Who is a Socialist

[sc4r]

Who is a Socialist.?

Regular readers that if anything more heat is generated between people calling themselves socialists demanding that others (who also call themselves Socialists) stop doing so, even than in arguments with Capitalists.

Sometimes one sort of ‘Socialist’ or ‘Communist’ or ‘Marxist’ will allow that someone else is a ‘sorta socialist’ but will still weigh in with derogatory terms to imply that the person is a best dumb and misguided, and at worst either evil or a traitor.

The reality is that these arguments detract massively from actually getting anything at all done, or in conveying the basic message that Socialism is superior to Capitalism or Fascism, to the majority of people. Lets face it, our immediate problem is not to win people over to any particular view of Socialism, but to even persuade them to take a look at it.

The proponents of “ ‘lets fight about it, we will insist on conveying not only that we are right, but that everyone else is flat wrong and so eventually win over ‘the proletariat’ “ seem to ignore the practical reality that self evidently their views are not so unarguably right that they will be adopted. They have failed to convince most SOCIALISTS that they are right, why on earth should they assume that they will win over an overwhelming majority of non-socialists ? Do they think all the other ‘Socialists’ are not also going to be presenting their views and persuading people? Do they think that both Capitalists and Fascists wont be busy inventing reasons to ignore any sort of Socialism, and communicating these reasons very effectively (they do after all control most media).

We really do need to stop bickering and present some sort of united front. Even if this front masks differences which can be resolved later, and discussed (preferably without rancour) privately.

Yes I’m guilty of not being as well behaved as I should be too. I’m not calling everyone else a sinner and myself a saint.


So what’s the reality, the straightforward one? What makes a Socialist ? In my view:

1. Anybody who believes that advantage gained through historical circumstances (distant or very recent) should not be allowed to continue (and accumulate), and that people everywhere should be granted equal dignity and opportunity is pretty much a Socialist.

Those who insist on making distinctions between ‘proletariat’, and non-proletariat seem to be caught up in a confusion about when it is appropriate to use the term. Post Caoitalism everyone will, by definition, be proletariat; while during capitalism anyone can switch between being ‘proleatariat’ and ‘bourgeois’ almost at will. Are the proponents of such class distinctions really intending that for the sin of having once been bourgeois one is for evermore persona non grata? Are they intending, genuinely, to refuse assistance from anyone who may be bourgeois by the technical definition right now? Even if such a person is committed to eliminating such a class? Really?

Its very sensible to say that one must expect opposition from the bourgeois and look for the biggest seams of supporters among the proletariat. Not so smart to refuse support from wherever it is offered.

2. Anyone who believes in 1. But additionally sees that elimination of private ownership in the means of production is the only way to actually produce a social system which behaves as in 1, is a Marxist of some sort.

3. I’d guess that most (all?) Marxists also believe strongly in effective democracy (whether they think a formal voting system is needed or not – Anarchists for example often don’t, but they do (I assume) that in some mysterious way a common will is adopted.

This leaves really only three basic distinctions :
a) Those who wont accept anything less than total acceptance of their personal views. These people are menaces because they demand the unachievable as a pre-condition for supporting anything. They seem to completely lose sight of the fact that progress is progress. Its easier to reach communism from Socialism than from Capitalism. This is something Marx and Engel (bourgeoise?) saw clearly.
b) Those who will accept gradual progress but wont allow that any form of vanguard elite has a part to play. These people have a point, you are putting an awful lot of trust in such a vanguard to correctly interpret common views.
c) Various types of Leninists (I use the term very broadly to include Stalinists and Mao’ists too) who would trust a vanguard party. I see these people as desiring to shovel Socialism down peoples throats whether they want it or not. They are well meaning, but they do to me seem to miss the point that Socialism is about giving people what they want.


My solution would be for everyone to get behind the message that we want to do everything possible to create genuine interest in and acceptance of the advantages of Marxist Socialism, and to explore every avenue which might hasten progress.

I’d urge the Stalinist to soften their message. To say ‘we would support the idea of a vanguard party which was endorsed by a majority of people for a set number of years if people felt this was the best way to provide the time to ride out a capitalist backlash’. This is in effect what they do say, but it does not often come across like that.

I’d urge the ‘socialism through electoral process’ like myself, to allow that the Leninists should be allowed immediately post victory to present their case fairly and to agree in advance that we would wholeheartedly support such an arrangement if mandated by the mass of people.

I’d urge the ‘perfectionists’ to take a good hard look at the reality of what they are proposing, and ask themselves if they seriously think it can be achieved. Then I’d urge them to get behind the common movement and treat their specific demands as very definitely ones of detail. They’d need to say ‘I’d support anything democratically mandated, but I’d urge that my specific views be considered’.

An of course I’d urge the Social democrats (non Marxist but socialists) to think hard about whether any amount of law making and tinkering will really achieve anything more than a change in the pace of inequality growth.

WE NEED TO CONVEY THAT MARXIST SOCIALISM LEADS TO A BETTER LIFE FOR ALMOST ALL PEOPLE AND THAT THERE IS A PRACTICAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT WITH ENOUGH UNITY THAT IT IS WORTH SUPPORTING. People in general support potential winners, not squabbling factions who self evidently will never pose a threat to the established order.

This is posted in OI in case any 'stalinists' wish to wrigh in with comments. Cappie comments are, of course tpo be expected, but will hopefully be ignored.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Exsamples of Socailists:
http://clinton.senate.gov
http://kennedy.senate.gov
http://www.democrats.org

[RPS]

Baybylon5, if you consider them socialist in any respect, I'd suggest you leave this forum.

[Xvall]

Lol, Babylon. You're as bad as McCarthy. Seriously. It's really annoying when conservatives try to claim that the Democrats are Socialists. Yeah, Kennedy really showed his love for socialism during the Vietnam War.

[redstar2000]

We really do need to stop bickering and present some sort of united front. Even if this front masks differences which can be resolved later, and discussed (preferably without rancour) privately.

Translation: we need to do a better job of fooling people into supporting "us".

Honesty is for "losers".


It's easier to reach communism from Socialism than from Capitalism.

History has shown us that the exact opposite is true. Thus far, "socialism" has invariably led back to capitalism (the jury is still out on Cuba).


I’d urge the ‘perfectionists’ to take a good hard look at the reality of what they are proposing, and ask themselves if they seriously think it can be achieved. Then I’d urge them to get behind the common movement and treat their specific demands as very definitely ones of detail. They’d need to say ‘I’d support anything democratically mandated, but I’d urge that my specific views be considered’.

Not a chance, squire.

To engage in politics in a principled way is to make the best determination one can of what is desirable and then to fight for that...regardless of the chances of immediate or proximate "success". One is in it for "the long haul".

Those who wish for a seat in parliament (or on the central committee) have different priorities...and we know what they are.

And what they're worth.

As to supporting "anything democratically mandated", that's simply absurd on its face.

One respects a majority; one does not worship it.

Majorities are simply a "snap-shot" of the views of those present and voting at a given moment...and are subject to change at the next moment.

If a majority approves "an unjust law", one cannot sit back and say "well, that's it, the majority has spoken, we must obey".

Quite the contrary: the communist obligation is to wage the most vigorous and public dissent from an "unjust majority" and, in extreme cases, to openly defy such laws.

One would naturally hope that such occasions do not arise; but if they do arise, then we know how we ought to respond.

Not with servility, but with defiance.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 22 2003, 04:01 PM
Exsamples of Socailists:
http://clinton.senate.gov
http://kennedy.senate.gov
http://www.democrats.org
fascist

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Sep 23 2003, 04:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Sep 23 2003, 04:30 AM)
Babylon5 [email protected] 22 2003, 04:01 PM
Exsamples of Socailists:
http://clinton.senate.gov
http://kennedy.senate.gov
http://www.democrats.org
fascist [/b]
Um Facists are Right Athoritian
and Socalits are Left Athoritian

Clinton and Kenndy are Liberals&#33;

[sc4r]

History records a number of socialist movements which had various amounts of success and those that are still in existence are at various stages of socialist realisation (having in most cases had the inevitable ups and downs, advances and reverses, and made (perhaps temporary) accomodations to harsh reality). The only one you can label a definite failure (defeat would be more accurate) is the USSR. Even in that case you probably have to ask the question &#39;was it a failure for the people of the USSR?&#39;. Because during the course of those 70 years their material conditions improved immeasurably. Chances are that the conditions of others were also improved simply because of the fear the USSR put into Western countries about what would happen if they did not allow conditions to improve for their own populations.

WE do not have full Socialism anywhere in the world, certainly not communism. But we sure as heck are a lot closer to it in many many places then we were 100 years ago.

Every single one of those movements which had some success was actually founded basically on a lenininist approach.

Which unbelieveably destroys your argument from two different perspectives:

You cannot argue that history shows your way works, because it has not been tested.

You cannot argue that my way does not work, because it, has never been tested either.

*****

I can see you have no real experience of fighting for anything from the way you talk. If you fight for a long term goal you dont say &#39;I&#39;m fighting so that all my dreams will come true overnight, at once, all at the same time, without my ever having to accept a partial victory which I can build upon&#39;. You dont climb a mountain without staging posts. You dont atart your swimming career off by attempting to cross the channel, or take your first dive from the 15m board. No-one says &#39;I&#39;m playing for Celtic, and I wont play for anybodies youth team&#39; etc etc etc.

*****

Accepting a democratic mandate does not mean that you cannot campaign for it to be altered. It means that you abide by it until it is altered.

Could I concieve of democratic mandates I simply would not accept? Yes. But at that point I would be putting myself outside of society and should expect, not only consequences, but to be shunned by that society (certainly I should not expect support or succour from it, why should it support me if I dont support even its basic principles?).

All the rabbitty BS about a democratic mandate only being a snapshot of opinion in time is self evident. So what ? Of course any decision taken in this way may be a snapshot of opinion in time, but its not likely to be one which alters dramatically over any short period simply because there will have been a great deal of build up to it and discussion duing which typically opinions crystallise, firms up, and hardens.

Its not quite the same when you are talking of a &#39;democratic&#39; mandate for a particular liberal party, because essentially they are all promising excatly the same thing. Those are popularity contests between things which are more or less identical in substance, not a real democratic vote on basic attitudes and policies of substance.

****

The truth is of course that you are not anywhere near as &#39;defiant&#39; and &#39;militant&#39; as your words seem anyway. You are urging people to talk about Communism for 150-500 years, while watching their living conditions get steadily worse* and then &#39;spontaneously&#39; uprise. As an example of actual passivity (and wishful thinking) coupled with mere puff about action this would be hard to beat.

Then you have the somewhat thorny question of &#39;rise up against what exactly?&#39;. In those countries where socialist revolutions have had some success there has always been a clear target. Their actually were very obvious elites and class boundaries with definite and large distinctions. This simply is not the case in western nations. In those nations there is a much smoother garadation of wealth and priviliege. There is also, despite what we like to say, the opportunity for people to influence (if not determine) social policies. People opinions may be distorted by heavy propaganda, but they nevertheless do have the opportunity to express what are quite genuine opinions.

Try telling us exactly how you would see an &#39;uprising&#39; in , say, the UK looking like. What would you actually do? What would you actually change? How?

Not what would you like to see it change to (that omits the crucial question of what the initial impetus and period of transition looks like); but what would the transition itself be?

I already know your answer, you&#39;ll be very vague. Thats because there is, as I said, nothing very concrete for you to alter dramatically and effectively. Which is also why a method suited to dealing with subtle but important change is called for. YOU CANNOT REVOLT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING DISTINCT TO REVOLT AGAINST, and in advanced liberal democracies or social democracies there just isn&#39;t a target. The one thing that would create a target would be if a socialist government were elected and prevented from taking power. Then you have both a target (those doing the preventing) and a clear objective (to put it in place). Once in place it can alter the laws of society to anything we wish them to be (including getting rid of itself of course, if thats what we want).


*(its impossible to pin you down on whether you really want them to get worse or not. You say no and then say that you are passionately committed to something which using your ideas can only come about if they do

I dont know what to say to you really. I&#39;m going against my own pleas in a way when I criticise you; but I cannot see how to find any sort of a compromise with someone who simply wont contemplate the notion that he might not be 100% correct and who preaches essentially doing nothing positive.


See also The The Redstar papers - A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Babylon5 Crusade+Sep 23 2003, 06:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Babylon5 Crusade @ Sep 23 2003, 06:19 AM)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 23 2003, 04:30 AM

Babylon5 [email protected] 22 2003, 04:01 PM
Exsamples of Socailists:
http://clinton.senate.gov
http://kennedy.senate.gov
http://www.democrats.org
fascist
Um Facists are Right Athoritian
and Socalits are Left Athoritian

Clinton and Kenndy are Liberals&#33; [/b]
Then why did you claim they were Socialists?

[redstar2000]

History records a number of socialist movements which had various amounts of success and those that are still in existence are at various stages of socialist realisation (having in most cases had the inevitable ups and downs, advances and reverses, and made [perhaps temporary] accommodations to harsh reality).

You must have put a lot of effort into that paragraph, squire. That is world-class weaseling.

"Various stages of socialist realization", my arse&#33;

They have all either re-established capitalism or are in the process of doing so. The only marginal exception to this trend is Cuba...and who knows what will happen there once Castro leaves the scene.


Every single one of those movements which had some success was actually founded basically on a Leninist approach.

Almost true...but if you give them credit for their initial "successes", then you must also "credit" them with all the ultimate defeats.

Cuba, of course, did not have a significant Leninist party until a couple of years after the revolution.


You cannot argue that my way does not work, because it has never been tested either.

No, as I noted in a number of earlier posts, your perspective was extensively tried both prior to World War I and in the inter-war years by various social democratic parties.

There were certainly some significant nationalizations and an extensive welfare system was created. They all said that these were the "first steps towards socialism".

But they weren&#39;t.

Even if it were still possible for your approach to win significant electoral approval, you would try to do the same things that the social democrats did.

And you would fail, as they did.

It&#39;s not a matter of personal ineptitude or villainy; it&#39;s just the wrong tool (bourgeois parliament) for the wrong job (Socialism, Inc.).


You don&#39;t climb a mountain without staging posts. You don&#39;t start your swimming career off by attempting to cross the channel, blah, blah, blah...

You&#39;re repeating yourself, squire. So I will repeat myself: communist revolution is not a "linear process"...it is a massive and spontaneous uprising that "breaks all the old rules".

The "step-by-step" process of "reaching socialism" that you envision has not only failed the test of history but was probably always based on a mis-understanding of how class societies change from one form to another.

The bourgeois "revolution" in England was a rather "peaceful" transition as such things go; in most places it was far more turbulent and involved abrupt and violent episodes...revolutions, in fact.


Then you have the somewhat thorny question of &#39;rise up against what exactly?&#39;. In those countries where socialist revolutions have had some success there has always been a clear target. There actually were very obvious elites and class boundaries with definite and large distinctions. This simply is not the case in western nations.

Yes, it is the case. The enemy is quite clear to me and to others...even if we are a very small minority. As things "get worse", the enemy will become clear to most working people.


I already know your answer, you&#39;ll be very vague.

Would you prefer that I play the charlatan and make detailed predictions concerning events that may not take place for 50-400 years and under circumstances of which I have no knowledge?

You probably would prefer that; all the more reason for me to decline the "honor".


YOU CANNOT REVOLT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING DISTINCT TO REVOLT AGAINST, and in advanced liberal democracies or social democracies there just isn&#39;t a target.

Bourgeois rubbish&#33;


I don&#39;t know what to say to you really. I&#39;m going against my own pleas in a way when I criticise you; but I cannot see how to find any sort of a compromise with someone who simply won&#39;t contemplate the notion that he might not be 100% correct and who preaches essentially doing nothing positive.

I agree, no compromise is possible. What you see as "positive" is, in my view, reformist crap.

Perhaps I&#39;m wrong in that assessment.

Let history judge.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

You appear to view any society that is not Redstarist as Capitalist. You recognise no gradations and seem incapable of seeing anything as intermediate, anything as compromise, or anything as progress. towards anything. In this, as in so much you say, you simply ignore reality.

This leads to the absolutely ludicrous situation where you are talking as if every nation in the world (except Cuba apparently) had the same social and political system. Or at least that they are all equally far from &#39;socialism&#39;. Thats simplistic crap; infantile reasoning and analysis.

China, for example, very clearly does not have the same socio-economic systems as the USA. Now I&#39;d say it is closer to socialism; what do you say?

*****

Oh I just love your analysis of what progress has been made following the path I would suggest. According to you they have been tried and have failed because we dont already see a fully fledged Socialist nation anywhere. Yet apparently your path (teach everybody) has never been tried because no society following fully fledged Redstarism has arisen . Jesus&#33; can anyone not see the nonsensical flaw in that.

Compare like with like Hack. IF we are talking of progress then :

a) Its inappropriate to judge it on the basis of whether the race has already been won
b) You cant compare my path and say it has been tried to your realisation and say it has not.

The society I suggest has never been tried any mor than yours has. The path I suggest following has not &#39;failed&#39; to deliver in full any more than yours has because neither have delivered in full.

This would leave us having to judge relative progress. But of course you dont allow that this means anything; which would mean that even using your twisted judgement criteria the two would be equal.

*****

World class weaseling yourself over Cuba, I have to say you are a supreme weaseler despite the fact that you love to accuse others of doing it . No there was not a leninist party in Cuba originally. But there most certainly was a leninist approach (a vanguard) taken right from the outset.

*****

Now we come to the crux point. The specific question that was asked of you &#39;Rise up against what?&#39;. Hack, you dont have to make detailed predictions of what colour shirts will be fashionable in &#39;50-400&#39; years to answer this. All you need to do is describe in real terms what the target would be today. Not in the vague unoperable terms you would like to use like &#39;the rulers&#39; or &#39;Capitalists&#39;; but a description of how to identify real targets and what exactly you would do. The question was expressed more fully in my last post and I&#39;ve no intention of repeating it again at length despite the fact that I expect an answer to a different question from you, as usual, now that you have ducked it.

You dont have an answer to even the most basic practical question of how your revolution would even get started do you? You cannot even say what it would look like or what would actually happen. Its obvious why. Its because you do not have a clue; you can repeat the slogans , but thats as far as you have got in thinking about it.

Come on Hack lets hear a clear answer about your own views. You are happy enough to give very clear (but false) descriptions of other peoples views. Why are you so unwilling to do the same with your own?

IO cab see it now RS &#39;FORWARD BROTHERS; NOW THAT WE ARE UNITED LETS BRING DOWN CAPITALISM&#39;.......

Acolyte : YES ONWARD&#33;&#33; , errrrrr what do we actually do though?&#39;.

****

I&#39;m sick to death of you misstating what I would try to do. Absolutely pissed off with this constant alignment of me and &#39;social democrats&#39;. I am not remotely a social democrat; you have been told this probably a 100 times; it has been explained at length to you; yet because you feel that by repeating it you will discredit me, without having to go to the trouble of actually finding real flaws in what I suggest, you make endless reference to it as though it were a fact.

YOu are dishonest. Fundamentally so. It discredits every single thing you say.

[redstar2000]

You appear to view any society that is not Redstarist as Capitalist.

No, I view countries that are not communist or still mired in pre-capitalist formations as capitalist.

Of course there are many differences among them, a few of them significant (geography, climate, natural resources, level of technological development, etc.).

But they are capitalist...that is their dominant characteristic.


You recognise no gradations and seem incapable of seeing anything as intermediate, anything as compromise, or anything as progress towards anything.

Frankly, this sounds downright mystical. What are you talking about here, squire? Do you mean something like "if country A has a more generous welfare system than country B, then country A is closer to &#39;socialism&#39; than country B"?

Because if that&#39;s what you&#39;re getting at, then you&#39;re just being absurd.


This leads to the absolutely ludicrous situation where you are talking as if every nation in the world (except Cuba apparently) had the same social and political system. Or at least that they are all equally far from &#39;socialism&#39;.

An amusing caricature of my views. I&#39;ve said many times that I expect proletarian revolution in the most advanced capitalist countries first.

So did Marx and Engels.

Which one is "closest" is a ludicrous speculation.


China, for example, very clearly does not have the same socio-economic system as the USA. Now I&#39;d say it is closer to socialism; what do you say?

It&#39;s capitalist...and the superficial features that might suggest otherwise are clearing changing year by year in the direction of resemblance to the U.S.

That does not mean it will ever be "a perfect copy" of the U.S.--it simply means that to all intents and purposes its ruling class operates in the same way and to the same ends as the American ruling class.


According to you they have been tried and have failed because we don&#39;t already see a fully fledged Socialist nation anywhere.

We don&#39;t even see a "partially-fledged" socialist nation...whatever that might be. We see capitalism everywhere, except for a couple of anomalies (see below).


No there was not a Leninist party in Cuba originally. But there most certainly was a Leninist approach (a vanguard) taken right from the outset.

Apparently, it was the "price" of assistance from the USSR. I don&#39;t think the Cubans wanted it.

Be that as it may, yes, I certainly "admit" that both Cuba and North Korea are anolamies...if history were "neat" and "orderly", they would not exist in their present forms. Cuba would be "like" Costa Rica or Jamaica and North Korea would be "like" Thailand or, perhaps, Indonesia.

It took a congruence of "low-probability circumstances" to make those countries what they are.

But I hardly see how their existence in their present forms supports your case for "progress".

In the case of Cuba, it appears as if the combination of foreign capitalist investment and dollar-remittances from exiles is slowly but surely re-creating a capitalist "culture" there.

However benign the intentions of the Communist Party of Cuba--who, unlike the vast majority of Leninist parties, actually turned out to be pretty decent "shepherds"--I see no imaginative efforts on their part to stop, much less reverse this process.

Putting U.S. agents in prison is all well and good; putting more real power in the hands of the Cuban working class remains "outside" of their paradigm...unimaginable.

It would be "communistic"...that is, "utopian".

The case of North Korea I have discussed elsewhere; it is a modern version of Confucianist "Asiatic" despotism...poorly disguised with "Marxist" rhetoric. Its leading circles are already planning the introduction of "special economic zones"...the same method that Deng used in China to "open" that country to the establishment of capitalism.

To use words like "progress" in this context seems to me to be unwarranted, to say the least.


All you need to do is describe in real terms what the target would be today.

A rather pointless speculation, don&#39;t you think? Even if we disagree about everything else, I think we would both agree that proletarian revolution is not on history&#39;s agenda "today".

Still, if you want to play "what if", I&#39;m willing.

If there were a proletarian revolution in the United Kingdom tomorrow morning, who would be the target?

Well, who owns and runs the U.K. today? What are their names and where do they live? Not being a resident of your "green and pleasant land", I can&#39;t be specific...but I know they exist.

When the working class takes command of their workplaces, occupies and destroys the "command & control" sites of the old regime, captures and executes as many of the "leading figures" of the old regime as they can...is there any doubt as to what is the "target"?

You will suggest that people don&#39;t perceive the leading figures of British society as the "enemy"...which is just another way of saying what I said: proletarian revolution is not presently on the agenda.

In addition, every worker knows the identity of her/his own boss...and whether or not there should be a place for that individual in communist society. They will decide all by themselves who deserves an amnesty and who deserves to be made "shorter by a head". Who is better qualified to make that decision?


I am not remotely a social democrat; you have been told this probably a 100 times; it has been explained at length to you; yet because you feel that by repeating it you will discredit me, without having to go to the trouble of actually finding real flaws in what I suggest, you make endless reference to it as though it were a fact.

Frankly, I am astounded that you continue to deny the obvious parallels between you and social-democracy circa 1912.

Perhaps that is what upsets you; you think I am referring to the social democrats as they are now (capitalist, of course).

If so, you have misunderstood me; I think I even made it explicit in one post--that you are a classical social democrat.

That does not mean "pro-capitalist" or a "traitor" to socialism.

The classical social democratic paradigm involved winning a majority in a bourgeois parliamentary election, forming a government, and introducing as much socialist legislation as they could, as quickly as possible...putting off communism to the distant future.

In an era (1875-1914) when faith in bourgeois "democracy" was at its high tide, this seemed to be "realistic" and "practical" for good reasons. The only people engaged in any kind of active resistance to capitalism "outside" of the "norms" of bourgeois society were a handful of nihilists and anarchists...denounced as romanticist terrorists (which some of them certainly were).

Social democracy was a "civilized" and "orderly" path to socialism...suitable for the "civilized" countries of western Europe and North America.

It took the horrors of World War I to reveal what lies beneath the surface of capitalist "civilization"...and the utter futility of appealing to "a sense of decency" amongst barbarians in suits and ties or uniforms.

You are an anachronism, squire. You still want to appeal to "law" and "decency" and "good will" towards a class of people who know only greed and murder...who have demonstrated those priorities throughout the bloody 20th century and who demonstrate them right now.

I don&#39;t understand why you so vehemently reject the obvious parallel between your views and those of classical social democracy...but as you will.

I will be perfectly content to cease describing you as a social democrat or as a reformist (the latter, by the way, comes from your frequent assertions that "incremental" change is both possible and desirable).

It just means I will have to write a couple of sentences instead of a couple of words, that&#39;s all.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Oh I cant belive it&#33;&#33; you are now resorting to the fact that social democrats have always called themselves &#39;socialists&#39; to make your spurious claim* (first time bTW that you have ever bothered to mention that I (or anyone else) was supposed to understand that you are not talking of social democracy as it is today but as it was 100 years ago- not that in this case it makes any difference). In how many other things that you say are people supposed to realise that you are using archaic terminology?

Mate what a Social democrat means by Socialism does not mean the same things I stand for. It didnt mean it 1900 any more than it meant it today. No social democrat ever has suggested eliminating liberal property laws. This is the central feature of Marxism and Marxist Socialism and it has implications which make the &#39;Socialism&#39; of Marx and I very very different from the &#39;Socialism&#39; of Social democrats.

As you very well know.

It is nice to finally know what your revolution would do. Lots of people would be attacked and killed by mobs. Thats about it as far as I can see.

This would mean any unpopular person with any supervisory experience whatsoever apparently. And since there are no rules to this killing I assume that there is no need for anyone to check with anyone else that a non-person to be killed is actually disliked by anyone except themselves. Fan-bloody-tastic that.

And after you have killed lots of people? what then? Will you start running all the factories at maximum production? Without anyone much left over who knew how the whole thing functioned mind. Are you going to let people who cleaned the toilets in the Nuclear plant wander in and decide to up the plutonium content in the reactor?

Are all of your transport systems going to start relying on luck as to whether trains leave or arrive on time or whether they are in the right places at night to actually fulfil the schedules tomorrow?

I bet your night shifts are going to be quiet. As everyone decides to work the day shift (which will mean too many people for the transprt systems to carry anyway).

Its going to be a heap of fun listening to the workers in Factory A complain that they cant do sod all because Factory B has appropriated all the available engine oil (because they needed it to run at a productiuon level they had never run at before). Fun too to watch the surplus crap that it turn out nobody want accumulate on Factoty B&#39;s doorstep.

It is lucky that (according to you there will be no looters or burglars) Coz they&#39;ll be no police to stop them.

I could go on, but I think most will get the drift.

What you are planning is an orgy of hate and destruction. With not a positive idea in sight. Very nice matey, and very in keeping with the attitude I say you have (an entirely negative spite filled one).

****

Saying , as you now do, that you expect revolution in the developed world first has fuck all to do with whether existing societies are nearer or closer to Socialism as I used the phrase. Since I expressly dont see revolution as being the path to socialism (and you not only know I dont, but actually lanbast me for not thinking so) I obviously dont mean &#39;closer to the glorious day&#39;. I mean closer in spirit. And this would be even if I had said that developed societies were closer; which I did not. The only caricaturing going on here is being done by you chum.

****

There is not a nation in the world today that is capitalist. Most are liberal democracies. The essence of a liberal democracy is to rein in capitalist tendencies. Its fairly obvious that the extent of the reining in matters and makes a difference.

You want a crude (but effective) rule of thumb? It&#39;s easy - taxation. Whre you have 100% taxation on personal profit you practically have socialism by a different name. So a nation that taxes personal profit at 50% could be said to be halfway to being socialist in spirit; wheas one with a rate of only 10% would be 90% capitalist. This sort of stuff is not hard; but not absolute enough for you because it actually requires thought, not dogma.

*****

Fundamentally RS you dont seem to really believe IN anything. You believe in destruction of the system and all the people that you have so obviously failed to make an impression on all your life. Its the words of a bitter twisted, and malicious hack you spout. You&#39;ve simply found an idea which allows you to say &#39;Kill em all&#39;; and avoid looking like a twisted failure. But you are a disgrace to that idea.

* Although why I should not believe it I dont know. Its a typical bit of RS distortion to take a word which he knows means very different things in different contexts and claim that ideas are the same without ever mentioning that he knows the only similarity is the word.

[RedComrade]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:42 AM


History has shown us that the exact opposite is true. Thus far, "socialism" has invariably led back to capitalism (the jury is still out on Cuba).


Oh really? what about China? The private sector of China&#39;s economy is limited to 5%, Cuba&#39;s private sector is just as big if not bigger. Not only does China maintain an extensive network of state or worker owned buisinesses it also manages to prosper at the same time, something no other socialist state as of yet has managed to pull off. While China certainly has a ways to go in terms of workers rights and political freedom the level of work safety, political freedom, and material wealth are much greater than under the "authentic" socialist tyrant Mao, or all the other "anti-revisionists" for that matter. I often here people on this site rehash the same old catch-phrase that China is "state capitalist" with no attention to facts. China is making a swift transition to market socialism and gaining control of the stongest, fastest growing economy in the process.

[redstar2000]

What a fabulous rant&#33; :lol:

Almost totally lacking in substantive content, acrid, semi-coherent, utterly venomous, and with a dollop or two of sheer idiocy.

Where others merely attempt, you succeed&#33;


...what a social democrat means by Socialism does not mean the same things I stand for. It didn&#39;t mean it [in] 1900 any more than it means it today. No social democrat ever has suggested eliminating liberal property laws.

But they did&#33; Are you just ignorant of these matters? Upon winning a majority in parliament, they fully intended to nationalize everything of significance. Why the hell do you suppose Engels had anything to do with them? Before 1914, they were not reformists.

Perhaps you should just go read some things about these folks...maybe you would actually find that you actually like their ideas.

You ought to...they&#39;re the same as yours.


It is nice to finally know what your revolution would do. Lots of people would be attacked and killed by mobs. That&#39;s about it as far as I can see.

Given your general political myopia, that&#39;s about what I would expect you to see.


This would mean any unpopular person with any supervisory experience whatsoever apparently.

Quite possibly.


What you are planning is an orgy of hate and destruction. With not a positive idea in sight. Very nice matey, and very in keeping with the attitude I say you have (an entirely negative spite filled one).

See, every time I actually answer one of your questions, you don&#39;t like the answer.

In fact, you don&#39;t like the idea of proletarian revolution at all&#33; To you it&#39;s just "an orgy of hate and destruction" without any "positive ideas".

Every member of the old ruling class will agree with you.


You want a crude (but effective) rule of thumb? It&#39;s easy - taxation. Where you have 100% taxation on personal profit you practically have socialism by a different name. So a nation that taxes personal profit at 50% could be said to be halfway to being socialist in spirit; whereas one with a rate of only 10% would be 90% capitalist. This sort of stuff is not hard; but not absolute enough for you because it actually requires thought, not dogma.

If I were as "mean-spirited" as you think I am, I would bookmark this quote and throw it back at you constantly...as it is the most idiotic "idea" that I&#39;ve ever seen expressed on this board.

The present top bracket of the federal income tax in the U.S. is about 30% -- so according to you, the U.S. is "30% socialist".

Sheer lunacy. :lol:

(As a side note: the effective tax rate is quite different for different classes. According to a statistic I saw some 10 years ago but which, as you might imagine, stuck in my mind, the effective tax rate--including all forms of taxation--for the lowest one-third of the American population was about 20%, for the middle one-third about 14%, and for the top guys less than 10%. Some classes are "closer to socialism" than others, perhaps? :lol:)


Fundamentally RS you don&#39;t seem to really believe IN anything. You believe in destruction of the system and all the people that you have so obviously failed to make an impression on all your life. It&#39;s the words of a bitter twisted, and malicious hack you spout. You&#39;ve simply found an idea which allows you to say &#39;Kill em all&#39;; and avoid looking like a twisted failure. But you are a disgrace to that idea.

Yep, I&#39;m as bad as they come, all right. Totally evil right down to the bone&#33;

But as long as we&#39;re getting personal here...how about yourself, squire? What shall we say of someone who declares himself opposed to proletarian revolution and communist society and yet still wishes to be regarded as a "Marxist"? Someone who is horrified by the deaths of a few hundred thousand assholes but thinks the United States--murderer of millions--is "30 per cent socialist"? Someone whose "socialism" retains a market economy and wage-slavery? Someone who still takes bourgeois ceremonial elections seriously? Someone who distrusts the working class at best and despises the "lower orders" at worst?

Marx once spoke of "bourgeois socialists"...and I&#39;m beginning to think he had a point.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Redstar the personal profit tax rate is not the same as the tax rate.

A Tax on PROFITS. is what is relevant. And furthermore it means an actual tax on actual total profits. It does not mean a quoted rate which is not applied in practise because there are all sorts of loopholes.

I would say as a very rough estimate that the USA is probably 10-20% socialist.


Redstar you will &#39;thow everything back&#39; you always have. What this means is that whenever you are confronted by a discussion you will SCREAM &#39;LOO0OOK this guy said something our dogma forbids&#39;. Have you not got it through your head yet that I dont give a stuff about Dogma and simplistic nonsense. Nor am I enamoured of your George Bush approach where people are eithere &#39;100% with us or 100% aggainst&#39;.

Now tell me about these Social democrats who intended to nationalise everything. Are you by any chance talking of a particular political party in a single country, which in some magical way I am supposed to guess at, and who for some reason you feel should be taken as the only true &#39;Social DEmocrats&#39;?

Without knowing who they are it is of course difficult to know what you actually mean by &#39;nationalise everything&#39; - since I certainly wont take your word for it that this can be taken at face value. Its pretty obvious they did not mean eliminate private ownership in the means of production immediately , as I do, no matter what they actually did mean.

But almost ludicrously you tell me that before renouncing these ideas they were not reformist. I have not renounced these ideas. Care to explain your stance now chum?

Yep I would oppose the mass slaughter you suggest. Quite apart from anything else it leaves behind it a society completely unable to function for all the reasons I gave, and many more.

[redstar2000]

Now tell me about these Social Democrats who intended to nationalise everything. Are you by any chance talking of a particular political party in a single country, which in some magical way I am supposed to guess at, and who for some reason you feel should be taken as the only true &#39;Social Democrats&#39;?

Well, the Social Democratic Party of Germany was considered the "crown jewel" of the 2nd International...although more for its sheer size than because it differed politically from the others.

Try this...

http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/his/f02/hi...urt_Program.htm (http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/his/f02/his238-01/Handouts/Erfurt_Program.htm)

Notice how "practical" it is?


It&#39;s pretty obvious they did not mean eliminate private ownership in the means of production immediately , as I do, no matter what they actually did mean.

No, squire, you very definitely do not mean "immediately". You&#39;re just trying to sound "radical". A "practical" guy like you would proceed in a very careful, well-planned way.

Don&#39;t pretend to "breath fire" for my sake...it&#39;s simply not in your nature to do so.


But almost ludicrously you tell me that before renouncing these ideas they were not reformist.

No, by the standards of pre-World War I Marxism, they were not reformist. They only became so after the war and that only in practice. (Curiously, they didn&#39;t get around to dumping their "Marxist dogma" until 1959&#33;)


I would say as a very rough estimate that the USA is probably 10-20% socialist.

Well, if you are now speaking of the tax on corporate profits, I frankly do not know. I know that the newspapers here every year usually report the "scandalous" fact that this or that major corporation had X amount of huge profits and paid zero tax. The share of federal revenues from corporate taxation has declined pretty steadily from sometime in the late 1950s, if I am not mistaken.

Not that the numbers matter, of course. It&#39;s simply a proposition too ludicrous to take seriously.

I actually have heard people argue that if 5 percent of the means of production is owned by the government, that "means" that the country is 5 percent "socialist".

Your proposition is even sillier than that&#33;


Nor am I enamoured of your George Bush approach where people are either &#39;100% with us or 100% against&#39;.

I think it unlikely that he learned his approach from me; I know I&#39;ve learned nothing from him.

But he has a point, you know. You really are either "for" the American Empire or "against" it.

You really are in favor of proletarian revolution or against it.

Your position is clear--against&#33;

Under such circumstances, that makes your views on nationalization essentially irrelevant...even if achievable, it would be Socialism, Inc.

Which makes you a bourgeois socialist, does it not?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 22 2003, 12:01 PM
Exsamples of Socailists:
http://clinton.senate.gov
http://kennedy.senate.gov
http://www.democrats.org
This proves not only how little you know about Communism and Socialism, but how little you know about politics here in the U&#036;.

Kennedy voted for the war on Iraq. He also endorsed the Patriot Act.

Clinton will be best remembered for gutting welfare, bombing Kosovo, endorsing the sanctions on Iraq.

[sc4r]

"No, squire, you very definitely do not mean "immediately". You&#39;re just trying to sound "radical". A "practical" guy like you would proceed in a very careful, well-planned way."

Even by your standards this is breathtaking in its arrogance. YES buddy I do mean immediately. Who the fuck are you to tell others that what I say I mean is not what I mean.

Are you really so mentally ill that you think you are better placed then me to interpret my thoughts.

****

It is difficult to know where to start with your confused nonsense about Social democracy and reformism and me.

1. Ideologies are not defined by looking at what any particular party taking the name of the ideology stands for. If they were we would have to dramatically alter what communism means and we would be in a bind because we would have to say it means mutually contradictory things. The same thinmg goes for socialism (which would have to mean both Fascism and anti-fascism); and almost every other ideology.

2. The particular party you refer to says it is in accord with the idea of common ownership of the means of production alright. But it very pointedly avoids mentioning anything remotely like this in its list of &#39;demands&#39;.

3. Now you say it was not reformist while it did demand common ownership (which you actually dont show it demanding anyway).

4. But you say it became reformist when it did not actually do anything like this.

5. BUt confusingly you say I am a reformist for clearly stating the very thing that allegedly made the GSDP not reformist when it supposedly stated it.

6. And apparently as support for this contracdictory position you offer up the fact that I am not a Social Democrat.

Which leaves you saying that I am a reformist because I believe in the things that some non reformists believed in and that these non reformists became reformists when they changed their minds so this means that I am one because I have never expressed any opinion about them either when they were not reformists or when they were.

As an example of contradiction and irrelevancy that would be hard to beat.

Calling you confused does not really do justice to the extent of your muddle headedness. You appear incapable of joining thoughts together coherently and like a parrot do nothing more than utter unconnected words which might in isolation sound like sense but actually mean nothing in total.

[redstar2000]

This is pretty basic stuff for lefties, squire...but I&#39;m willing to try and spell it out for you once more...even though I don&#39;t think it will help.

1. German Social Democracy before World War I clearly intended to nationalize everything as soon as practicable.

2. You agree with this; your "immediacy" runs contrary to everything you&#39;ve said on this board concerning practicality and incremental change.

3. German Social Democracy after World War I, when it was actually in power, abandoned the goal of nationalization in practice and concentrated on incremental reforms.

4. You say you "won&#39;t" do this--hence the parallel between you and classical social democracy.

5. Modern social democracy (after 1959) became openly pro-capitalist.

6. You have not done this...yet.

7. During World War I, the vast majority of German Social Democracy supported German imperialism.

8. You have said that you may or may not support imperialist war, depending on the circumstances.

9. The classical social democrats and you both agree that the road to power is through existing bourgeois parliamentary institutions.

10. Your belief in incremental change, "compromise", etc. inclines you towards a practical policy of reformism...regardless of your verbal commitment to the fully nationalized economy that you call socialism.

If you had the chance (a majority in parliament), all the signs point towards you acting in the same way the social democrats did.

You will heatedly deny this, of course...and with complete sincerity, no doubt.

The problem is that the German Social Democrats were also sincere. It didn&#39;t help.

Certain kinds of strategies lead, with considerable predictability, to certain kinds of outcomes. If you set up a "democratic centralist" party and manage to come to power, the outcome is going to be something "like" a Stalin.

And if you follow in the footsteps of German Social Democracy and "succeed" as they did, you&#39;ll eventually end up with a Gerhard Shroeder or someone very much like him.

As I noted earlier, this is not a result of ineptitude or perfidy...it is within the very logic of that kind of politics--ultimately bourgeois regardless of the rhetoric.


Are you really so mentally ill that you think you are better placed then me to interpret my thoughts?

Overcoming the temptation to offer a flippant response, I would say that it&#39;s not a matter of "reading your mind" but rather reading your posts and where they "fit" in the history of the "left".

Anyone reasonably informed about the history of social democracy and the parliamentary road "to" "socialism" would have no difficulty making the same evaluation that I have.

I suspect that you think your ideas are yours...and to suggest that many people had those ideas a century ago seems to you to be somehow "insulting"...that would certainly explain a good deal of your belligerence.

It&#39;s true, of course, that your "free market" version of social democracy is, thus far, unique to you (as far as I know). I&#39;m pretty sure the classical social democrats would have rejected the idea instantly (though Lenin&#39;s New Economic Policy had much in common with your approach).

But I don&#39;t think that&#39;s a major stumbling block to your future membership in some Green Party (for example)--they are in many ways the modern counterpart to classical social democracy. Also, I think you would be acceptable in some of the "looser" and more "congenial" Leninist parties (but definitely not Trotskyist).

You appear to me to be obsessed with the notion that I bear you personal animosity and that my characterizations of your positions are "designed" to "make you look bad".

No, squire, it is history and experience of which I speak...as clearly as I can.

Your repeated personal attacks on me make about as much impression as a barking dog on a passenger jet.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

God you are a twat.

1. Social Democracy is not defined by the beliefs that the German Social Democratic party held and the action they took any more than communism is defined by what the russian Communist party did. Its just a name for a political party; its not the ideological definition.

2. Since I have never expressed so much as a whisper of support for either Social Democracy or the German Social democratic party it is totally irrelevant anyway.

3. You have shown not one shred of evidence that the German Social Democratic party ever suggested that upon election they would immediately (or for that matter ever) eliminate private ownership in the means of production. Wheras as I very very clearly and on multiple occasions have said that this exactly what I would propose.

4. The stance of the German Social democratic party has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on anything, This includes its support for specific wars.

5. I have not said that I might support &#39;imperialist war&#39; - I have said that the term is dogmatic bullshit and that I might support any action depending upon the specific pro&#39;s and cons. In other words that I would determine my stance according to real circumstances not according to dogma.

6. TO REPEAT WHAT I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT - You expressly say that when the German SDP were (according to you) in accord with what I support they should not be considered reformist. Yet you say that because of this I am one. This, as an example of a completely irrational statement, would be almost impossible to better.

All you are saying in substance is that a movement (the german SDP) once seemed to support the same ideas I do, and did not win the battle to implement them. I dont know whether they ever actually did have these goals anyway (I&#39;d say from I&#39;ve seen they probably did not), but assuming for the moment that they did - then what you have shown is that battles can be lost. To claim that you have a better track record because your ideas have never so much as been on the training ground let alone the battlefield is absolute mindless idiocy.

I dont know if you are really so simplistic as not to see that on the path to fundamental social change there is no course of action that can be guaranteed to succeed, and that since we are in conflict with both powerful interests and a well established status quo there are bound to be efforts that fail.

Are you really saying that a political party that promised that if elected they would IMMEDIATELY revoke private ownership in the means of production, and institute direct democracy, would not get your support merely because they had not got AK47&#39;s in their hands when they said it? If so its bloody hard to see how you can call yourself a committed Socialist of any description because you would be opposing the very people that support getting what you want.

It is idiotic UNLESS what you actually want is for nothing to change so that you can continue to whine (or of course that what you actually want is mayhem and destruction for its own sake).

It seems you would rather believe in the inevitability of getting a desired result by waiting till it happens. Thats the most passive and anti revolutionary spirit imaginable. It is gutless; and just as importantly it wont work.

Whinging and whining as you do will achieve nothing. It never does.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is more &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39;: waiting for it to happen or actively going against it?

[sc4r]

Obviously the answer is actively going against it. So ?

If you are trying to make some pedantic point about my comment on RS having an extreme &#39;anti revolutionary spirit&#39; you have failed to say anything very interesting, and I could probably just about defend the idea that total passivity is the extreme expression of anti revolutionary spirit (as opposed to being anti any particular revolution).

I&#39;m not going to because it really would not be worth trying to win such a narrow and disputable victory over such a trivial point. If you want to say that RS has a &#39;very non revolutionary spirit&#39; instead that would be fine by me.

I&#39;m going to tell you something. I&#39;ve actually been involved (on the periphery not as a fighter or activist) with revolution and revolutionaries. They dont talk about waiting for it. What makes them revolutionaries is that they actually go and do it. NOW. They dont talk about &#39;waiting a few hundred years&#39;; they say &#39;we have tried other methods and failed, the people are with us, we will ACT&#39;. You dont &#39;plan for&#39; a revolution before you have support. A revolution occurs when you have the support but not the power or means to do anything else except revolt with it.

&#39;We are waiting for the conditions to be right for revolution&#39; is almost a joke so pointless is it as a stance. Committed people dont wait for things to &#39;be right&#39; they go out and make them so.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you&#39;d cross the Atlantic in a dinghy during a hurricane even when you can wait it out?
nah, you&#39;d rather avoid the ocean of revolution altogether and take the plane of parliementry cretinism.

[sc4r]

Yes I rather thought that was it; but I thought I&#39;d give you the chance to say it.

So you are a revolutionary are you ? Done much? NO? thought not.

But I of course, acording to you, am sort of despicable sub type of socialist because, according to you, I&#39;m less committed.

OK so lets sort it out.

Have you ever seen me say I reject the idea of forcing the establishment in any country to accept socialism? in other words have you seen me reject the idea of revolution as a method where it is needed and where it might work?

You obviously have not read the posts where I say that I would in fact both support and expect revolutionary activity to work in the undeveloped world.

And also those where I say that should an establishment seek to prevent socially mandated change in the first world I would encourage and support an active revolution to achieve the madate.

In fact the only types of revolutionary activity I decry are :

Those which involve sitting and doing nothing;
Those which involve nothing but untargetted mass killings;
Those whcih have no real objectives (this really is not revolution just rioting)
Those which wont win.

So you are left, like redstar, denouncing me because I actually would like to do something which is intended (and I would expect) both to bring the date at which socialism is possible in the first world forward; which in fact would act as a trigger and a focus for revolution in the first world if it did achieve support, but was prevented from being implemented; which would serve to increase the chances of long term success in the third world.

Or because I will not turn myself in to a gibbering slogan chanter and so turn off the very people I am trying to &#39;convert and win over&#39;.

Or , just maybe, you did not actually know the above and have simply accepted Redstars defamations as fact. They are not; Redstar is a master deciever, a pied piper, and not to be relied upon for a true account of almost anything or anybody.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:34 AM
God you are a twat.

...blah, blah, blah...

Whinging and whining as you do will achieve nothing. It never does.
More incoherent ranting.

A reply seems unnecessary.


Redstar is a master deceiver, a pied piper, and not to be relied upon for a true account of almost anything or anybody.

See above.


I&#39;m going to tell you something. I&#39;ve actually been involved (on the periphery not as a fighter or activist) with revolution and revolutionaries. They don&#39;t talk about waiting for it. What makes them revolutionaries is that they actually go and do it. NOW. They don&#39;t talk about &#39;waiting a few hundred years&#39;; they say &#39;we have tried other methods and failed, the people are with us, we will ACT&#39;. You don&#39;t &#39;plan for&#39; a revolution before you have support. A revolution occurs when you have the support but not the power or means to do anything else except revolt with it.

Incoherent, of course, but there is at least a quasi-rational thought there.

The key element is "the people are with us". What does that actually mean in a revolutionary context?

Leninists--at least officially--think it means "the people will follow us". A small group of "leaders" issue the "call" and the people "respond".

It&#39;s a common misconception that one can "plan for" a revolution at all...with or without the people. One can plan a coup d&#39;etat. One can plan a strike or even a limited insurrection. One can always plan one&#39;s own actions...in the event X takes place, we will do Y.

"Planning" a real revolution makes as much sense as planning an earthquake or a hurricane. It cannot be done.

You can participate in a revolution; you can advocate that this be done and that be avoided. You can offer a "vision" of what revolutionary success would actually mean...and require.

I suspect that what a good many "revolutionaries" actually mean by "planning for revolution now" is simply developing the framework of a "new order" for after the earthquake is over. The last thing they want to see is the continuing direct involvement of millions of ordinary people in the process.

Which is precisely the first thing that I want to see.

Something that to you is "utopian", "impractical", "will never work", etc., etc., etc.


Committed people don&#39;t wait for things to &#39;be right&#39; they go out and make them so.

Yes, all will be well if we&#39;ll only just "work harder" and "stop whinging".

Bourgeois rubbish.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:01 PM
The key element is "the people are with us". What does that actually mean in a revolutionary context?

........

I suspect that what a good many "revolutionaries" actually mean by "planning for revolution now" is simply developing the framework of a "new order" for after the earthquake is over. The last thing they want to see is the continuing direct involvement of millions of ordinary people in the process.

Which is precisely the first thing that I want to see.

Something that to you is "utopian", "impractical", "will never work", etc., etc., etc.


Its fairly obvious what it means - that you have enough firm supporters that you might actually win. How would one know this? well in the absence of something like an election or an orgainsing party (both of which you say you will not accept) you have to simply judge the mood. And if you get it very wrong you lose and probably die.

Which is yet another reason why your spontaneous revolution without organisation wont happen (not that you seem very sure about what it even means anyway beyond a period of rioting and vandalism). How many people do you think are going to put their lives at extreme risk without some way of knowing that they are not alone?

There will always need to be a vanguard committed enough to take the initiative. Without it nothing will ever happen because no-one will want to be the first to stick their head above the parapet (even assuming that in some unexplained way they have all developed a feeling of comradely togetherness and common purpose without ever having had the chance to practice it or communicate about it).

I have no way of knowing for sure what others want. You of course claim to know the minds of others better than they do; but I dont claim anything quite so grandiose. I claim that I do know my mind better than you do; and that therefore when I say that I wish to see the continuing direct involvement of millions of people this is in fact what I do want. I&#39;d have thought it obvious that I will hardly then be calling it impractical or utopian.

But of course this is not what I criticuse in your views. What I criticise is the way you assume that all these millions of people can be involved without them having any form of structure to work with and within. Not a structure imposed on them by others, but a structure they themselves agree to. Will just any structure do? no it wont , it has to be one which will allow efficient economic activity and allow effective communication and implementation of social decisions. I suggest what I see as a structure and accept that any structure means that not everything will be perfect according to everybodies idea of perfection; you dont suggest anything, you just demand that it will somehow work, and also that it mirrors your view of what is perfect. Thats the key difference.

Will some people refuse to accept such a structure? Yes, of course, but quite simply they&#39;d have to be made to. A society functions only if its members are committed to it.

You assume not merely that the millions will be involved, but that they will not delegate any organising functions, or make use of any organising systems (like a market). In short you do not suggest a practical way for them all to be involved without simply becoming a messy disorganised and hideously inefficient mass of squabbling individuals.

This same criticism applies really both to your view of how a revolution might look and what society after it might look like.

You wish to hope that things turn out exactly as you want them just because they do. I&#39;d say you will get better odds on winning the state lottery than you will of that happening.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes I rather thought that was it; but I thought I&#39;d give you the chance to say it.

So you are a revolutionary are you ? Done much? NO? thought not.

Just because I&#39;m not in some south american jungle waving an AK-47 doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m not a revolutionary, a revolutionary is one not just in his actions but in how he thinks and looks at things.
Simply by thinking &#39;communist&#39; and discussing post-capitalist society, I am doing exactly what the authorities do not want me to do, thought crime.
Until the material conditions arise for revolution in first world countries, talk is the most powerful weapon communists wield.


You obviously have not read the posts where I say that I would in fact both support and expect revolutionary activity to work in the undeveloped world.


Undeveloped world, of course meaning &#39;not advanced capitalist countries&#39; it is of course not unreasonable for you to support revolution in countries where it would fail or lead to tinpot dictatorships, kinda like a mini-russia or mini-North Korea


Or because I will not turn myself in to a gibbering slogan chanter and so turn off the very people I am trying to &#39;convert and win over&#39;.

Since when have me or Redstar been &#39;gibbering slogan chanters?&#39; how is it wrong to sum up complex idea into an sentence understandable for those not fully familiar with leftist terminology?


Or , just maybe, you did not actually know the above and have simply accepted Redstars defamations as fact. They are not; Redstar is a master deciever, a pied piper, and not to be relied upon for a true account of almost anything or anybody.

In short, you hate Redstar&#39;s guts.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:53 PM

Yes I rather thought that was it; but I thought I&#39;d give you the chance to say it.

So you are a revolutionary are you ? Done much? NO? thought not.

Just because I&#39;m not in some south american jungle waving an AK-47 doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m not a revolutionary, a revolutionary is one not just in his actions but in how he thinks and looks at things.
Simply by thinking &#39;communist&#39; and discussing post-capitalist society, I am doing exactly what the authorities do not want me to do, thought crime.
Until the material conditions arise for revolution in first world countries, talk is the most powerful weapon communists wield.


You obviously have not read the posts where I say that I would in fact both support and expect revolutionary activity to work in the undeveloped world.


Undeveloped world, of course meaning &#39;not advanced capitalist countries&#39; it is of course not unreasonable for you to support revolution in countries where it would fail or lead to tinpot dictatorships, kinda like a mini-russia or mini-North Korea


Or because I will not turn myself in to a gibbering slogan chanter and so turn off the very people I am trying to &#39;convert and win over&#39;.

Since when have me or Redstar been &#39;gibbering slogan chanters?&#39; how is it wrong to sum up complex idea into an sentence understandable for those not fully familiar with leftist terminology?


Or , just maybe, you did not actually know the above and have simply accepted Redstars defamations as fact. They are not; Redstar is a master deciever, a pied piper, and not to be relied upon for a true account of almost anything or anybody.

In short, you hate Redstar&#39;s guts.
I dont hate Redstars guts. I do despise him because he enourages the sort of passive mindlessness that can lead someone whose sole controibution is to &#39;talk about it&#39; and yet still proclaim that he is a revolutionary.

By that measure I&#39;m one too chum. Has that escaped your incisive faculties.

I dont appreciate the little habit you have picked up from Redstar of citing one part of what I say and ignoring the other part which so obviously negates whatever BS he (or you) is currently accusing me of. Did you somehow miss the part where I said that I&#39;d support a needed and potentially sucessful revolution in the first world too. Nor do I particularly like the pure invention that leads you to talk of me supporting &#39;tinpot dictators&#39; or capitalism.

By all means sum up complex ideas. The trouble is sonny that you&#39;ll be asked more than ocasionally to explain the idea itself. And it does not go down a treat with people if you then can do nothing but cite yet more slogans. Especially if the slogans appear to be contradictory or inappropriate.

Redstar invited this trouble with me. I like others before me have swallowed my ire and offered to take it outside. He declined. Now he has got me in his face and I&#39;m going to be staying there pointing out the dogmatic lunacy that he spouts every time he reaches for a keyboard.

In short son you have not really got a fucking clue what you are talking about or to who you are talking, but you&#39;ll say it anyway. My revolutionaries would laff their sox off at your claim to be a kindred spirit.

[redstar2000]

Which is yet another reason why your spontaneous revolution without organisation wont happen.

Without organization?

I&#39;m quite sure there will be many small organizations (and perhaps some larger ones) that will agitate for and participate in the proletarian revolution. Where did I ever suggest otherwise?

What they won&#39;t do is lead it.

I&#39;m also quite sure that in the years immediately preceding proletarian revolution that the working class will create its own mass organizations of class struggle (perhaps at the suggestion of some of the small groups) and that those organs will become more and more openly revolutionary as "the day" approaches.

The pot will bubble and boil before it explodes...I should think that would be obvious.

That you choose to indirectly portray the actual experiences of February 1917 Petrograd, 1936 Barcelona, and the French General Strike of May 1968 as "miraculous" events that "will never happen again" simply reveals your own hope that they will never happen again.


There will always need to be a vanguard committed enough to take the initiative.

There will be many "vanguards" who will take many "initiatives".

What there will not be--if I have anything to say about it--is a VANGUARD who will run the show&#33;

Not even a "practical" one.


...therefore when I say that I wish to see the continuing direct involvement of millions of people this is in fact what I do want.

And I don&#39;t believe you. Not because I think you&#39;re a conscious "liar", but because I think you have deceived yourself...or perhaps are simply confused.

The totality of your views as expressed on this board has been characterized by faith in "expert leadership", by the belief that problems of production and distribution are "too complicated" for people to work out (thus retaining the market, money, and wage-slavery is the "only" option), and by the belief that the liberty of the people consists mainly of voting for someone to "represent" them, etc.

Of course, you are not 100% consistent...sometimes you&#39;re in "favor" of direct democracy, sometimes you sound almost Leninist, etc. But I think your "heart" is with a "better version" of what we have now.

Class Society 4.0?


In short you do not suggest a practical way for them all to be involved without simply becoming a messy disorganised and hideously inefficient mass of squabbling individuals.

Well, I have suggested "practical" things that might be done; from the viewpoint of your "market dogmatism", they are all "impractical".

Safe prediction: you will always see any effort to transcend the market as "impractical".


I don&#39;t hate Redstar&#39;s guts. I do despise him because he encourages the sort of passive mindlessness that can lead someone whose sole contribution is to &#39;talk about it&#39; and yet still proclaim that he is a revolutionary.

"Talk" is what people do on a message board. That&#39;s all anyone does.

Even you, squire.


Redstar invited this trouble with me. I like others before me have swallowed my ire and offered to take it outside. He declined. Now he has got me in his face and I&#39;m going to be staying there pointing out the dogmatic lunacy that he spouts every time he reaches for a keyboard.

Something to look forward to.


My revolutionaries would laff their sox off at your claim to be a kindred spirit.

"Your" revolutionaries?

Did you go out into that "free market place" and purchase yourself some?

You did, didn&#39;t you? That is, they let you hang out with them now and then because you gave them money.

That is soooooooo pathetic.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

OMFG A total volte face.

Since you are now perfectly happy to have organisation of the revolution could you try and explain why this should not come in the form of &#39;unions&#39; or &#39;political parties&#39;. In fact you are going to have great difficulty doing anything except inventing a different name for the same things.

Not for the first time it becomes obvious that what you have a problem with is words not substance.

But regretably you have also reversed your position on leadership. Its not that long ago you were telling me that while you would not acept organisation you would expect leaders to emerge. Now you dont want this, except of course that you do see vanguards who will take initiative (which is what leadership normally means)..

God you do manage to confuse yourself in your endeavours to oppose everything dont you.

I have never proposed to portray the events you talk of in any way at all. Are you ever going to learn that you cannot simply make up what you like about what other people say?

****

you are starting to make me puke. I spend fully half my time on this board doing nothing but correcting the lies you tell about what I stand for. Your fucking &#39;feeling&#39; about what I stand for counts for absolutely zip if its in direct contradiction of what I actually say. I&#39;m not seeking to win some sort of election here chum; What I say represents exactly what I am as far this message board is concerned.

I do not stand for wage slavery and I do not stand for Representative democracy, Ive corrected you on both numerous times so you cannot be under any illususion about these things.

*****

You have never suggested any way to run an economy so that what gets produced is what people want. You reject both the market and a command economy. YOu have been asked to explain how your communes will know how much of what to produce and who to give it to numerous times directly, and I&#39;m asking you agin now. But you wont answer except by saying &#39;They will produce for need&#39;, and one occasion a very vague black box type description of a centralised computer system. Thats not an explanation or an answer to the question. In the case of the &#39;computer system&#39; it very obviously goes in direct contradiction of your stated opposition to central control anyway.

You have a strong tendency to answer very vaguely when asked to answer specifically and then later claim that &#39;you have already answered&#39; when the subject is no longer focused on that particular issue. This is called evasion. Its one of the many deceiptful things you do best.

*****

Since you have not the slightest idea who the revolutionaries I&#39;m talking of are or what my involvement was, you have little business inventing your own version. It also does not have much relevance to anything said here; since the point is that they sneer at the idea that a person &#39;talking about stuff&#39; was like them a revolutionary. I did not claim to be one, I in fact expressly said I was not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont hate Redstars guts. I do despise him because he enourages the sort of passive mindlessness that can lead someone whose sole controibution is to &#39;talk about it&#39; and yet still proclaim that he is a revolutionary.

By that measure I&#39;m one too chum. Has that escaped your incisive faculties.

You seem to imply that you do more than talk:


So you are a revolutionary are you ? Done much? NO? thought not.
-----

dont appreciate the little habit you have picked up from Redstar of citing one part of what I say and ignoring the other part which so obviously negates whatever BS he (or you) is currently accusing me of. Did you somehow miss the part where I said that I&#39;d support a needed and potentially sucessful revolution in the first world too. Nor do I particularly like the pure invention that leads you to talk of me supporting &#39;tinpot dictators&#39; or capitalism.

Firstly I don&#39;t quote you whole because I don&#39;t need to: It either has no bearing on my point or it fails to negate it, which leads to my second point: I didn&#39;t say you would not &#39;support&#39; a revolution, whatever that means in the context of world revolution. I just said you would prefer to avoid it in favour of bourgeois electoral ceremonies.
I never said you actually supported capitalism or dictatorships; I merely noted that you would support doomed revolutions in order to prove that establishing &#39;socialism&#39; through elections is the best way, as revolution tends to lead to all sorts of nasty business.


By all means sum up complex ideas. The trouble is sonny that you&#39;ll be asked more than ocasionally to explain the idea itself. And it does not go down a treat with people if you then can do nothing but cite yet more slogans. Especially if the slogans appear to be contradictory or inappropriate.

If someone&#39;s interest is piqued by a slogan, and they want to know more about it, by all means they&#39;ll find out about it, if they&#39;re truly interested. If someones asks what I mean by &#39;dethrone God&#39; then I&#39;ll tell them in full. I see no harm in slogans leading to more slogans, but only if the previous slogans have been fully explained.


Redstar invited this trouble with me. I like others before me have swallowed my ire and offered to take it outside. He declined. Now he has got me in his face and I&#39;m going to be staying there pointing out the dogmatic lunacy that he spouts every time he reaches for a keyboard.

By &#39;take it outside&#39; you mean &#39;hide from public view&#39;. no. If you really believed your own arguments, you would feel no need at all to hide them. Redstar obviously saw through your plan.
Also replace &#39;dogmatic lunacy&#39; with &#39;consistency&#39; and you&#39;re half-way already.


In short son you have not really got a fucking clue what you are talking about or to who you are talking, but you&#39;ll say it anyway.

Ah, you can see into my mind and take a look at just how much I understand Marxist theory?
Tosh. And I&#39;m obviously talking to someone who can&#39;t read minds.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 12:50 PM

I dont hate Redstars guts. I do despise him because he enourages the sort of passive mindlessness that can lead someone whose sole controibution is to &#39;talk about it&#39; and yet still proclaim that he is a revolutionary.

By that measure I&#39;m one too chum. Has that escaped your incisive faculties.

You seem to imply that you do more than talk:


So you are a revolutionary are you ? Done much? NO? thought not.
-----

dont appreciate the little habit you have picked up from Redstar of citing one part of what I say and ignoring the other part which so obviously negates whatever BS he (or you) is currently accusing me of. Did you somehow miss the part where I said that I&#39;d support a needed and potentially sucessful revolution in the first world too. Nor do I particularly like the pure invention that leads you to talk of me supporting &#39;tinpot dictators&#39; or capitalism.

Firstly I don&#39;t quote you whole because I don&#39;t need to: It either has no bearing on my point or it fails to negate it, which leads to my second point: I didn&#39;t say you would not &#39;support&#39; a revolution, whatever that means in the context of world revolution. I just said you would prefer to avoid it in favour of bourgeois electoral ceremonies.
I never said you actually supported capitalism or dictatorships; I merely noted that you would support doomed revolutions in order to prove that establishing &#39;socialism&#39; through elections is the best way, as revolution tends to lead to all sorts of nasty business.


By all means sum up complex ideas. The trouble is sonny that you&#39;ll be asked more than ocasionally to explain the idea itself. And it does not go down a treat with people if you then can do nothing but cite yet more slogans. Especially if the slogans appear to be contradictory or inappropriate.

If someone&#39;s interest is piqued by a slogan, and they want to know more about it, by all means they&#39;ll find out about it, if they&#39;re truly interested. If someones asks what I mean by &#39;dethrone God&#39; then I&#39;ll tell them in full. I see no harm in slogans leading to more slogans, but only if the previous slogans have been fully explained.


Redstar invited this trouble with me. I like others before me have swallowed my ire and offered to take it outside. He declined. Now he has got me in his face and I&#39;m going to be staying there pointing out the dogmatic lunacy that he spouts every time he reaches for a keyboard.

By &#39;take it outside&#39; you mean &#39;hide from public view&#39;. no. If you really believed your own arguments, you would feel no need at all to hide them. Redstar obviously saw through your plan.
Also replace &#39;dogmatic lunacy&#39; with &#39;consistency&#39; and you&#39;re half-way already.


In short son you have not really got a fucking clue what you are talking about or to who you are talking, but you&#39;ll say it anyway.

Ah, you can see into my mind and take a look at just how much I understand Marxist theory?
Tosh. And I&#39;m obviously talking to someone who can&#39;t read minds.
No chummy missing of a sentence wher I say that I would support a revolution in a first world country when you are saying that I would not is not a bit of irrelevance by a bloody country mile.

Nor is saying that the reason I would support revolution in a third world country in order to prove the efficacy of a democratic path in a first world one even remotely supported by anything I&#39;ve ever said. And in fact it is not true.

Thats just two examples of distortion which go far beyond mere misunderstanding and go deep into outright falsehood. At the very very most generous interpretation they can only be said to be grossly negligent misrepresentation. But in RS&#39;s case they look like outright lying in order to make himself look good, since he has been corrected on this sort of matter dozens of times.

You did not directly say that I supported tinpot dictatorships or Capitalism; but I doubt anyone could fail to spot the implication that I did. It was not exactly subtle.

I will stick with dogmatic lunacy when talikng about RS in particular and Anarchist in general. Since I see no hint of any consistency except that he will always claim to be in favour of each and every slogan. He has recently refused to answer a direct question on &#39;the dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; for example because it became clear that he could not do so without making it totally obvious either that he did repudiate a slogan or that he was being inconsistent (what he eventually did was redefine the phrase to his own liking- he seems to think that you can do this; redefine the meaning of words).

Since you dont seem to have any greater grasp of anything beyond your dogmatic acceptance of slogans and have already shown yoiurself incabable of bothering to find out what it is you are attacking or whether it should be attacked I think I&#39;ll stick with my assessment that you are fucking clueless. I dont need to be a mind reader for that; just a decent judge of peoples words; which I am.

There was no plan. I dont mind a bit of conflict. Its not me thats objecting to it, its RS. It was suggested, by others that in the interest of board harmony I should offer up an olive branch. I did so; it was rejected.

Thats fine by me. I quite like exposing RS for the charlatan he is whenever possible. Not everyone will agree with me. There are after all plenty of children on this board only too happy to accept RS&#39;s slogan chanting as their preference. I dont really give a monkeys about them anyway. They&#39;ll be off to buy into capitalism as soon as they grow up, or find a more attractive set of slogans to show up their &#39;individuality&#39; anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No chummy missing of a sentence wher I say that I would support a revolution in a first world country when you are saying that I would not is not a bit of irrelevance by a bloody country mile.

Read, then read again: &#39;I didn&#39;t say you would not &#39;support&#39; a revolution, whatever that means in the context of world revolution&#39;


Nor is saying that the reason I would support revolution in a third world country in order to prove the efficacy of a democratic path in a first world one even remotely supported by anything I&#39;ve ever said. And in fact it is not true.

Despite the fact that revolutions occur in advanced capitalist countries, when the material conditions are right. So therefore a revolution in a developing country will fail.


Thats just two examples of distortion which go far beyond mere misunderstanding and go deep into outright falsehood. At the very very most generous interpretation they can only be said to be grossly negligent misrepresentation. But in RS&#39;s case they look like outright lying in order to make himself look good, since he has been corrected on this sort of matter dozens of times.

The &#39;two examples of distortion&#39; have been made clear, see above.
I won&#39;t comment on your opinion of Redstar&#39;s methodology: I&#39;ll let him defend himself.


You did not directly say that I supported tinpot dictatorships or Capitalism; but I doubt anyone could fail to spot the implication that I did. It was not exactly subtle.

It was not meant to be.


I will stick with dogmatic lunacy when talikng about RS in particular and Anarchist in general. Since I see no hint of any consistency except that he will always claim to be in favour of each and every slogan. He has recently refused to answer a direct question on &#39;the dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; for example because it became clear that he could not do so without making it totally obvious either that he did repudiate a slogan or that he was being inconsistent (what he eventually did was redefine the phrase to his own liking- he seems to think that you can do this; redefine the meaning of words).

You can redefine phrases, like Redstar did, but not words, which Redstar didn&#39;t.
And of course its dogmatic lunacy to propose elimination of wage-slavery&#33;
It&#39;s in fact ridiculously Utopian&#33; Silly communists&#33; no pay raise for you&#33;


Since you dont seem to have any greater grasp of anything beyond your dogmatic acceptance of slogans and have already shown yoiurself incabable of bothering to find out what it is you are attacking or whether it should be attacked I think I&#39;ll stick with my assessment that you are fucking clueless. I dont need to be a mind reader for that; just a decent judge of peoples words; which I am.

Maybe you&#39;re right, maybe I should stop accepting slogans, and while I&#39;m at it stop accepting chemical formulae and mathematical equations&#33; that&#39;ll put a stop to this darn dogmatism&#33;
Or if trying to change my &#39;dogmatic&#39; ways doesn&#39;t work, why not try ridicule?
calling me a &#39;clueless n00b&#39; is a surefire way of stopping me from spreading utopian ideals...


There was no plan. I dont mind a bit of conflict. Its not me thats objecting to it, its RS. It was suggested, by others that in the interest of board harmony I should offer up an olive branch. I did so; it was rejected.

Maybe Redstar felt that the arguement was unfinished, but I&#39;ll give you the fact there was no &#39;plan&#39;. All I can add is that this peace-making move didn&#39;t work.


Thats fine by me. I quite like exposing RS for the charlatan he is whenever possible. Not everyone will agree with me. There are after all plenty of children on this board only too happy to accept RS&#39;s slogan chanting as their preference. I dont really give a monkeys about them anyway. They&#39;ll be off to buy into capitalism as soon as they grow up, or find a more attractive set of slogans to show up their &#39;individuality&#39; anyway.

Yes, this board is just full of &#39;clueless n00bi3s&#39; and &#39;children&#39;.
Unfortunately for you, these &#39;children&#39; realise that markets and government are designed to fuck you over,
while, &#39;mature, sensible and practical&#39; you are high above them in terms of political acuteness. please.

[sc4r]

Look you annoying fucker.

How often are you going to accuse me of something without a shred of evidence to back it up and plead innocence?

YOu have just as good as admitted that you were in fact saying I was pro tinpot dictators and capitalism in the same fucking post that you deny doing so.

Then you go on to quite directly say I&#39;m in favour of &#39;wage slavery&#39;. Needless to say I&#39;m not.

AS for your ridiculous pedantry about redfining &#39;phrases&#39; not &#39;words&#39;; that has to rank up there with the most pathetic get out clauses I&#39;ve ever seen. Surprise, surfucking prise when I said &#39;redefine words&#39; I did not say &#39;redefine individual words&#39; because I meant &#39;fuck with communication&#39;. Neither words not phrases which have a conventional meaning are redinable by anyone at whim. A word, or some words, or a phrase means what people have accepted it means. It allows them to communicate when some wanker like you or redstar decides they can change them all they are doing is hiding something; being deceiptful; being dishonest; because they hope that somebody will not spot that the supposed agreement they have reached has not been.

Strangely enough I&#39;d urge you to accept mathematical theorems as proven fact. Maybe you could have a word with RS though, because he quite happily says he will not accept them if thinks that accepting them might make him look wrong.

The idea of putting Dogma (which means slogans which are not backed up by consistent reasoning consistent with the observed world) and maths on the same footing is patently ridiculous. Anyone who knows Math can check a maths theorem and get the same answer. Almost no-one who knows people or economics can check Anarchist BS and get any answer at all. Thats the difference.

You think I&#39;m a peacemeaker with a peacemaking plan &#33;&#33;&#33; think again prat. Do I sound like I am ? Does any of this sound like I&#39;m remotely inclined to &#39;make peace&#39;? does it in fact sound more like I&#39;d be quite happy to take it outside in a more conventional sense?

It pisses me off that Redstar and the likes of you turn this board into a slanging match with your persistent failure to address ideas or explain your own, but instead would rather tell the pwrld that such and such is a bad idea because AK47 is an imperialist, or RAF is a Stalinist, or Scar is a reformist, or whetever other bullshit accusation you want to make.

[redstar2000]

Since you are now perfectly happy to have organisation of the revolution could you try and explain why this should not come in the form of &#39;unions&#39; or &#39;political parties&#39;. In fact you are going to have great difficulty doing anything except inventing a different name for the same things.

Not for the first time it becomes obvious that what you have a problem with is words not substance.

But regrettably you have also reversed your position on leadership. It&#39;s not that long ago you were telling me that while you would not accept organisation you would expect leaders to emerge. Now you don&#39;t want this, except of course that you do see vanguards who will take initiative (which is what leadership normally means)..

No, I have "reversed" nothing. See this...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...T&f=6&t=5961&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=5961&s=)

Note that it was posted on November 22, 2002.

Normally, I would expect you to claim that you can&#39;t be bothered to look up "all my old rubbish".

Only this time, that&#39;s not a very good excuse...the link was also posted on a currently active thread in which you have also posted, in direct response to a question about my views on revolutionary organization.

My conception of leadership specifically repudiates the "power to command"...yours does not.

And that&#39;s a real difference&#33;


God you do manage to confuse yourself in your endeavours to oppose everything don&#39;t you.

It&#39;s all part of my world-wide conspiracy to reveal you as a gormless twit, squire.


Are you ever going to learn that you cannot simply make up what you like about what other people say?

Are you ever going to learn that what you "say" has logical implications?


You are starting to make me puke. I spend fully half my time on this board doing nothing but correcting the lies you tell about what I stand for.

Who knows what you stand for? It&#39;s a funny thing. You are always accusing me of telling people "what they want to hear"...and yet whenever I attempt to draw a logical inference from something you say, you squeal like a stuck pig--"I didn&#39;t say that; I&#39;m not for that&#33;"

Like you, I also have constraints on my time and energy. I can&#39;t spend forever trying to figure out "what you mean this time".

I think the "bottom line" is that you are a "bourgeois socialist", that your version of socialism (were it attainable) would be Socialism, Inc. (class society 4.0), and that there is a reasonably high probability that you will support an imperialist war in the future, perhaps the near future.

If there is a proletarian revolution in your lifetime, you will be opposed to it.


You have never suggested any way to run an economy so that what gets produced is what people want.

Your free market doesn&#39;t do that, by the way. At this writing, there are hundreds of vacant apartments in my city at rents too high for people to afford and there are thousands of homeless people who "want" an affordable place to live...which your market does not provide.

I did indeed on one occasion suggest that a central data base--keeping track of everything that was produced and consumed--would be useful in classless society. It would greatly assist producers in determining collectively what was most needed and consumers in determining what was available or likely to become available soon.

It would not be a center of control but rather a source of informed suggestions.

People could still say no.

It really gets to you when people say no, doesn&#39;t it?

It&#39;s so...negative.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Piper the fact that you can show you have in the past said much the same thing as you are doing now proves absolutely nothing. I&#39;m not accusing you of doing one U turn; I&#39;m accusing you of doing endless numbers of them. I&#39;m saying that you have not the faintest clue how any of your ideas would work and will chase blindly down any alley which seems to get you away from whatever dead end you have currently been cornered in.

In other words neither what you said then nor what you say now is consistent with what you have said at multiple times in the middle.

I&#39;m fully aware that you will claim to support anything and everything if it avoids you having to disappoint one of your band of children or admit directly that you dont have a clue.

When did I EVER EVER say that my concept of leadership includes &#39;the power to command&#39;? I dont, and I never have, in fact I&#39;ve explictly explained at length both that I dont, and how this is avoided. In fact I&#39;ve said (and explained) that even the term &#39;leader&#39; is quite inappropriate for anyone involved in the central adminstration which I see as being needed in the sort of society I&#39;d like to see.

I think that the bottom line is that you dont like having your right to talk BS challenged and will accuse anyone who does so of anything. You seem incapable of getting it into your head that while your children are mostly concerned with whether someone uses the approved jargon, anyone genuine will be concerned with substance. Something you almost never talk about except in the most vapid, vague, and evasive way.

If you ever find me saying &#39;I did not say that&#39; when I did you&#39;ll have cause for complaint. What you actually do is to take something I have said, put your own spin on it (frequently ignoring something else that means it cant possibly have that interpretation) and then proclaim that I said it, or meant it.

Unless you are calling me an outright liar, you can be absolutely sure that if I say &#39;NO that is not what I mean&#39; then it fucking well isn&#39;t. If I chose to lie I for sure would not go about it by confronting the issues in quite the direct way I have chosen to. I could quite happily do as you do and tell everyone that I was for this and that and the other while simply continuing with a quite different agenda.

It is no accident that at least half the more genuinely committed and educated members of this board have seen right through you and that you resort to name calling with them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look you annoying fucker.

Don&#39;t resort to name calling. If you believe your better than me in an arguement, there is no need for profanity. I used profanity only once, and it wasn&#39;t directed at anyone.


How often are you going to accuse me of something without a shred of evidence to back it up and plead innocence?

It&#39;s you who&#39;s supposed to be pleading innocence.


Then you go on to quite directly say I&#39;m in favour of &#39;wage slavery&#39;. Needless to say I&#39;m not.

As long as there is a market there is wage-slavery as in a market you need to pay your workers.


AS for your ridiculous pedantry about redfining &#39;phrases&#39; not &#39;words&#39;; that has to rank up there with the most pathetic get out clauses I&#39;ve ever seen. Surprise, surfucking prise when I said &#39;redefine words&#39; I did not say &#39;redefine individual words&#39; because I meant &#39;fuck with communication&#39;. Neither words not phrases which have a conventional meaning are redinable by anyone at whim. A word, or some words, or a phrase means what people have accepted it means. It allows them to communicate when some wanker like you or redstar decides they can change them all they are doing is hiding something; being deceiptful; being dishonest; because they hope that somebody will not spot that the supposed agreement they have reached has not been.

Then why didn&#39;t you say phrases instead of words?


You think I&#39;m a peacemeaker with a peacemaking plan &#33;&#33;&#33; think again prat. Do I sound like I am ? Does any of this sound like I&#39;m remotely inclined to &#39;make peace&#39;? does it in fact sound more like I&#39;d be quite happy to take it outside in a more conventional sense?

Unfortunately for you, this &#39;prat&#39; did not exactly pour scorn on peacemakers or the idea of peacemaking.
In fact this paragraph makes you sound belligerent and hostile.


It pisses me off that Redstar and the likes of you turn this board into a slanging match with your persistent failure to address ideas or explain your own, but instead would rather tell the pwrld that such and such is a bad idea because AK47 is an imperialist, or RAF is a Stalinist, or Scar is a reformist, or whetever other bullshit accusation you want to make.

It&#39;s you who turns debates into slanging matches, your profanity being indicative of your inability to add emphasis in a reasonable manner.
Also those are not &#39;bullshit accusations&#39; they are true. AK47/Enigma preferred US invasion to the iraqi people topping their own president, RAF is a stalinist but necessarily a bad person, and you ARE a reformist.

Try being flippant instead of simply being rude.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 03:37 PM

Don&#39;t resort to name calling.
Then you go on to quite directly say I&#39;m in favour of &#39;wage slavery&#39;. Needless to say I&#39;m not.
As long as there is a market there is wage-slavery as in a market you need to pay your workers.

Then why didn&#39;t you say phrases instead of words?

In fact this paragraph makes you sound belligerent and hostile.


Wanker. Do you seriously think I care that you would rather I did not call you names?

If you want to refrain from telling the world that I&#39;m pro dictatorships and pro wage slavery and a reformist, and a bourgeois socialist, etc. then I can assure you that I&#39;ll stop calling you names.

Until then i&#39;m inclined to be direct, I dont feel the need to denounce your supposed commitment. I can simply call you what I&#39;m quite sure you are which is a young tosser with a big mouth and a completely laughable idea of how he is &#39;a revolutionary&#39;.

***

So you think that in a market system you need to pay your workers do you?

Leaving aside the most obvious rejoinder that there is a supposed asumption that in any system you actually pay people (or give them their reward, or provide them with the means to live, etc etc etc). This is not what wage slavery means. Assuming that you are trying to say &#39;pay people according to what you can negotiate with them whether its done fairly or not&#39; then :

1. For a kick off no you dont need to pay them, except in the sense of giving people a budget of some sort, it can be the same for everybody. You dont actually know how a socialist market works do you kid? - chances are very high you dont actually understand the capitalist market either.

2. In a communist market you dont need to pay anybody anything. The market still performs a function.

See, you had not got a clue about what you were so vehemently denouncing. Totally standard for young tossers.

**

Why didnt I say slogans instead of phrases, why didnt I say catchphrases instead of slogans, why didnt I say summaries instead of catchphrases, why not sentences?

because when talking to anyone honestly discussiing there is no need to take preacautions against pedantry; and when talking to someone who is looking to take refuge in pedantry nothing will suffice.

***

My last post made me sound belligerent and hostile to you did it? 10 out of 10 for stating the balatantly obvious. I&#39;m feeling exceedingly belligerant and hostile towards you. I&#39;ll get belligerent and most totally hostile towards any supposed comrade who takes it on himself to spread the sorts of suggestions you have been doing about me (try that in a real revolutionary situation, with real revolutionaries and you&#39;s find out what hostile can mean kid; I&#39;ve known people kneecapped for less). BECAUSE it amount to calling me a traitor. I can assure you I dont take such things lightly; I&#39;m not playing at it like you are.

If you want to tell me my ideas are wrong you can. All that will happen is I&#39;ll try to re-explain them (or just occasionally say &#39;Oh yeah you are right).

If you want to say that wont work because..... same thing.

But when you say &#39;that means you support ... or thats because you are a reformist... or whetever&#39; then you are attacking not the idea but me personally. Amd you are showing yourself up for an intellectually lazy shit. Thats exactly how this thing with RS and me got started; one of his buddies decided that it was Ok to start throwing up bollox like that and RS thought he would join in.

Its strange is it not that none of the Cappies I debate with seem to doubt that I&#39;m exceedingly left wing. None of them have any illusions that I&#39;m on their side even slightly; they know I&#39;m not. From them I expect abuse, from supposed Comrades I wont take it, why should I?

I&#39;m not like RS. I have no great fondness for children and no great desire to be best buddies with them. And unlike him I wont pander to their fairytale notion of niceness either. My attitude to paedophiles is not to forgive the bastards or &#39;rehabilitate them&#39; but to cut their knackers off with a blunt saw and let them bleed to death slowly. I am slightly more tolerant of teenagers who call me a traitor, but that dont mean I&#39;ll just allow it, or be polite to them when they do.

[redstar2000]

It is no accident that at least half the more genuinely committed and educated members of this board have seen right through you and that you resort to name calling with them.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wanker. Do you seriously think I care that you would rather I did not call you names?

If you want to refrain from telling the world that I&#39;m pro dictatorships and pro wage slavery and a reformist, and a bourgeois socialist, etc. then I can assure you that I&#39;ll stop calling you names.

Until then i&#39;m inclined to be direct, I dont feel the need to denounce your supposed commitment. I can simply call you what I&#39;m quite sure you are which is a young tosser with a big mouth and a completely laughable idea of how he is &#39;a revolutionary&#39;.

No, I didn&#39;t think you&#39;d care. just reminding you that the fine line between a heated debate and a flame war is crossed when profanity is used.

How about you take it like a man and reply in kind? I could think of all sorts of things for you to call me in regards to my particular political stance, but since you&#39;re intelligent I&#39;ll leave it to you to think of those.
I&#39;m the teen here, I should be the angsty and dirty mouthed one. It seems not however.

You don&#39;t like it when a young tosser speaks his mind... They tend to have such silly views.


1. For a kick off no you dont need to pay them, except in the sense of giving people a budget of some sort, it can be the same for everybody. You dont actually know how a socialist market works do you kid? - chances are very high you dont actually understand the capitalist market either.

Giving them a budget: effectively giving them money that they aren&#39;t actually holding, either in their hand or in their account. No I don&#39;t know how a socialist/capitalist market works, nor do I care. You don&#39;t have to understand something in order to know it&#39;s bad for you. I might not know exactly how H2SO4 damages the human body, but I know enough not to drink it.


2. In a communist market you dont need to pay anybody anything. The market still performs a function.

See, you had not got a clue about what you were so vehemently denouncing. Totally standard for young tossers.

The market doesn&#39;t have a function in communist society. It doesn&#39;t exist&#33;
There&#39;s an awful lot of these young tossers with their market-less ideas. Maybe they&#39;re trying to tell you something.


Why didnt I say slogans instead of phrases, why didnt I rant rant rant rant...

because when talking to anyone honestly discussiing there is no need to take preacautions against pedantry; and when talking to someone who is looking to take refuge in pedantry nothing will suffice.

Perhaps being exact and saying what you mean?
Sire, the pedants are revolting&#33;


My last post made me sound belligerent and hostile to you did it? 10 out of 10 for stating the balatantly obvious. I&#39;m feeling exceedingly belligerant and hostile towards you. I&#39;ll get belligerent and most totally hostile towards any supposed comrade who takes it on himself to spread the sorts of suggestions you have been doing about me (try that in a real revolutionary situation, with real revolutionaries and you&#39;s find out what hostile can mean kid; I&#39;ve known people kneecapped for less). BECAUSE it amount to calling me a traitor. I can assure you I dont take such things lightly; I&#39;m not playing at it like you are.

Hmm, I better watch my mouth then, or scar&#39;s recently purchased revolutionaries will blow my sesamoids away.


If you want to tell me my ideas are wrong you can. All that will happen is I&#39;ll try to re-explain them (or just occasionally say &#39;Oh yeah you are right).

If you want to say that wont work because..... same thing.

Suits me. Just remember I think you&#39;re misguided, not evil or stupid.


But when you say &#39;that means you support ... or thats because you are a reformist... or whetever&#39; then you are attacking not the idea but me personally. Amd you are showing yourself up for an intellectually lazy shit. Thats exactly how this thing with RS and me got started; one of his buddies decided that it was Ok to start throwing up bollox like that and RS thought he would join in.

Fine, I&#39;ll just phrase it differently: instead of saying: &#39;that means you support...&#39; I&#39;ll say &#39;If you propose that, X bad thing will happen, I/you will not like that to happen&#39;
Does that sound more like a disagreement and less like an accusation of treason?


Its strange is it not that none of the Cappies I debate with seem to doubt that I&#39;m exceedingly left wing. None of them have any illusions that I&#39;m on their side even slightly; they know I&#39;m not. From them I expect abuse, from supposed Comrades I wont take it, why should I?

No, they don&#39;t see you as one of them, because you want a substantial reduction in the nastyness/power of masters/leaders. That grates in capitalists, they like the feeling of power associated with abusing the proletariat.
No, you shouldn&#39;t accept abuse from others in the left. Just make a retort that you think is witty, it&#39;s a lot less stressful than yelling. At least in my experience.


I&#39;m not like RS. I have no great fondness for children and no great desire to be best buddies with them. And unlike him I wont pander to their fairytale notion of niceness either. My attitude to paedophiles is not to forgive the bastards or &#39;rehabilitate them&#39; but to cut their knackers off with a blunt saw and let them bleed to death slowly. I am slightly more tolerant of teenagers who call me a traitor, but that dont mean I&#39;ll just allow it, or be polite to them when they do.

Well, Redstar certainly isn&#39;t attempting to create a &#39;personality cult&#39; I know virtually nothing about him apart from the fact that he smokes and is older than the average board member.
You sound like you&#39;ve rather lost faith in humanity when you talk of niceness.
Shockingly, I agree with you about what to do with peados... but only after it has been ascertained that&#39;s it&#39;s an sane act and not a mental condition.
Fine, don&#39;t take shit, but do so amusingly. you may criticise my light-hearted view as somehow &#39;unprofessional&#39; but trust me, revolutionary effort and the world in general is a lot less painful if you laugh a little.
Go forth and giggle.

[sc4r]

Ok since you have decided to be passably polite I&#39;ll be the same.

BUT I&#39;d like you to remember this - You have (deliberately or not) been speading the idea that I am a traitor. Thats how I would see a Socialist with bourgeois sympathies, reformist tendencies, etc. Redstar has been doing it for a lot longer. Know what I&#39;d do in a genuine revolutionary situation to someone who did that? I&#39;d maim or kill the fucker. So would any revolutionary, because in those situations you cannot afford to have your commitment questioned, too much rides on it.

Learn that lesson kid, and believe it, it&#39;s true. Losing my rag and calling you some dirty names is probably the nearest I can get to an equivalent and appropriate internet response. Redstar has gone beyond the point at which I&#39;ll forgive him. He is going to get me in his face and belittling his nonsense till he regrets ever starting it. It is a fight, and he is going to lose.

If you want to merely pass the time and amuse yourself with some ultimately meaningless and not heartfelt chat on the internet then quite simply dont talk to me about socialism, go to the chit chat room. I&#39;m not playing at it just for the intellectual buzz of being &#39;unusual and different&#39;. This may be unfair to those of you who are not old enough to really know what your beliefs may ultimately be; but its a stright case of if you wat to play with big boys then you play by big boy rules. I dont take crap and I dont need lecturing on manners from kids.

****

Money is one way of expressing what a budget might be. So what? I&#39;d love to answer your point but I cant for the life of me see what it is except the apparent dislike for the word money. In which case simply use a different word. Say budget unit or something. Have a go at learning that it is the substantive concept that ultimately matters not the word.

I&#39;m afraid that while you dont have to understand something to know it may be bad for you; you do have to : a) realise that if you dont all you are doing is taking someone word (very close to dogma) and b) realise that two similarly named things, even similar things, can have markedly different effects given fairly small diferences. Try drinking H2So4 instead of H2O if you doubt this.

A socialist or communist market is not the same as a capitalist market. It has similarities, but the crucial point as far as this conversation goes lies in the difference. What causes the Capitalist market to produce inequity is the fact that rights to other peoples future production can be traded in it , and to a lesser extent that Labour can. The Socialist market eliminates the former, the communist market eliminates both.

If you cant see how, or why, this matters, then ask. Dont Proclaim that &#39;YOU KNOW&#39;, when as you have just admitted, you do not.

It does not actually make any sense to say &#39;the market has no function in communist society&#39;. Thats an a priori argument. I&#39;d respond by saying &#39;then that communist society is missing out on a very beneficial tool&#39;. If you are saying that your version of communsim wont have one as a matter of Dogma (fully correct usage this time); then I&#39;ll simply say you have allowed Dogma to take precedence over true benefit. Which is exactly what I have been saying, of course.

****

Pedantry means demanding that your interpreation of someones exact words take precedence over what they mean. People who resort to it will always say &#39;then use the exact correct words&#39;, but the fact is that no matter what words you use they will never seem to be &#39;exact&#39; enough for the pedants taste.

The only substantive (non pedantic) issue here is that I say Redstar alters the standard meaning of the things we all use to communicate with; namely individual words, words combined into phrases, etc. When you do that you create a situation where people think you believe in concepts that you do not. You fuck up communciation, and of course you do it for your own purposes, to decieve, mislead, lie.

Nobody (except real died in the wool pedants) actually cares about the shape of words. What they care about is the underlying concepts. But you cannot actually state what the entire concept is every time you refer to it. So use the word/phrase symbol instead. The one that everyone knows means the concept. Nobody can take a unilateral decision to alter what the symbol means &#39;to him&#39; without effectively deliberately miscommunicating, which is pretty much what lying means.

***

Yes if you choose to say X would lead to Y That would be fine. From the sounds of it though I&#39;ll more often than not be replying &#39;Oh really? why?&#39; and recieve a deathly silence in return. Thats OK by me, Most people are smart enough to realise that when someone cannot answer a substantive question it means that the opinion expressed is unreliable. Those who belive it anyay are going on faith, and theres little anyone can do about that.

I&#39;m not under the illusion I can dislodge faith. Those who have it in things that would oppose and matter to me have to be fought not persuaded. I Accept that as a simple practical reality.

***

Your final comment cuts awful close to the bone of being a denouncement of me again. I&#39;m gonna ignore it this time, but....

Cappies dont merely see me as being nicer than them. many of them are perfectly nice themselves, many are &#39;nicer&#39; than me. They, in fact see me usually as very much nastier than them. I probably am. They slag me for the same reason you have, because they dont like to hear their views challenged. As I said, I expect it from them, they are the declared opposition, of course they hate me.

In fact if you assess the &#39;nice&#39; things (ie warm and comforting) that people on this board say there is not a shadow of a doubt that I&#39;m almost infinitely less &#39;nice&#39; than Redstar. Its not close.

I am for very fundamental change of the socio-economic order, change that entirely and completely eradicates the capitalist class. Thats not something they would regard as merely being &#39;nicer than them&#39;. thats a direct and full threat to them.

But I do not believe in merely shouting slogans which are incapable of being translated into practise, I dont believe in claiming that someday everything will be lovely and accepting that as a plan, I dont believe in promising to fight &#39;when I&#39;m ready&#39;, or suggesting that I might fight even when I already know I&#39;ll lose (and knowing probably that I&#39;m not actually going to fight). I dont believe in promising the moon if I dont think it&#39;s achieveable, and I do believe that getting halfway is usually a better way towards getting all the way than procratinating about starting.

I believe in action. And I believe in fighting to win what I can today, and fighting to win what I can win tommorrow, and improving the situation a little the day after, and the day after I dont beleiev in wishful thinking, and I dont believe in waiting till I can eat all the apple in one bite. Thats the thinking of the lazy, and the fearful, and maybe the outright deluded.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN &#39;IMPROVE THINGS A LITTLE IN THE SHORT TERM EVEN THOUGH IT MAY IMPEDE THE LONG TERM REALISATION OF WHAT YOU ACTUAALY WANT, IT DOES NOT MEAN ACCEPTING CAPITALISM, IT DOES NOT IN SHORT MEAN THE PATH OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY&#39; . I should not have to say that again, but I will just to be quite sure you get the message of what it is not, even if you dont have a clue what it actually is.

***
****