you can do better than that – troll me.

You are evidently strong in the ways of the troll, as that other thread demonstrates. May the troll be with you.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2010, 09:56

... there is life outside the internet sir. Just because there are no fascists on this forum (and for good reason), does not mean there are none in real life, and that they are not something we have to combat.
We have an anti-fasicst section for just that reason.

Jimmie Higgins

1st November 2010, 10:13

Whoever is running this forum has a notice on OI section saying no fascists and there is an anti-fascist section which definition of fascist are they using? Are the anti-fascist (for whom this forum has set aside a section) organising themselves to oppose another invasion from the Nazi armies? Are we under threat from a political party which wants in install a dictator? Or is the case that those running this forum want to extend the definition of fascist to anyone who opposes their views because it suites their purpose? My next ‘new thread’ might be ‘Justify why you have an anti-fascist section when there are no fascists.”

As the "anti-fascist" section description states:
Discuss anti-fascist politics and ways and tactics to fight fascism. Post anti-fascist actions and events.So I think it's fairly clear that the anti-fascist section is about real-world activism against groups like neo-nazis groups, the BNP, or even Minutmen if people consider them fascist.

I'm not sure what the point of your argument is - are you suggesting that we call anyone we disagree with fascist? All the libertarians and conservatives in the OI section disprove this idea.

As to why they are in OI and not part of the main discussion section is merely so that people on the left can have deeper discussions to get into different views within a shared framework. If the board was open to all people, then that would be a different kind of website with a different purpose. Personally I think the title of the section, "oppositional ideologies" is more polarizing than it needs to be - I'd prefer it to be called something like "Non-Revolutionaries" or something, but the title really isn't a big deal. But anyway, the point remains, the goal of this website is not to explain socialism to people opposed to it or defend our politics from every straw-man wielding dittohead who thinks that all radicals support Stalin and that socialism is about an autocratic government telling people what to do. Hey, maybe there shoudl be a website for that now that "socialism" and "anti-capitalist" politics are more in the mainstream spotlight - but this site currently is not, and that is not its goal.

Additionally, in regards to the claim that anyone who disagrees is labeled "fascist" - aside from some people and groups (with questionable Marxist politics IMO) most of the contemporary left actually has very specific definitions of what constitutes fascism when compared to the definitions given by liberals and conservatives. Although there may be slight differences in the definition of fascism among the radical left, in general, we recognize fascism as not just far-right politics or genocidal policies but as a kind of organizing with a primary focus on putting down independent working class organizations and movements accompanied with grassroots enforcement (brown-shirts) of the social order and inequalities. Liberals tend to see fascism as just far-right politics with restrictions on rights; the conservatives now generally describe fascism as any kind of autocratic state. These mainstream political ideologies are the ones who cry that the re-election of Bush or the passage of Obama's healthcare plan equal fascism and the only solution is to vote for the other party. Again, while a few on the far-left do this, in general, our understanding of fascism is much deeper than just labing things we don't agree with as fascism.

Commie77

2nd November 2010, 11:50

balaclava i would like to discuss some intellectual thoughts with you. I am on this thread for the same reason you are. i am here to learn about the left and see if i t is feasible.

ComradeMan

2nd November 2010, 12:41

@Mari3L

Perhaps I should write up a piece on why there is an OI and why there are rules on this forum- so that it can be sticky'd in this section.

Perhaps you shouldn't it would probably be quite boring and no one would read it anyway. There is a FAQ that talks about restriction. The other problem is that knowing RevLeft and if people did read it you would then be accused of some kind of sectarianism and people would tear your piece to shreds citing numerous historical examples of why it was not valid or how the CNT in Spain in the 1930's disagreed or how you were being a Stalinist.... etc etc :D This would probably result in faction fighting and your getting restricted (again).

I feel obligated to respond to nearly every post questioning restriction or the removal of fascists and conversation regarding such.

We were wondering why you were acting like the Stasi. :D

To put it into cliff notes here in this thread- it's because there is plenty of conversation on this forum critiquing leftist ideas- this is done by leftists- if we allowed OI into the regular forums- the forum would become completely disjointed and erratic in nature- from thread creations all the way down to posts.

We understand that OI doesn't agree with our ideas [:laugh:] outright or with specific aspects of varying leftist ideas- the varying aspects of leftist ideas are critiqued by leftists enough as it is-

The trouble is that a lot of the people in OI are leftists, okay not Ferret and not Bud:D, they just don't share the predominant view(s) on the main board perhaps.

Consider this forum to be the house of an activist that has opened their doors for leftist community to come in and discuss various ideas. The rules, guidelines and organization of the forum are structured around this notion.

I agree with your last point. It would be nice if the house offered tea and biscuits (vegan of course) sometimes.

(PS- This is a lighthearted response- okay!!!!! )

Ele'ill

2nd November 2010, 17:40

@Mari3L
Perhaps you shouldn't it would probably be quite boring and no one would read it anyway. There is a FAQ that talks about restriction. The other problem is that knowing RevLeft and if people did read it you would then be accused of some kind of sectarianism and people would tear your piece to shreds citing numerous historical examples of why it was not valid or how the CNT in Spain in the 1930's disagreed or how you were being a Stalinist.... etc etc :D This would probably result in faction fighting and your getting restricted (again).

From what I can see more than enough people appreciate my explanations of how the forum and OI in particular operate.

I had a mod tell me (don't remember who it was- it may have been BestMod) as my unrestriction vote was going through that the users in the regular forum would use me to sharpen their claws. I took it only half in jest and it never turned out to be true. The last thing on my mind is a worry that people would tear my piece to shreds. I am fairly confident with my ideas and how I post them. Again- the several paragraphs I've posted recently (like in the last week and a half) have been appreciated- even by some of the OI people.

The issue is that it keeps on being questioned by the same culprits. Trolling perhaps?

We were wondering why you were acting like the Stasi. :D

Not at all- I completely disagree here. If nobody answered the very direct questions - such as "Why are you being authoritarian by restricting us to OI" then it would imply that there isn't an answer.

There would be complaining about a lack of answer then.

Look at it this way- I think people deserve an explanation and a valid reason for whatever it might be that they're asking about. I'm patient and I don't mind answering their questions. The only people that it might bother are people not interested in an answer- i.e. trolls.

The trouble is that a lot of the people in OI are leftists, okay not Ferret and not Bud:D, they just don't share the predominant view(s) on the main board perhaps.

This is true however I'd argue a couple points.

1. A lot of people start out on the forum being overly critical in the wrong areas of the board. They rub a lot of people the wrong way and there's no way to see their full political spectrum until they've been on the forum a while. This is exactly what happened with me. I didn't have an interest in the community aspect of the forum so I went straight to Science and Environment and engaged in debate regarding technocracy. I was pretty harsh and stood by my position as a 'green anarchist' or 'post-civ' if you could call it that.

They restricted me to make sure that I wasn't simply on the board for the purpose of antagonizing people that held an opposing view. I am unrestricted now- I was restricted for 3 years although I didn't use the forum that often or as often as I do now.

2. Those that could be unrestricted (and I think there's at least one person that comes to mind) could be legitimately unrestricted so long as they didn't bring up one or two particular stances they have that really make them a lot less than left.

There are people that have all the concerns as I do but they're not an anarchist and are actually in favor of capitalism. They are reformists or 'market anarchists' or whatever it might be. It's enough to keep them restricted.

I agree with your last point. It would be nice if the house offered tea and biscuits (vegan of course) sometimes.

Yes, and less talk about eels- ugh

ComradeMan

2nd November 2010, 20:48

Balaclava. I already posted a definition about fascism and why Islam could not be described as fascist using a "classical" paradigm and definition of fascism
.......you didn't reply.:thumbdown:

Lt. Ferret

6th November 2010, 02:03

islam isnt fascist. ba'athism is fascist.

Die Rote Fahne

6th November 2010, 08:47

It's alphabet code. 88 (HH) stands for "Heil Hitler", and is a common Nazi symbol. 14 I have no idea though, AD? Maybe a reference to Christianity, idk.

It most commonly refers to the 14-word slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"

balaclava

7th November 2010, 13:33

As the "anti-fascist" section description states: So I think it's fairly clear that the anti-fascist section is about real-world activism against groups like neo-nazis groups, the BNP, or even Minutmen if people consider them fascist.

If they agree that there are no longer any fascist organisation to oppose only neo-fascist why don’t they call themselves anti-neo-fascist?

Not sure what a neo fascist is but I have a little confession to make; I was watching the Battle of the Bulge film the other week when the German tank drivers started singing the Panzer song, I noticed I was unconsciously tapping my foot in time with the song – does that make me a neo-nazi (it is a catchy tune and I did feel guilty)?

Revolution starts with U

7th November 2010, 13:44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
Dont ban this guy, it'll just give him what he wants :thumbup1:

ComradeMan

7th November 2010, 13:46

If they agree that there are no longer any fascist organisation to oppose only neo-fascist why don’t they call themselves anti-neo-fascist?

Not sure what a neo fascist is but I have a little confession to make; I was watching the Battle of the Bulge film the other week when the German tank drivers started singing the Panzer song, I noticed I was unconsciously tapping my foot in time with the song – does that make me a neo-nazi (it is a catchy tune and I did feel guilty)?

Do you have a degree in being deliberately, dare I say, provocatively facetious?

Whether you tap your foot along to the Panzer Song, Horst Wessel Lied or anything else or watch comedies with "loveable" foolish German officers in them like you Brits and Americans are wont to do has little relevance to the debate.

Let's get this straight- there is no NEO in Nazi or fascist. They are the same as they were 80 years ago fundamentally.

balaclava

7th November 2010, 20:30

Let's get this straight- there is no NEO in Nazi or fascist. They are the same as they were 80 years ago fundamentally.

Neo-Nazi; don't blamme me I didn’t introduce the neo bit! Jimmie Higgins told me (above|) that the "anti-fascist" section against neo-Nazis groups. Now you tell me there are no neo-Nazis – confusing.

Do you have a degree in being deliberately, dare I say, provocatively facetious?

Ah . . sorry about that, I was trying to make my point with subtlety and wit, I thought a little levity might be appreciated but I’ll try and fall in line by introducing more profanity and abuse in my posts and cut out the wit!

ComradeMan

7th November 2010, 20:34

Neo-Nazi; don't blamme me I didn’t introduce the neo bit! Jimmie Higgins told me (above|) that the "anti-fascist" section against neo-Nazis groups. Now you tell me there are no neo-Nazis – confusing.

Ah . . sorry about that, I was trying to make my point with subtlety and wit, I thought a little levity might be appreciated but I’ll try and fall in line by introducing more profanity and abuse in my posts and cut out the wit!

If Jimmie Higgins told you to jump off a bus, would you?

As for the second point- :lol: now you are learning! LOL!!

Seriously though- let's have some decent argument please, not citing your nervous foot-tapping whilst watching an old film.....;)

Ele'ill

7th November 2010, 20:42

So will the rest of this thread just go back and forth like this in an exchange of trollish comments or will it expand into a logical debate

dun dun dun

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:44

If they agree that there are no longer any fascist organisation to oppose only neo-fascist why don’t they call themselves anti-neo-fascist?

Not sure what a neo fascist is but I have a little confession to make; I was watching the Battle of the Bulge film the other week when the German tank drivers started singing the Panzer song, I noticed I was unconsciously tapping my foot in time with the song – does that make me a neo-nazi (it is a catchy tune and I did feel guilty)?
It is unnecessary to call yourself anti-neo-fascist. Neo-Fascism is just people who still support it after the fact that the whole movement, at least on a large scale and in practice, collapsed. Same with neo-Nazis since obviously Germany isn't run by the National Socialist party. Also if you don't know something read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism. Wikipedia is your friend!

#FF0000

7th November 2010, 20:51

hey guys check out my semantic nonsense

:smugface:

Ele'ill

8th November 2010, 20:37

*edit* posted in the wrong thread sorry.

lol yeah, it gets confusing after a while doesn't it

Lt. Ferret

9th November 2010, 06:12

half the time im like a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters trying to make a coherent thought on what i assume the subject might be.

Property Is Robbery

9th November 2010, 06:36

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 10:50

I understand what you mean and I agree that sometimes they are too hasty with banning but look what it clearly states in the Terms of Agreement you said "ok" too

"This Community is open to all leftists. Right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within the 'Opposing Ideologies' forum. Right-wing messages will be ignored or deleted in all other forums and the author will be banned. If you are a right-winger or convinced capitalist and can accept this rule, good. If not, fuck off and never come back!"

It's badly worded perhaps. The perception is that the alternative to leftwing is necessarily rightwing, people in the OI are also branded reactionary too. Genuine rightwingers are not allowed in- they are banned and as you point out the rightwing messages will be deleted etc. This leaves the OI with more of a feeling of being dissidents rather than opposing ideologies. There are a few capitalists here, but there are also a lot of people who aren't capitalists but have been thrown into the gulag for perhaps one or two disagreements on a perceived party line.

balaclava

9th November 2010, 11:33

"This Community is open to all leftists. Right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within the 'Opposing Ideologies' forum. Right-wing messages will be ignored or deleted in all other forums and the author will be banned. If you are a right-winger or convinced capitalist and can accept this rule, good. If not, fuck off and never come back!"

Love it; when solid, structured, evidenced debate is too difficult we can always rely on the old “F I or F O” argument!

Am I left or am I right, how far left or right am I, what do I call myself, how should I be labelled? I have views on most subjects but I have never sat down and thought about how I should be labelled. I am here and elsewhere to learn and I have learned some general things and some specific things. I have learned that in general people like to talk with people who share their views, that reinforces their belief, generally people don’t like to debate with people with alternative views that challenges their belief. Call me odd but I get bored debating with people who agree with me. I have learned that specific to members of this forum that you couldn’t agree on what was right wing or capitalist or in fact any other label!

Also on a point of learning the rules here, as a ‘restricted’ member am I allowed to use profane expletives to progress the points I am trying to make or is that a privilege reserved for the unrestricted?

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 11:57

Love it; when solid, structured, evidenced debate is too difficult we can always rely on the old “F I or F O” argument!

Am I left or am I right, how far left or right am I, what do I call myself, how should I be labelled? I have views on most subjects but I have never sat down and thought about how I should be labelled. I am here and elsewhere to learn and I have learned some general things and some specific things. I have learned that in general people like to talk with people who share their views, that reinforces their belief, generally people don’t like to debate with people with alternative views that challenges their belief. Call me odd but I get bored debating with people who agree with me. I have learned that specific to members of this forum that you couldn’t agree on what was right wing or capitalist or in fact any other label!

Also on a point of learning the rules here, as a ‘restricted’ member am I allowed to use profane expletives to progress the points I am trying to make or is that a privilege reserved for the unrestricted?

1) The fragmented views you allude to are indeed a factor- but then in a serious discussion forum on complex issues you would expect to find differing viewpoints wouldn't you? It might cause argument but in itself is productive "it keeps the energy moving" if you like. As you say yourself you wouldn't want an echo-chamber. The debates in your British Parliament can get quite heated at times can't they? (I think they are great comedy at times.....!!!!).

2) The second point is that unlike the far-right the left's strong point and achilles heel is that it does allow differing viewpoints- the far right only have one viewpoint fundamentally, so it's easier for them! :thumbup1:

3) Profane expletives are not permitted- that is "flaming", however we are all guilty of flaming in the heat of the movement perhaps- but there is a difference between the heat of the movement, perhaps with irony, and deliberate flaming as a provocation to derail a thread that turns into a cesspit of insults.

4) As for your political "ideology" or stance- why don't you do a political compass test/quiz on the net- there are plenty around and see what the results are? It's not hard science by any means but it would perhaps give you an indication of where your heart lies on certain matters and would also help you to understand the issues that may matter to people here?

Tell me- we all have "burning issues", hobby-horses or own personal campaigns if you like, for example there are some here who are interested in debunking dialectical materialism, others who campaign on LGBT issues, yet others who are concerned about environmental issues and so on. In my case I am concerned about indigenous people's rights. This is not to say that people here are one trick ponies, or ignore the other issues by the way! Nevertheles,, what would you say your "burning" issue is?

balaclava

9th November 2010, 14:18

1) Nevertheles,, what would you say your "burning" issue is?

Hmmmm, that's a difficult one, I'll have to give it some thought. I feel like I should have a 'burning' issue but can't quite identify it. I'm not sure if that's because I don't have one or because I have so many. I need to think about that :unsure:

Revolution starts with U

9th November 2010, 14:36

IDK, I understand the split between OI and the other forums. Non-leftists love to troll us, far more than we troll them*, in my experience on political forums. It makes sense for us, as a very small minority in the west (particularly the US) to have a zone set up just for us. I perhaps wouldn't do it were it my site, but I understand it.
I agree with you on the echo chamber argument Bala. I had actually been discussing on right forums for years before I found this place. It's like my joint at the end of the day, forum wise. And if you check Learning or Politics, it's pretty clear that even here there is far from unanimous consent. Debates between anarchists, trotskyists, and those sympathetic to leninism are particularly fun :thumbup:

balaclava

9th November 2010, 15:14

1) what would you say your "burning" issue is?

I don’t think I have a ‘burning issue’ certainly I don’t have any political ideology as one which I’d like to put forward as my burning issue. I’d like to talk about different ideologies and argue aspects of them which I think are good and which are bad and that brings me to what I believe might be my burning issue (if we can cal it that); it’s political correctness (PC). I do like to call a ‘spade a spade’. I don't like my words in my language being hijacked because someone doesn't like them and I believe that PC is another method for stopping us discussing issues which some people don’t want discussed and that p****s me off.

Ele'ill

9th November 2010, 16:45

half the time im like a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters trying to make a coherent thought on what i assume the subject might be.

Yes and then there's ten 'fascist' threads or whatever where I'm talking to the same two people in each thread so when someone in 'Science and Environment' passively mentions the word 'fascist' in a thread over there I end up transposing 'Save the Whales' into the OI fascist threads and vice a versa.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 17:24

I don’t think I have a ‘burning issue’ certainly I don’t have any political ideology as one which I’d like to put forward as my burning issue. I’d like to talk about different ideologies and argue aspects of them which I think are good and which are bad and that brings me to what I believe might be my burning issue (if we can cal it that); it’s political correctness (PC). I do like to call a ‘spade a spade’. I don't like my words in my language being hijacked because someone doesn't like them and I believe that PC is another method for stopping us discussing issues which some people don’t want discussed and that p****s me off.

Okay well- let's talk about that? What sort of things? Are you concerned about unspeak or some kind of Orwellian newspeak?

Where do you draw the line with freedom of speech and expression?

Â¿Que?

9th November 2010, 18:05

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 19:15

balaclava

9th November 2010, 19:52

^ Yes, I'd love to see what balaclava sees as telling it like it is. We can already get a sense of the racial undertones. He's revealed more of his hand than he is probably aware of, and might even think he was being clever. Calling a spade a spade? In the context of political correctness, a term used to describe strict adherence to language free from racist connotations...well, I'd say that's a pretty big connotation, no? We'll soon find out won't we...

See here an example of what I speak about. Calling a spade a spade is a term that first came into use at the turn of the century (20thC) referring to calling a spade a spade and not a shovel. The above comment is an example of how some people are constantly looking to point the finger by hijacking the language for their own ends. Disgraceful but I will accept an appology!

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 19:56

See here an example of what I speak about. Calling a spade a spade is a term that first came into use at the turn of the century referring to calling a spade a spade and not a shovel. The above comment is an example of how some people are constantly looking to point the finger by hijacking the language for their own ends. Disgraceful but I will accept an appology!

Look, stop complaining! ;):laugh:

Give us some specific examples of where you feel PC language policing is a problem and why?

balaclava

9th November 2010, 20:03

Look, stop complaining! ;):laugh:

Give us some specific examples of where you feel PC language policing is a problem and why?

Sorry it'll have to wait, we're off tomorrow island hopping including a visit to Comrade Fidel's place, got to pack my case. Back in a couple of weeks.

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 20:04

^^^ He just did! :D

Calling a spade a spade--is an example. :)

"Spade" is a term for Blacks as in "Black as the Ace of Spades."

balaclava

9th November 2010, 20:16

^^^ He just did! :D

Calling a spade a spade--is an example. :)

"Spade" is a term for Blacks as in "Black as the Ace of Spades."

It's an example, that illustrates my point of how a term has been hijacked, the original terms had nothing to do with skin colour or even people it was about tools for digging. Hence - my point made (with the help of Comrade El Vagoneta) - language hijacked by the PC brigade!

Revolution starts with U

9th November 2010, 20:18

Well, that is how language works. You can try stuffing it into a box, but it's an ever-evolving thing. Fuck comes from frick, which means hit, and all that.
What spade do you want to call a spade? What does that even mean?

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 20:30

^^^ He just did! :D

Calling a spade a spade--is an example. :)

"Spade" is a term for Blacks as in "Black as the Ace of Spades."

I never heard that one before....!

You see, I think here's one example of the problem. Perhaps a British guy might use the word "innocently" in the US and cause a negative reaction.

I found this

http://www.english-for-students.com/Call-A-Spade.html
Call A Spade A Spade : Phrases

Meaning: To speak plainly - to describe something as it really is.
Origin: It might be thought that this derives from the derogatory slang use of the term spade meaning Negro - an American term originating in the 20th century. That view of it as derogatory might also be thought to be supported by this piece from John Trapp's Mellificium theologicum, or the marrow of many good authors, 1647:

"Gods people shall not spare to call a spade a spade, a niggard a niggard."

[However when I checked in my huge translator's dictionary on the dubious looking word "niggard" I found it had nothing to do with black people . [Middle English nigard, perhaps from nig, stingy person, of Scandinavian origin.]

The phrase is much older than that though. Nicolas Udall, in his Apophthegmes, that is to saie, prompte saiynges. First gathered by Erasmus - translated 1542, has:

"Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade."
This refers back to Plutarch's Apophthegmata, 178 BC.
The eccentric right-wing British Tory politician Sir Gerald Nabarro was fond of emphasizing his direct 'man of the people' image by saying 'I call a spade a shovel'. In fact, despite being from an immigrant family himself, Nabarro loudly supported the repatriation of Caribbean immigrants to the UK. How he referred in private to the people who would have undoubtedly have been called 'spades' in Nabarro's social circle isn't recorded.

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 20:46

Yea there's all sorts of thing like that. In England a "faggot" is a stick--and I think a "fag" is a cigarette. They have different meanings in America.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 20:52

Yea there's all sorts of thing like that. In England a "faggot" is a stick--and I think a "fag" is a cigarette. They have different meanings in America.

Two nations divided by the same language I presume. :lol:

Being a capitalist Bud, do you adhere to Her Britannic Majesty's English? :lol:

Seriously, I think we have seen what one of the problems can often be.

I also think that the English language is particularly prone to this sort of thing- it's used around the world in so many contexts and by so many people of different backgrounds that misunderstandings and differing use are bound to arrive.

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 20:58

Real talk can someone give me an actual concrete example of Political Correctness ever hindering someone's ability to say something that is not explicitly racist?

Cause I mean, as awkward and ham-handed as political correctness might be sometimes, I think it's all-around a good thing that tries to promote respectful language. And I think that's what's most important here.

To paraphrase what someone else on Revleft said (Either Plagueround or Prairie Fire), if you can't discuss things without demeaning someone else, then the problem isn't with society -- it's with you.

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 21:00

Two nations divided by the same language I presume. :lol:

Being a capitalist Bud, do you adhere to Her Britannic Majesty's English? :lol:

Seriously, I think we have seen what one of the problems can often be.

I also think that the English language is particularly prone to this sort of thing- it's used around the world in so many contexts and by so many people of different backgrounds that misunderstandings and differing use are bound to arrive.

Well it sometimes gets confusing here in RevLeft. For Americans the word "****" is pretty horrific. I personally while I might use a lot of other nasty words--would never call anyone that. But every other word out of the mouths (lor keypads) of our charming British Commies was pretty much that word--it seems Her Majesty allows her subjects to use the word as much as they like.

Pretty funny stuff--if people don't take it too seriously.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 21:03

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 21:06

that sounds like some ol' bullshit but still that alone is such a minor dumb baby thing.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 21:09

that sounds like some ol' bullshit but still that alone is such a minor dumb baby thing.

Hence why I said a metropolitan legend.... :lol:

I found this:-

The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence.

Toynbee, Polly (April 28, 2009). "This bold equality push is just what we needed. In 1997". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/28/toynbee-equality-bill-welfare. Retrieved May 22, 2010.

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 21:27

Yeah see I agree with that completely.

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 21:46

Yeah see I agree with that completely.

I kind of disagree. (Not on private sites like RevLeft, of course,) but in general I think people should have the right to say whatever they want no matter how bad it is--including saying those things to me.

I think the freedom of speech is more important than the chance of hurting someone's feelings. Personally I would never denegrate someone--but I believe in the free speech right for people to do that if they so choose.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 21:54

I kind of disagree. (Not on private sites like RevLeft, of course,) but in general I think people should have the right to say whatever they want no matter how bad it is--including saying those things to me.

I think the freedom of speech is more important than the chance of hurting someone's feelings. Personally I would never denegrate someone--but I believe in the free speech right for people to do that if they so choose.

I see what you mean- fundamentally that quote shows that the PC brigade may be making a lot of fuss about nothing- it's not the word, it's why you use the word that counts I suppose.

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 21:55

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 21:57

Well political correctness isn't a law or anything. Someone is totally free to go out and use words like "retard" and certain racial epithets, but it isn't socially acceptable.

EDIT: I think this is on-topic.

Not so fast, the US defends the freedom of speech to the nth degree, but in Europe, especially the UK you could get fired for a transgression. The use of "discriminatory" language could get you in serious trouble, and expelled from school. Unless you are Silvio that is.....:crying:

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 21:59

Not so fast, the US defends the freedom of speech to the nth degree, but in Europe, especially the UK you could get fired for a transgression. The use of "discriminatory" language could get you in serious trouble, and expelled from school. Unless you are Silvio that is.....:crying:

Yeah and it's the same here. If you go around using discriminatory language in certain contexts it could cost you your job or get you a charge for ethnic intimidation or verbal assault.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Using derogatory language towards someone, especially based on their ethnicity, you aren't talking about free speech anymore and you're talking about assault, abuse, intimidation, and harassment.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 22:03

Yeah and it's the same here. If you go around using discriminatory language in certain contexts it could cost you your job or get you a charge for ethnic intimidation or verbal assault.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Using derogatory language towards someone, especially based on their ethnicity, you aren't talking about free speech anymore and you're talking about assault, abuse, intimidation, and harassment.

The trouble is that it can be manipulated too.

Anyway, getting back to the point- discriminatory language is not being defended here by any means. I do notice though that US internet sites (I presume under freedom of speech laws) publish stuff that would never ever been allowed here- rightly or wrongly? You decide...

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 22:05

The trouble is that it can be manipulated too.

Sure, but what can't be?

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 22:12

Sure, but what can't be?
?and upset people that feel one of their human rights, i.e. to free speech and expression is being tampered with. See the problem? It's a vicious circle at the end of the day.

Would S.Front be tolerated in other nations? I wonder, if that was a server in Germany it would have been shut down I reckon. In Italy they would have had potential problems too. Don't know though... any legal experts?

#FF0000

9th November 2010, 22:19

Yes but who cares?

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 22:22

Yes but who cares?

Enough people to have their political views swayed one way or the other by tabloid journalism like the Daily Mail in the UK or perhaps your Glen Beck in the US....

Take things to the level of the street.... that's where the ideological battle is, not in dry, dusty university lecture theatres- no disrespect to academia intended...
:cool:

Ele'ill

9th November 2010, 22:28

Enough people to have their political views swayed one way or the other by tabloid journalism like the Daily Mail in the UK or perhaps your Glen Beck in the US....

Take things to the level of the street.... that's where the ideological battle is, not in dry, dusty university lecture theatres- no disrespect to academia intended...
:cool:

You mean like this?

nOjGdvju-po

Ele'ill

9th November 2010, 22:30

I'm kidding btw-

Although that's a pretty good piece of riot porn

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 22:44

Not so fast, the US defends the freedom of speech to the nth degree, but in Europe, especially the UK you could get fired for a transgression. The use of "discriminatory" language could get you in serious trouble, and expelled from school. Unless you are Silvio that is.....:crying:

Well in the US you could get fired for speech, and that's OK--but what CAN'T happen is the governmjent can't arrest you. Privaely-- a lot of things can happen to you. It's just that the government can't march in and stop you from saying anything.

Like the Supreme Court case about the protesters at the burials of servicemen killed in Iraq--they have every right to yell out "God hates fags" at the service.

Free speech.

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 22:48

In Italy, and more severely in Germany there are laws related to fascism and nazism. In Italy it's illegal to give the Roman salute in a public place.

Ele'ill

9th November 2010, 22:51

Well in the US you could get fired for speech, and that's OK--but what CAN'T happen is the governmjent can't arrest you. Privaely-- a lot of things can happen to you. It's just that the government can't march in and stop you from saying anything.

Like the Supreme Court case about the protesters at the burials of servicemen killed in Iraq--they have every right to yell out "God hates fags" at the service.

Free speech.

Here's how to deal with that- since I'm in a riot porn sort of mood

sSYi9OmfK9Y

*Edit- Bud, I'm sorry this wasn't the original HD version that's like 10 minutes long- I couldn't find it

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 22:57

Here's how to deal with that- since I'm in a riot porn sort of mood

That was a bit lame really- this has an anti-authority origin- perhaps the best way to solve conflicts. The ones being pelted represent the nobility.

jQKwz8TmckQ

Ele'ill

9th November 2010, 23:15

ComradeMan

9th November 2010, 23:56

It was lame- I post those two videos a lot and the trend has been certain normally friendly user(s) from a certain part of the revleft forum get a little bit upset- it's all in response to a particular someone's blatant and subtle troll attempts

The point was this, taking things onto the street does not mean having a riot. Riots are not necessarily anything productive at all and on several levels can be very counterproductive. I'm not talking about protests by the way. Most riots don't effectively do anything much more than orange fight...

It was also slightly tongue-in-cheek too.:cool:

Bud Struggle

9th November 2010, 23:59

The point was this, taking things onto the street does not mean having a riot. Riots are not necessarily anything productive at all and on several levels can be very counterproductive. I'm not talking about protests by the way. Most riots don't effectively do anything much more than orange fight...

It was also slightly tongue-in-cheek too.:cool:

Do you Commies think any of this is productive? Do you really think any of those people in the meeting even know you are out there?

Just asking.

ComradeMan

10th November 2010, 00:02

Do you Commies think any of this is productive? Do you really think any of those people in the meeting even know you are out there?

Just asking.

Had your debriefing I see Crimson Bud. ;)

Most of this isn't productive, but what you do learn here you can take back onto the streets and into the fields.... Get it? ;)

Bud Struggle

10th November 2010, 00:15

Had your debriefing I see Crimson Bud. ;)

Most of this isn't productive, but what you do learn here you can take back onto the streets and into the fields.... Get it? ;)

All that seems to be is Leftist "busy work" with the added chance of getting your head busted in. The media doesn't cover the event besides to say there were "protests" not saying who was protesting or what they were protesting.

And maybe there are some self congratulatory videos passed out among the faithful but overall the effect seems juvenile.

Crimson Bud is not interested in street theater.

ComradeMan

10th November 2010, 00:17

All that seems to be is Leftist "busy work" with the added chance of getting your head busted in. The media doesn't cover the event besides to say there were "protests" not saying who was protesting or what they were protesting.

And maybe there are some self congratulatory videos passed out among the faithful but overall the effect seems juvenile.

Revolutionary forces should never engage in pitched battles... physically or metaphorically....?

Bud Struggle

10th November 2010, 00:21

Revolutionary forces should never engage in pitched battles... physically or metaphorically....?

Not being a Revolutionary--I can't speak to that, but as a businessman I NEVER go into battles I know I won't win. Maybe it's the Capitalist in me, but fights should always be won or not bothered with.

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 00:27

Bud_Struggle : "Hey guys look at this video I found -" ]YOuTu[be=vvvF4TTgx"[/quote[video

(since you're trolling I am too- and it's a jest- relax Bud :D)

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 00:31

Do you Commies think any of this is productive? Do you really think any of those people in the meeting even know you are out there?

Just asking.

First- yes I do.

Seattle in 99 didn't have a meeting because of 'those people outside'. There have been extremely successful blockades and militant demonstrations surrounding 'those meetings' (of various sorts).

This is a fact.

Second- Those videos aren't them. Those were in North America- We have to be so critical as activists in regards to tactics. Those tactics activated billion dollar corporation's insurance policices as I've stated in several threads on this topic. It was relatively useless to engage in that manner.

Third- people are willing to do that- they only need a better sense of timing and better targets.

That's all.

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 00:34

Also- I keep on thinking this thread is OI chitchat

Â¿Que?

10th November 2010, 06:09

I know what you mean but let's not presume guilt until proven either....

;)
I guess...It just seems obvious to me...But I'll admit I jumped the gun

See here an example of what I speak about. Calling a spade a spade is a term that first came into use at the turn of the century (20thC) referring to calling a spade a spade and not a shovel. The above comment is an example of how some people are constantly looking to point the finger by hijacking the language for their own ends. Disgraceful but I will accept an appology!
No I'm not apologizing, because I think you're being disingenuous. Hence my hostile tone from the start. I will however stay out of this thread as a compromise...but I'm watching you holmes.

Bud Struggle

10th November 2010, 11:18

First- yes I do.

Seattle in 99 didn't have a meeting because of 'those people outside'. There have been extremely successful blockades and militant demonstrations surrounding 'those meetings' (of various sorts).

This is a fact. So then they just went somewhere else. It didn't caquse any trouble fdor the leaders, just the poor people that book their meetings.

Second- Those videos aren't them. Those were in North America- We have to be so critical as activists in regards to tactics. Those tactics activated billion dollar corporation's insurance policices as I've stated in several threads on this topic. It was relatively useless to engage in that manner. OK then--you make a lot of money for the insurance companies.

Third- people are willing to do that- they only need a better sense of timing and better targets. There are only a handful in the videos.

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 18:13

So then they just went somewhere else. It didn't caquse any trouble fdor the leaders, just the poor people that book their meetings.

No, what it did was create Indymedia, international solidarity movements against neoliberal trade (in the sense that it further networked large groups of people being affected in various countries), since then and during that demo countries were on the fence on what they should do, they saw the resistance and backed out of trade talks, it was an immense show of solidarity by the working class all up and down the west coast- the unions involved threatened to strike unless those activists arrested were released. They were released.

It created a climate of resistance that brought a lot of people into the movement and made a lot of people think "wow, they shut down the meetings and shut down a CITY for 5 days straight- what are they on about?"

Public civil disobedience is one of the only true forms of 'media' that the left can utilize.

OK then--you make a lot of money for the insurance companies.

This is what I said- yes. The act of property destruction is useless unless the timing and targets are right.

There are only a handful in the videos.

In Toronto there were 2500 - 3000 people engaging in militant direct action.

In Pittsburgh there was 2500 in the un-permitted march with about 500 engaging in militant direct action.

At both venues there was nearly 10-15,000 police officers in riot gear- Homeland Security, FBI, Cell phone jamming, helos, national guard, spooks etc..

In Pittsburgh we counted 200+ riot cops at every intersection.

Really, a brave handful of people is all it takes and the reason there isn't more is because of unjust arrests and trumped of charges that frequent such events.

Bud Struggle

10th November 2010, 19:46

Really, a brave handful of people is all it takes and the reason there isn't more is because of unjust arrests and trumped of charges that frequent such events.

OK I get it. That's fine. If you enjoy it, there's nothing wrong with doing all of that. On the other hand we have 3000 people in my surburban Catholic Church every Sunday morning. We create a lot of solidarity there, too.

ComradeMan

10th November 2010, 19:49

No, what it did was create Indymedia, international solidarity movements against neoliberal trade (in the sense that it further networked large groups of people being affected in various countries),

Thought you didn't agree with boycotts etc....

since then and during that demo countries were on the fence on what they should do, they saw the resistance and backed out of trade talks, it was an immense show of solidarity by the working class all up and down the west coast- the unions involved threatened to strike unless those activists arrested were released. They were released.

It created a climate of resistance that brought a lot of people into the movement and made a lot of people think "wow, they shut down the meetings and shut down a CITY for 5 days straight- what are they on about?"

Public civil disobedience is one of the only true forms of 'media' that the left can utilize.

Activism is one thing but just having a riot is counterproductive, often it paints the wrong people in a bad light.

This is what I said- yes. The act of property destruction is useless unless the timing and targets are right.

I agree

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 19:53

OK I get it. That's fine. If you enjoy it, there's nothing wrong with doing all of that. On the other hand we have 3000 people in my surburban Catholic Church every Sunday morning. We create a lot of solidarity there, too.

There is something wrong with doing it if the targets and timing are ineffective which is what I've said-

I don't think you see where I'm agreeing with you

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 20:01

Thought you didn't agree with boycotts etc....

Did I mention a boycott?

I do not think that they are an effective tactic by themselves- even in conjunction with other actions/tactics I think they are at times very ineffective.

Activism is one thing but just having a riot is counterproductive, often it paints the wrong people in a bad light.

This totally depends on the situation and location.

Oakland riots vs Greek riots

Both occurred over very similar issues but the effects were different.

A 'riot' that is unplanned with no attempt to organize is undesirable in most situations- however we cannot generalize here and suggest across the board what's best for other's struggles.

A 'riot' that is unplanned (or planned i guess) with organizing involved before during and after can be a very successful tactic- but may lack the spontaneous elements which could potentially make it even more successful. We cannot generalize too much.

Organized is better than disorganized, no?

Bud Struggle

10th November 2010, 20:08

There is something wrong with doing it if the targets and timing are ineffective which is what I've said-

I don't think you see where I'm agreeing with you

We agree. :wub:

RGacky3

10th November 2010, 21:46

You know Bud you can criticize the tactics of the left all day and night, strikes, protests, takeovers, riots, sit ins, whatever, but the fact is, almost ALL positive change in the world has been either indirectly or directly caused by popular grassroots direct action like this. Gay rights activism essencially started with the NYC gay bar riots, you know the history of black liberation, almsot all worker rights started with worker organizing and strikes, wars ended due to popular pressure, almost all democratic changes in anywhere started with popular uprisings.

It might not always work, but its easy to sit back and criticize things for not making a huge amount of difference but at least they are trying and sometimes it leads to something positive. You know what does'nt work? voting for someone and hoping he does the right thing.

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 21:55

Revolution starts with U

10th November 2010, 22:18

That's my problem with hippies in a field trying to change the world man, change it with music. Ok, so you gave people a show, while those in power were able to look on as they go about their usual business.
Getting in the way of the status quo is the only action that changes anything. White people marching is a spectacle. Black people marching was insulting... that's why it was effective.
Squat in your home, use numbers to close Wall Street, sit-in the banks, get in the GD way. I mean, I'm all for a party. But party to your successes, not as a reaction to your downtrodden existence.

ComradeMan

10th November 2010, 22:25

Look I am not saying that militant tactics do not work- look at the French Revolution, it worked for them.

The trouble is--- taking the example from what's going on in London, England now- at this very moment, is that it can be counterproductive and futile too.

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 22:32

The trouble is--- taking the example from what's going on in London, England now- at this very moment, is that it can be counterproductive and futile too.

Not good enough- you have to specify WHY it's counterproductive for THEM to engage in such tactics.

You have to be very specific and take the entire atmosphere of THEIR struggle into account.

I found their actions to be a little bit more if not quite a bit more significant than most that occur during 'high profile' events here in the States.

ComradeMan

10th November 2010, 22:56

Not good enough- you have to specify WHY it's counterproductive for THEM to engage in such tactics.

You have to be very specific and take the entire atmosphere of THEIR struggle into account.

I found their actions to be a little bit more if not quite a bit more significant than most that occur during 'high profile' events here in the States.

The general public becomes alienated and the powers that be use it as carte blanche to evermore infringe on personal freedoms and rights with yet more police, security checks, roadblocks and so on...

Ele'ill

10th November 2010, 23:55

The general public becomes alienated

Those in the street are the general public.

and the powers that be use it as carte blanche to evermore infringe on personal freedoms and rights with yet more police, security checks, roadblocks and so on...(to finish your sentence)

....then you know it's a legitimate threat to state power.

Bud Struggle

11th November 2010, 00:00

Those in the street are the general public.

No: the general public is at home watching a 10 second clip on TV on the 11 PM news and not having a clue what the G8 is or why you are protesting it.

Ele'ill

11th November 2010, 00:08

No: the general public is at home watching a 10 second clip on TV on the 11 PM news and not having a clue what the G8 is or why you are protesting it.

We're talking about the student tuition hikes and following outrage by students.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/10/london-student-protest.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/11/467742.html

But I will address your other unrelated concern as well-

YOU might be at home doing that but a lot of the general public isn't.

When 75,000 - 100,000 people take to the streets in their city most of them are locals and they're taking to the street to speak against whatever it might be and in return subject themselves to arrest, tear gas, spray, and beatings.

That's bold.

Centralized media control is an issue as well of course but there is organizing against that and organizing to combat that- which is why 50,000 students took to the streets despite it.

The word is getting out, Bud, Capitalism is over

Bud Struggle

11th November 2010, 00:16

Ele'ill

11th November 2010, 00:19

It's like all the strikes in France--they have their good time in the street the government does what it wants and everybody goes home.

I hope you didn't expect an immediate victory, did you? Did you think the entrenched capitalist system would give in that easy?

What these demonstrations do is set the stage- it's a build up to the great explosion of social change.

This is what organizing is about, Bud.

One phone call from a rich guy to a government official means more than a million people in the street.And this is the system we will abolish forever.

The problem is that the governments don't have the money for all of these give aways.

It's a flawed system, this capitalist monstrosity is, isn't it?

Bud Struggle

11th November 2010, 00:24

I hope you didn't expect an immediate victory, did you? Did you think the entrenched capitalist system would give in that easy?

What these demonstrations do is set the stage- it's a build up to the great explosion of social change.

This is what organizing is about, Bud. Organizing is what the the Right wing did with the Tea Party. THEY are making some difference. They too a lot of disenfranchized people of bothe political parties and got them motivated. I don't see that on the Left.

And this is the system we wish to abolish forever. Me too. On that I will agree with you.

Ele'ill

11th November 2010, 00:35

Organizing is what the the Right wing did with the Tea Party.

And what the left did in Seattle, Genoa, Rostock, Pittsburgh, Japan, Cancun, and every other Country/City that holds capitalist summits- these cities become ignited with a fire that never extinguishes- the organizing grows more and more powerful and becomes a continuously growing threat

All for equality, social justice and the building of stronger community.

What has the tea party done outside of party politics that perpetuate an unjust system and concentration of wealth?

THEY are making some difference.Like what?

They too a lot of disenfranchized people of bothe political parties and got them motivated. I don't see that on the Left.

I do.

Is the reason you don't see it because you're not involved in leftist struggle?

Do you think the previously mentioned centralized media is going to admit threats or are they going to slander?

Because the left is engaged in actual struggle to make millions of people's lives better, permanently. They are facing down a monster that requires injustice in order to function.

The left is an actual threat to capitalist existence. It will suffer the hurdles, saboteurs and violence because of it. No worries- at this point we're already seasoned from it-

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2010, 01:37

Organizing is what the the Right wing did with the Tea Party. THEY are making some difference. They too a lot of disenfranchized people of bothe political parties and got them motivated. I don't see that on the Left.

Me too. On that I will agree with you.

There's a reason we don't see such actions. They happen daily. What coverage of John Stewart's rally was there, their reporters weren't even allowed to go? Yet it was 200k people, 4x as many as Glenn Beck's pitiful insult to MLK. And it was a centrist liberal rally.

Robert

11th November 2010, 06:35

WTF??? Even Fox News covered the hell out of that rally and Stewart is even a frequent guest on the O'Reilly Factor.

How much coverage do you want?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/30/thousands-expected-stewart-colbert-rally-washington/

http://www.spotery.com/Matt/story/37593

Comedy Central puts the figure at 60K, not 200k. But it doesn't matter. Everyone covered it.

#FF0000

11th November 2010, 07:24

The Stewart rally was some dumb baby nonsense though.

RGacky3

11th November 2010, 08:57

It's like all the strikes in France--they have their good time in the street the government does what it wants and everybody goes home. The problem is that the governments don't have the money for all of these give aways. They COULD if they raised taxes on the rich--but they certainly won't do that.

One phone call from a rich guy to a government official means more than a million people in the street.

I'll know Capitalism is over when they raise the capital gains tax to 50%.

Say what you want, but how is Frances social-democracy doing? How do people live there? Now compare it to the states. Theres a reason France has a much more democratic system and quality of life is much better.

As for the governments not having the money you got any numbers on that? Also they COULD raise taxes on the rich.

You can attack the french but hell, their protests have done a shitload more than Obama has ever dreamed of doing, their system works much better than the US's system, and guess what, the people there get what they want, not always, but much more than they do in the US.

Organizing is what the the Right wing did with the Tea Party. THEY are making some difference. They too a lot of disenfranchized people of bothe political parties and got them motivated. I don't see that on the Left.

Thats because the Lefts organizing is'nt does'nt have the full support of corporate America and Fox news. During the whole tea-party thing there were tons of progressive movements, many times just as large as tea parties that got nothing more than a mention, if that.

Of both political parties :P My ass, The tea party is a wholey owned entity of the coch brothers.

BTW, as far as Jon Stewarts rally, yeah 4 times Glenn becks.

But the tea party is gonna die out in the next couple of years, because now the coch brothers have got what they want, people on the inside who I GUARANTEE will let down the people, they already want to cut social security and medicare,

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2010, 10:31

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021284-503544.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/31/2010-10-31_jon_stewarts_rally_to_restore_sanity_drew_20000 0_beating_estimated_attendance_at.html
I'm finding over 200k everywhere I look. Can you link to this "60k" number you're quoting cuz I just can't find it.

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2010, 10:46

THe coverage thing, I'll admit I stay out of the current events loop in the mainstream. THis is what I was told by people that were going to look for us tho, that no one was covering it.
(If you look for a guy in all black and red holding a small sign that says "we already tried the dark ages!!" That was me. I still have a lot of sympathy for the liberal apologentsia like Stewart, Moore, and Maher.)

Robert

11th November 2010, 13:18

Can you link to this "60k" number you're quoting cuz I just can't find it.

I'm wrong. 60k, per the Fox report, is the number on Comedy Central's Park Permit, apparently based on a pre-rally estimate, not the actual attendance, which was over 200k.

Ele'ill

12th November 2010, 02:13

I'm wrong. 60k, per the Fox report, is the number on Comedy Central's Park Permit, apparently based on a pre-rally estimate, not the actual attendance, which was over 200k.

And that's what a strictly peaceful demonstration with no goals and no plans looks like.

200k people demonstrating how inept they are- and how proud they are with their ineptitude.

Bud Struggle

12th November 2010, 12:33

And that's what a strictly peaceful demonstration with no goals and no plans looks like.

200k people demonstrating how inept they are- and how proud they are with their ineptitude.

That wasn't a demonstration really. It was a comedy show in the park on a sunny afternoon. All good fun.

Revolution starts with U

12th November 2010, 13:00

It was a liberal showing that the Tea Party is a fringe movement and that they could easily triple their numbers. I dont think it was supposed to be revolutionary at all. In fact, I think Stewart would be the Sweden of the revolution.

Ele'ill

12th November 2010, 16:47

That wasn't a demonstration really. It was a comedy show in the park on a sunny afternoon. All good fun.

It had an extremely political message and was mobilized entirely surrounding political ideas.

It's a demonstration.

Bud Struggle

12th November 2010, 19:59

It had an extremely political message and was mobilized entirely surrounding political ideas.

It's a demonstration.

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a show on COMEDY CENTRAL owned by Viacom. This was a Corporate comedy spectacle to boost ratings.

If this is what you think is "extremely political" I just have to wonder what you think when the Circus comes to town. :D

Read Mari3L what our dear Comrades say about the Capitalist Tool Stewart.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/john-stewart-tool-t142026/index.html?t=142026

Â¿Que?

13th November 2010, 03:13

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a show on COMEDY CENTRAL owned by Viacom. This was a Corporate comedy spectacle to boost ratings.

If this is what you think is "extremely political" I just have to wonder what you think when the Circus comes to town. :D

Read Mari3L what our dear Comrades say about the Capitalist Tool Stewart.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/john-stewart-tool-t142026/index.html?t=142026
I'd like to see the on the ground corporate presence. Was it significant. What was the book marketing like. If anyone can answer this, you rock!

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 04:14

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a show on COMEDY CENTRAL owned by Viacom. This was a Corporate comedy spectacle to boost ratings.

If this is what you think is "extremely political" I just have to wonder what you think when the Circus comes to town. :D

Read Mari3L what our dear Comrades say about the Capitalist Tool Stewart.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/john-stewart-tool-t142026/index.html?t=142026

I contributed to every John Stewart thread on the board. I probably posted in that thread you linked AGAINST Stewart and his stupid rally more than anybody else on the forum.

His intent was very politically minded albeit shallow and lacking any goals at all.

It was a demonstration that failed at movement.

Did you even bother reading the thread you linked?

Bud Struggle

13th November 2010, 11:59

I contributed to every John Stewart thread on the board. I probably posted in that thread you linked AGAINST Stewart and his stupid rally more than anybody else on the forum.

His intent was very politically minded albeit shallow and lacking any goals at all.

It was a demonstration that failed at movement.

Did you even bother reading the thread you linked?

OK fine. So then what does this post mean?

It had an extremely political message and was mobilized entirely surrounding political ideas.

It's a demonstration.

Mari3L, Sometimes I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your posts are always made up of these little bullets with no coherent center and when you are being "arch" or cynical or "funny" on top of that--well, your point just gets muddy.

RGacky3

13th November 2010, 12:51

Look, Jon Stewart is a comedian, I believe that 100%, now he does political comedy, and he does it from a centrist-liberal perspective, so obviously its going to have political implications.

The rally however WAS political, and the message was rediculous (can't we all just get along?), however he had an interview with rachael maddow where he tried to clear up what he ment.

Whether or not it was Jons intention to be political is besides the point, he's a political force in the media, simply by the fact that he's a political comedian and has a somewhat liberal perspective.

Bud Struggle

13th November 2010, 13:02

Well if "why can't we all get along" is a political message then I'm for that politic. :)

RGacky3

13th November 2010, 13:14

Well if "why can't we all get along" is a political message then I'm for that politic. :)

Me too, but not when one side is kicking me in the shin :).

Â¿Que?

13th November 2010, 17:34

Whether or not it was Jons intention to be political is besides the point, he's a political force in the media, simply by the fact that he's a political comedian and has a somewhat liberal perspective.
Is this what he said, though. Every time I see an interview with Stewart he pulls out that facile argument, "I'm a comedian, therefore I'm not responsible for the political implications of what I say, since ultimately it's for entertainment purposes only. On the other hand, journalism is different, because..." and then he totally loses me.

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 19:16

OK fine. So then what does this post mean?

I don't know how to simplify that without deleting important words.

Perhaps you could ask very specific questions so that I can answer each of your questions.

I mean, part of debate isn't just asking hard questions or complex questions it's asking very simple questions so that you have very specific answers to reply to. I know you know this- this isn't a slight but I'll let you know now that I am a fan of basic exchange as opposed to in-depth theoretical wordplay.

Mari3L, Sometimes I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your posts are always made up of these little bullets with no coherent center and when you are being "arch" or cynical or "funny" on top of that--well, your point just gets muddy.

Should I post in acrostic format from now on?

Lt. Ferret

13th November 2010, 19:51

maybe just stop attempting to be funny.

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 19:56

maybe just stop attempting to be funny.

How many infraction points do you have?

I mean, I at least replied to someone in a manner that was beneficial to the discussion.

You getting yourself banned will be the most beneficial thing you've done on the forum yet.

Lt. Ferret

13th November 2010, 19:59

im supposed to base my value here on how much biased authoritarianist attention i receive?

you didnt reply in a beneficial manner, you asked smugly if you should post in acrostic format, which is obviously a ridiculous answer to a legitimate viewpoint someone had.

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 20:04

im supposed to base my value here on how much biased authoritarianist attention i receive?

I mean, when you shit on someone's couch when the rule agreed upon by everyone in the room is 'please don't shit on the couch' what exactly do you expect?

It appears as though your personal reasons for being here have failed miserably -the circular shaped object doesn't fit into the triangular shaped hole.

you didnt reply in a beneficial manner, you asked smugly if you should post in acrostic format, which is obviously a ridiculous answer to a legitimate viewpoint someone had.

I'm pretty sure Bud Struggle is smart enough to figure out the jest and the comment I made was making fun of myself more than anything else at all.

Lt. Ferret

13th November 2010, 20:40

i dont know, i've learned that a few people around here cannot figure out jest very well.

ComradeMan

13th November 2010, 20:51

Come on- knock it off and get back on topic- or at least comment on the topic and add a sarcastic remark at the end....! Ferret, if no one is getting your jokes-- perhaps that means.... your jokes are shitty. LOL!!!! The comedian who blames the audience for not laughing!!!!!! Now that one is comical.

Mari3L stop provoking him- passive-trolling! ;)

So, what were we talking about before...?

Oh yes, this Jon Stewart man. Is he comedian? So what? There is quite an interesting political figure in Italy who is also a comedian, and a well-known Italian figure who died a few years ago, Giorgio Gaber was a kind of anarchist, singer and comedian too.

Satire can be a powerful weapon, and deliver a politcal message too.

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 20:56

Satire can be a powerful weapon, and deliver a politcal message too.

I find it funny it's viewed as I'm 'provoking' rather than defending myself from such utter bullshit. :lol:

The problem is that Stewart doesn't actually have a political stance- he has no position. This is the political message he's insanely trying to tout.

It's like a weird nihilist moderate hipster approach to politics.

ComradeMan

13th November 2010, 21:01

I find it funny it's viewed as I'm 'provoking' rather than defending myself from such utter bullshit. :lol:

The problem is that Stewart doesn't actually have a political stance- he has no position. This is the political message he's insanely trying to tout.

It's like a weird nihilist moderate hipster approach to politics.

Well I don't know who this man is, so I'm trying to interpret from the posts....:crying:

However from what I see on the net, wiki etc- it seems like he has an apolitical stance, which is not always necessarily a bad thing for a satirists otherwise he would be accused of being partisan and biased.

utter bullshit- is a subjective perception ;) You do defend yourself, however by attack and thus you perpetuate/escalate the situation too! ;)

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 21:13

Well I don't know who this man is, so I'm trying to interpret from the posts....:crying:

However from what I see on the net, wiki etc- it seems like he has an apolitical stance, which is not always necessarily a bad thing for a satirists otherwise he would be accused of being partisan and biased.

I agree at face value but he's a bit more engaged than just a satirist.

utter bullshit- is a subjective perception ;) You do defend yourself, however by attack and thus you perpetuate/escalate the situation too! ;)

I saw a peace activist lay down once, they got kicked, sprayed and kicked again. Then they got arrested.

Havet

13th November 2010, 21:18

The problem is that Stewart doesn't actually have a political stance- he has no position. This is the political message he's insanely trying to tout.

Isn't he closer to the democrats?

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 21:56

Isn't he closer to the democrats?

At this point I have no idea.

Havet

13th November 2010, 21:59

At this point I have no idea.

Well whenever I watch The Daily Show, that's the idea I get. He criticizes Republicans and Conservatives a lot, he tries to criticize Democrats just as much, but he usually runs short of material to do so.

Revolution starts with U

13th November 2010, 22:11

Well, to be fair, democrats may be utterly incompetent apologists, but republicans are just bat shit nuts.

Ele'ill

13th November 2010, 22:16

Well, to be fair, democrats may be utterly incompetent apologists, but republicans are just bat shit nuts.

They're both nuts- one bombs in broad daylight the other cuts throats in the dark. They're incredibly similar. The Republicrats- the business party of the world.

Havet

13th November 2010, 22:26

bat shit nuts.

I never really understood the meaning of that word. Is bat shit really that much worse than seagull excrements or human excrements for that matter?

Revolution starts with U

13th November 2010, 22:26

ComradeMan

13th November 2010, 22:34

WHat I mean by nuts is not psycopathic, or sociopathic. I mean they are highly delluded and subjectivity gone rampant. They will say or do anything to get ahead. They deny even the most fundamental evidence. They wouldn't even have to be murderous exploiters. If they were just people in my neighborhood I wouldn't associate with them.
Bat
Shit
Nuts.

I disagree with you entirely. Bat shit nuts as you put it are the ones who fall for their shit, like the majority of the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie. The real capitalists know exactly what they are doing and are very good at it- afterall, they too are only serving their class interests. Never underestimate or deride a foe, especially one that these days has the upper hand.

Havet

13th November 2010, 22:35

Bat
Shit
Nuts.

But whats wrong with bats' shit so much that you want to associate it with people you hate?

Revolution starts with U

13th November 2010, 22:36

uhh... vampires?! C'mon, that was easy :cool:

RGacky3

14th November 2010, 10:45

Is this what he said, though. Every time I see an interview with Stewart he pulls out that facile argument, "I'm a comedian, therefore I'm not responsible for the political implications of what I say, since ultimately it's for entertainment purposes only. On the other hand, journalism is different, because..." and then he totally loses me.

I get what he's trying to do, whether or not it works is a different thing, you can't make political comedy without being, well, political, Jon tries really hard not to be, but it does'nt work.

Bud Struggle

14th November 2010, 13:28

I get what he's trying to do, whether or not it works is a different thing, you can't make political comedy without being, well, political, Jon tries really hard not to be, but it does'nt work.

All that matters if if it is translated into votes. That is ALL that matters. Demonstrations don't matter, comedy shows on the National Mall don't matter, polls don't matter, Internet forums don't matter.

Votes matter.

ComradeMan

14th November 2010, 13:46

All that matters if if it is translated into votes. That is ALL that matters. Demonstrations don't matter, comedy shows on the National Mall don't matter, polls don't matter, Internet forums don't matter.

Votes matter.

I think people don't realise this a lot. Votes matter! Even if it's a negative vote like a spoiled ballot.

Ele'ill

14th November 2010, 19:33

I think people don't realise this a lot. Votes matter! Even if it's a negative vote like a spoiled ballot.

Votes do not matter in regards to US party politics.

Ele'ill

14th November 2010, 19:40

All that matters if if it is translated into votes. That is ALL that matters. Demonstrations don't matter, comedy shows on the National Mall don't matter, polls don't matter, Internet forums don't matter.

Votes matter.

Competent demonstrations or rather- demonstrations on real issues with a real position with real solutions absolutely matter. Internet forums matter and comedy shows on the National Mall if done correctly can matter.

The death-knell of democracy and social justice will be with the cease of resistance in the forum of exchanging ideas and huddling together in the street against the cold world. Votes have been used as a weapon of leverage by the ruling class to basically barter with the weakest link. It historically has turned into a 'We'll give you glory if you let us continue 90% of our horrific policies' and the small group of 'vanguardists' who happen to be in extreme positions of privilege via wealth and influence through party contacts coerce and lie to the people they're 'leading' or acting as a mouth piece for.

Rafiq

14th November 2010, 19:51

Not sure what a neo fascist is but I have a little confession to make; I was watching the Battle of the Bulge film the other week when the German tank drivers started singing the Panzer song, I noticed I was unconsciously tapping my foot in time with the song – does that make me a neo-nazi (it is a catchy tune and I did feel guilty)?

You have a shit taste in Music, because it isn't catchy and it's annoying as fuck.

Rafiq

14th November 2010, 19:54

Sorry it'll have to wait, we're off tomorrow island hopping including a visit to Comrade Fidel's place, got to pack my case. Back in a couple of weeks.

I hope Fidel Kicks your ass

Robert

14th November 2010, 20:04

I was watching the Battle of the Bulge film the other week when the German tank drivers started singing the Panzer song, I noticed I was unconsciously tapping my foot in time with the song – does that make me a neo-nazi (it is a catchy tune and I did feel guilty)?

No, it just means you were sensitive to the vigor, forcefulness and conviction of the singers. They were all very good and physically attractive, singing in perfect unison, and their commanding officer played by Robert Shaw had tremendous willpower.

But he could have willed those young soldiers into singing the International and you would probably have been just as captivated.

Robert

14th November 2010, 20:05

It historically has turned into a 'We'll give you glory if you let us continue 90% of our horrific policies' and the small group of 'vanguardists' who happen to be in extreme positions of privilege via wealth and influence through party contacts coerce and lie to the people they're 'leading' or acting as a mouth piece for.

What's stopping you from running for political office?

Havet

14th November 2010, 20:11

What's stopping you from running for political office?

The statistical chance of being elected

BTW, you might find this interesting (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchists-dont-t114834/index.html?t=114834) Robert, and anyone else who shares his opinion.

RGacky3

14th November 2010, 20:12

All that matters if if it is translated into votes. That is ALL that matters. Demonstrations don't matter, comedy shows on the National Mall don't matter, polls don't matter, Internet forums don't matter.

Votes matter.

Then I guess the USSR had HUGE support from its people the whole time, if vote are all that matter when determining public opinion.

Votes do not matter in regards to US party politics.

And they never had, if they did we would have single payer health care right now.

What's stopping you from running for political office?

Not having a shitload of money, also having to work.

Ele'ill

14th November 2010, 20:40

What's stopping you from running for political office?

Mainly the fact that once in office- I'd be completely handcuffed and unable to push for any legitimate change. I can do more from where I am at now.

Bud Struggle

14th November 2010, 20:43

But he could have willed those young soldiers into singing the International and you would probably have been just as captivated.

I play guitar and sing at a little wine bar every other Friday night and I do the Internationale on occasion. It goes over quite well, most people assume it is just another protest song from the 60s but every now and then someone say, "hey isn't that the song of the....." ;) :D

What's stopping you from running for political office?

I have people that do it for me. :)

(Just kidding--but it was fun to say. :D )

Bud Struggle

14th November 2010, 21:16

Then I guess the USSR had HUGE support from its people the whole time, if vote are all that matter when determining public opinion. The Soviet Union only allowed one Party. You can have all you want in the US. You just need to say something interesting.

Not having a shitload of money, also having to work. Maybe. Here in Florida money bought the Governorship but it lost when it tried to buy the Senate.

RGacky3

14th November 2010, 21:19

The Soviet Union only allowed one Party. You can have all you want in the US. You just need to say something interesting.

Actually there were other parties, but are you claiming that elections are a way to gague public opinion?

Maybe. Here in Florida money bought the Governorship but it lost when it tried to buy the Senate.

Money bought the entire freaking US government, are you paying attention?

ComradeMan

14th November 2010, 22:19

Mainly the fact that once in office- I'd be completely handcuffed and unable to push for any legitimate change. I can do more from where I am at now.

Roosevelt wasn't- unfortunately he died before pushing the second Bill of Rights and it never came through- similar things for which Obama has been denounced as a communist.

You could make a difference if you weren't willing to be paid off by Wall Street.... perhaps- not saying that has happened (allegedly). LOL!!!! :laugh:

The US only has one party- the plutonomy lobby of Wall Street (allegedly) . We all know that (allegedly).

RGacky3

14th November 2010, 22:24

You could make a difference if you weren't willing to be paid off by Wall Street

Not really, because everyone else is paid off by Wall Street, some in the government are not paid off, Sanders does'nt accept corporate money.

Blackscare

14th November 2010, 23:01

Well I suppose I'm going to be the one that says it this time, *ahem*:

If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

Robert

14th November 2010, 23:11

Mainly the fact that once in office- I'd be completely handcuffed and unable to push for any legitimate change. I can do more from where I am at now. Dreadful. :(

You can continue to do "what you do now" (???) and still seek the power to effect real change.

You don't have to run for president of the United States. You could run for city council in a small town and make your voice heard. You could at least use the office as a platform to call for removal of the handcuffs.

ComradeMan

14th November 2010, 23:17

Dreadful. :(

You can continue to do "what you do now" (???) and still seek the power to effect real change.

You don't have to run for president of the United States. You could run for city council in a small town and make your voice heard. You could at least use the office as a platform to call for removal of the handcuffs.

Your forefathers did not think so....

http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/spirit.jpg

Robert

14th November 2010, 23:34

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

"We" was a group of elected delegates to the Continental Congress, not anarchists. Anarchy is a deader end than communism.

I confess I have always wonder whether the revolutionaries' grievances could not have been met, in time, without a Declaration of Independence or hostilities. Australia and Canada managed to do it.

Ele'ill

15th November 2010, 00:51

Dreadful. :(

You can continue to do "what you do now" (???) and still seek the power to effect real change.

It would be about as successful as enlisting in the military with the goal of changing the military. There are huge checks set up to make sure nothing is changed too severely and all minor changes- if affecting the flow of capital- will be hampered or shot down and rerouted into impotent second round proposals.

There is no political position in the US that serves the purpose of challenging and changing the political and economic skeletal structure of the country and if there were suddenly one created those taking seat in those positions would be assassinated by their own intelligence agencies.

You don't have to run for president of the United States. You could run for city council in a small town and make your voice heard. You could at least use the office as a platform to call for removal of the handcuffs.I can do better than that by being someone involved in and interested in community organizing, holding neighborhood or city 'quadrant' councils, going door to door, communicating with local labor so on and so forth.

It's very telling when we look at community response to undesirable economic incursion and the politicians are very often if not always 'in the dark' on the issue or rather- pretending to be in the dark.

They really only serve one community and it isn't the people in the street.