The Monopoly of "Legitimate Violence"

[redstar2000]

What do we mean when we use the word "state" or "government"?

In the Marxist sense, we mean an organ of class rule -- or what is sometimes called "an executive committee of the ruling class".

It has two purposes: to temporarily resolve differences among members of the ruling class, and to permanently protect the privileges of the ruling class from being abridged or abolished by the exploited classes.

The state has two tools at its disposal for these purposes.

The one with which we are most familiar with in well-established states is the law. The law puts into formal language--codifies--both the privileges of the rulers and the obligations of the exploited.

But behind the law is the most important tool, the army (including the police)--or what is called the "monopoly of legitimate violence". This is a special group of trained "men" who have agreed to become machines--who will, if ordered, and even at risk of their own lives, kill anyone who disobeys the law...the formally codified will of the executive committee of the ruling class.

In what sense can any of these man-made institutions (or social constructs) be said to exist in classless society? There is no ruling class any more. There are no special privileges to protect nor any exploited to be repressed. What's left?

There will still be differences of opinion.

It is clearly in nearly everyone's material interest not to be violently assaulted, raped, or murdered, to live without fear of random violence and to be protected from those few who "enjoy" such activity.

How can this be done?

It is possible and even likely that occasional autonomous communes may "innovate" (really re-invent) practices that, if unopposed, might lead to the re-establishment of class society.

How are they to be opposed?

It is possible and even likely that occasional individuals will attempt to gain privileges of some sort or even a kind of primitive and localized "state power" based, like all state power, on the threat or use of violence.

What stops this from taking place?

In classless society, the "monopoly of legitimate violence" is in the hands of the workers' militia. These are local people who volunteer to be trained in the use of arms to defend the revolution itself. They elect (and remove) their own officers. Normally, they have no centralized command structure at all; each unit decides under what circumstances they will be mobilized and deployed and for what cause.

They must be persuaded and convinced to act or they must convince themselves that action is required. If, in extreme situations, they decide or have been persuaded that a centralized command structure is temporarily required, they are the ones who set it up, who elect the temporary "generals", etc.

Who can do that?

The urging of their own local commune(s) would obviously carry the greatest weight in such arguments. Whether it is a simple matter of capturing and executing a killer or a much graver mobilization against a "commune" that has reintroduced a "limited" form of wage-slavery, the commune(s) must request and persuade the militia to act and the militia must agree to do so.

There's nothing "automatic" about that process. There cannot be anything automatic about it. Because if militia obedience were "automatic", then that would mean that a majority of the civilian commune could truly enact "laws" with the foreknowledge that however oppressive those laws might be, they would be automatically enforced at gunpoint. They would have become a "proto-state", though a very small one.

Despotism--the state--rests on automatic obedience by armed killers. Professionals are preferred but volunteers are acceptable.

And here is a problem. If the militia decides which decisions of the commune it will enforce, what would then keep such a militia from using its monopoly of violence in a counter-revolutionary fashion?

In an atmosphere of emerging military oppression, the voluntary exchange of goods and services would start to break down; people would start to become fearful and distrustful and consequently begin to hoard stuff or quit working unless at gunpoint. People would leave that commune or try to.

And there would be communes and militias in other near-by areas. Refugees from the "oppressive" commune would appeal to them in the name of the revolution and all that had been gained.

It could be a very nasty situation and might actually become a "mini-war" before the counter-revolutionary elements were suppressed.

This would be a very unusual contingency and one that might never actually arise. But it illustrates a very important principle.

The majority of a commune at any given time must not be permitted the conceit that it can "do anything" to the minority...and the militia will "automatically" back that up.

And the militia must likewise avoid the conceit that its monopoly of legitimate violence entitles it to impose its whims on the civilian population.

For if either sector attempts, much less achieves "absolute supremacy", then a proto-state has emerged...and both sides risk ultimately losing everything the revolution was made for.

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

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 02:06 PM
In classless society, the "monopoly of legitimate violence" is in the hands of the workers' militia.
How can there be a workers' anything in a classless society...where there would be no working class?

More generally:

It's true that all societies, including pre-class "primitive communist" societies, have had some way of enforcing social rules. But I don't think it's possible for anyone today to design the exact mechanism that a future society will use to enforce this.

The main distinction between the pre-state and state armed forces is that the pre-state armed forces were not separated from the population at large - no professional cops and soldiers. Despite your emphasis on the volunteer character of the "workers' militia", I'm not sure that you are bringing that into focus clearly, since you speak of the militia on the one hand and the "civilian population" on the other.

[sc4r]

Pied Piper :

You need a bit more than 'it will automatically follow that nothing will be too bad because otherwise nothing I say makes sense', to justify a stance.

What we have in your concept of militia’s is exactly what you are railing against but under a different a name. They are a clique, who answer only to themselves, elect their own leaders, and impose their will upon others by force. The structure is identical to that of the robber barons and bands that first instituted feudalism. Only your wish, that for some unexplained reason they will believe differently, behave differently, and be totally immune from the identical temptations that you say are so irresistible to any other group holding similar (but often far more controlled) powers, differentiates them.

The bottom line is that if people were different, things would be different. That’s a Truism. It’s also a So Whatism.

The first part of the post is pretty similar in that it asserts something that most commentators would say is quite simply not an accurate definition. A state or a government is not ‘[an institution] to temporarily resolve differences among members of the ruling class, and to permanently protect the privileges of the ruling class from being abridged or abolished by the exploited classes.’. Except in the obvious and trite sense that all people involved in it are ‘the ruling class’ (which could mean everybody).

You can perhaps say that some forms of government lead to what you describe, in the sense you mean it. It’s not conceptually impossible that someone could show that all believable systems of administration lead to what you say they do. But you certainly have not done that, nor do I believe that in practise it actually could be done. Nor have you remotely shown that even if you were substantially correct there exists an alternative without far worse net effects.

In fact you pretty much prove that you yourself believe the reverse of what you are saying. You just don’t seem to see the contradiction.

You have little difficulty seeing both the advantages and the possibility of an administrative function at the level of the commune for maintaining moral behaviour (you don’t ever describe one for economics) but for some bizarre reason you regard it as both unneeded and inappropriate at a higher level. You don’t really say why except as a bland assertion that it is.

In fact as Severian spotted, and is nearly always the case with you, you do very obviously implicitly invoke the very thing you are saying is bad as a part of your schema.

You also, as always, fail to see that saying that something has flaws is a totally inadequate reason for suggesting something else will work. What you (and most anarchists) seem incapable of doing is seeing the cost side of what you are suggesting. What you do is say ‘Hey guys here are the benefits’. It might be true, but unless you can answer the questions about how it would work, and how much it would cost to make it work (which you never do) all you have is a child’s dream.

What would inform your citizens what acceptable behaviour is, in the absence of laws?

How would your commune decide whether someone accused was really guilty, and for that matter how would even the accusation be communicated?

How would any crime committed in secrecy (as most are) ever be investigated and judged? Particularly if any element of cross commune chicanery were involved?

These, and many, many other similar questions remain unanswered by you; they are basic, and guess what mate? In order to have a genuine picture of a society you have to answer them so that they all make sense simultaneously. Whereas you have difficulty making the answers sound plausible even in isolation.

A society is actually defined by the rules it insists the people within it live by. Without such rules you don’t have a society at all. And the conventional name for these sorts of rules is Law; that’s all it means.

Really what you are describing are stone age tribes; not a society, even a primitive one, as we know it.

I devote far too much time to criticising your views. No-one but a fool or an obsessive youngster could fail to see that they may be instantly dismissed as being badly thought out twaddle that just invokes Marxist slogans to make it sound attractive to the unwary. You will complain that I’m not being objectively critical; but the reality is that there is nothing objective in your views to be objectively critical of.

In fact to have you posting such wish lists as if they were ‘theory’ is insulting to anyone who might actually care about social theories. They belong in the section called ‘things I’d like Santa to have his magic pixies make and deliver to me on his magic sleigh’.

I dont object to intelligent 'anarchists' who say something like 'Our models of society are too restrictive, too inclined towards creating elite cliques - we shoud be looking for better alternatives'. Thats fine. When it goes wrong is when tarts like you start encouraging people to abandon ideas (like socialist progression along the Marxist path) because they are not 'perfect', without actually suggesting any workable alternative.

[redstar2000]

How can there be a workers' anything in a classless society...where there would be no working class?

How about verbal sloppiness on my part? :D

Seriously, they'd probably be called that from the earliest days of the revolution and I think it likely that the name would "stick"...even after it was no longer really appropriate.


The main distinction between the pre-state and state armed forces is that the pre-state armed forces were not separated from the population at large - no professional cops and soldiers. Despite your emphasis on the volunteer character of the "workers' militia", I'm not sure that you are bringing that into focus clearly, since you speak of the militia on the one hand and the "civilian population" on the other.

In theory, the worker's militia would be open to anyone who wanted to take part. In practice, only the young and physically fit would probably have any strong desire to do so...and not even all of them.

Although I agree with you about the distinction between professionals and non-professionals in this area, I think there would be a "drift" towards professionalization.

It's possible that informal customs could arise to interfere with that "drift"...perhaps something to the effect that anyone who spent more than five years seriously involved in militia work would be regarded with the equivalent of "raised eyebrows"..."what's with him???". Any proposals that he raised with regard to security matters would receive especially careful scrutiny.

What I don't want to see happen is...

1. the quasi-professionals develop the habit of automatic obedience to "orders"; and

2. the quasi-professionals develop an elitist attitude towards those not in the militia.


It's true that all societies, including pre-class "primitive communist" societies, have had some way of enforcing social rules. But I don't think it's possible for anyone today to design the exact mechanism that a future society will use to enforce this.

Of course you are right about that. You know that we have had many such threads here in the past and will doubtless have many more in the future that are pure speculation.

Even though 99% of such speculations will probably never be implemented in practice, I still think it is a useful thing to do.

Why? Because it gets past the "magical words" socialism, communism, and anarchism and actually talks about what those alternatives might be like...clarifying in the process what we really want and don't want.

Too many people speak as if "after the revolution, it will be like Heaven".

It won't. It will just be very different. The purpose of speculation is to discover in what ways we would like it to be different...so that we may fight for more than just a slogan.

Not to mention the fact that the more clarity we have about what we really want, the more difficult it will be to "fool" us with "revolutionary" smoke and mirrors.

I think it's worth the effort.

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

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

[sc4r]

Do you know what the single two most potent objections by far are to 'Socialism' from young people who might become interested?

1. 'It is utopian, the people involved just talk rubish about how wonderful everything would be'.

2. 'the ussr'.

You are brilliantly reinforcing the case for the opposition. What a masterstroke. You dont have clarity you idjit, you have unlikely speculation and a desire for inaction masquerading as commitment.

I truly cant make up my mind if you are just simple minded or something more malicious.

[redstar2000]

Once upon a time, sc4r did nearly all of his posting in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

One day, being particularly irritated by his relentless sniping, I challenged him to come to the Theory forum and post his own ideas.

Just call me "redstar the fool". :o

Ever since then, I have been unable to write three lines in this forum without receiving a barrage of bourgeois babble and endless personal abuse.

So, folks, learn from my mistake. When some bourgeois socialist in Opposing Ideologies pisses you off, don't tell them to come to the other forums. Let them remain where they really belong.

You will spare yourself much grief.

Believe me!

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 10:51 PM
Although I agree with you about the distinction between professionals and non-professionals in this area, I think there would be a "drift" towards professionalization.
To the degree that the force entrusted with keeping order and enforcing social rules remains a professional force, to that degree it is a state under another name.

And Sc4r is correct in one thing: the more free a state is from the control of the rest of society, the more despotic it is. Even workers' militia during the revolution should not be wholly independent.

The Red Guards in 1917 typically responded to the factory committee of their workplace - which was elected by all workers there. They made the October insurrection in response to a call from the Petrograd Soviet - again, elected by all the workers and soldiers of the city.

Was this just old, bourgeois, compulsion? No, it was voluntary proletarian discipline. The Red Guards answered to the Soviet because they believed in its legitimacy.

Besides the professionalism issue, another difference I see between the state and non-state enforcement of social rules is the frequency of force. Seems to me that as class differences disappear, it will be possible more and more often to enforce social rules without using force, except for a few sociopaths and the insane. There'll be more of a consensus on the legitimacy of those rules.

I agree that its important to imagine as concretely as we can what the revolution and its aftermath will look like. But I think it's easier to be more concrete, without falling into utopianism, by looking at what the revolution itself, and the transition period towards a classless society, will look like.

The bit about minority rights seems an argument dragged in at random. Is there some reason to think the armed section of the population will be more zealous than the unarmed in defending minority rights? ....other than the rights of the armed minority itself, of course. Which brings us back to the issue of the free, and therefore despotic, state.

Edit: BTW, did you get this from Ken McLeod's "The Cassini Division"? If not, I wonder if you both got it from the same place.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:16 AM
Once upon a time, sc4r did nearly all of his posting in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

One day, being particularly irritated by his relentless sniping, I challenged him to come to the Theory forum and post his own ideas.

Just call me "redstar the fool". :o

Ever since then, I have been unable to write three lines in this forum without receiving a barrage of bourgeois babble and endless personal abuse.

So, folks, learn from my mistake. When some bourgeois socialist in Opposing Ideologies pisses you off, don't tell them to come to the other forums. Let them remain where they really belong.

You will spare yourself much grief.

Believe me!

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
Thats not anywhere near the truth. Is it pied piper?

I've always posted about Market socialism; not just here, but elsewhere. Here I have never posted, or even read, all that much that appears in OI. Because it is largely the same crap that I see elsewhere except here it has tended to be the case that the only contributors are extremists who will never change their minds anyway. In fact by far my largest contribution to OI has been over the last 2-3 weeks.

And as you very well know we fell out once in a completely different forum when you supported someone calling me a traitor, and did not seem to like the fact that I was trying to give purpose and stability to that experiment (I left because I felt you and your clique were making such a thing impossible; and now, surprise, it seems that the experiment failed). Then a second time when you took exception to my defence against your very personal attack on Mosquitto. At which time you took to calling me a reformist etc.

But this thread is about your ideas, not mine. If you dislike having your ideas critiqued then dont post them. If you dont want to to be asked what are really very obvious questions, then take the trouble to think about what might be asked before you post and make some miniscule effort towards making your views proof against such questions.

This will mean building a bit of self consistency, reality, and socialism into them.

I'm delighted you are getting grief. It is my intention to give you much of it. Because I dislike seeing a forum, where young people with an interest in Socialism come, used by you to promote the idea that they need do nothing useful. I dislike hearing you preach hatred without action and promise heaven to those who will do this.

One more thing - You were offered an end to this. You rejected the offer (and sneered at me for making it). So cut the whining now that it turns out you were unwise to do so.

Why you do all this I can only speculate. Calling you an idjit barely scratches the surface of my less savoury speculations.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 01:16 AM
Once upon a time, sc4r did nearly all of his posting in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

One day, being particularly irritated by his relentless sniping, I challenged him to come to the Theory forum and post his own ideas.

Just call me "redstar the fool". :o

Ever since then, I have been unable to write three lines in this forum without receiving a barrage of bourgeois babble and endless personal abuse.

So, folks, learn from my mistake. When some bourgeois socialist in Opposing Ideologies pisses you off, don't tell them to come to the other forums. Let them remain where they really belong.

You will spare yourself much grief.

Believe me!

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
.. Or maybe people should just avoid you??? Seeing as it is you who manages to get into the biggest flame threads with the most people.

Its seems to be you, even if you do have your following of pathetically weak minded chimps who come to your defence at every oppertunity, you still attack and alienate a lot of people. So is it supprising when people actually critisise your ideas? NO

:redstar2000:

[RyeN]

Redstar I agree you make some valid points. I think that you need to try to make your ideas workable on a larger scale. There is obviously going to have to be some sort of Organization. We can do this without class. Some people will work at a mill, some will work at a hospital. Some will be police persons and fire persons. There will be some who make and uphold the laws. This doesnt mean there is are classes. If you want it to work you need to have structure. Where ultimatley everything is up to all the people, but organized by the few who have been trained for those positions. Who will be able to fill these positions. Anyone with the appropriate training and qualifications.

[redstar2000]

To the degree that the force entrusted with keeping order and enforcing social rules remains a professional force, to that degree it is a state under another name.

But the point I'm "reaching for" is that this would only be true if they were automatically obedient to the assembly no matter what or attempted to rule in their own name.

One or the other or both may turn out to be very small risks...or maybe not.


The Red Guards in 1917 typically responded to the factory committee of their workplace - which was elected by all workers there. They made the October insurrection in response to a call from the Petrograd Soviet - again, elected by all the workers and soldiers of the city.

Indeed they did...and in the early years of the revolution, there is little doubt that the "civilians" will prevail, especially since there will not be much difference between the members of a factory committee and the members of the militia.

But you see, I hope, what concerns me...the ideological development of that very "professional" outlook which says "I just carry out my orders".

We can't have that.


Seems to me that as class differences disappear, it will be possible more and more often to enforce social rules without using force, except for a few sociopaths and the insane. There'll be more of a consensus on the legitimacy of those rules.

I quite agree. Nevertheless, I think we should always be ready to take a look at the potential difficulties and not just assume that everything "will work out".


The bit about minority rights seems an argument dragged in at random. Is there some reason to think the armed section of the population will be more zealous than the unarmed in defending minority rights?

None at all in principle; the idea is that there is a second source of relief for a minority that feels it got fucked over in the civilian assembly. It can appeal to the militia not to enforce the unjust decision. Most of the time I expect the militia would reject such an appeal...but now and then they would not--and they would understand that they bear responsibility and accountability for what they do.

Unlike now.


Edit: BTW, did you get this from Ken McLeod's "The Cassini Division"? If not, I wonder if you both got it from the same place.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't even know who Ken McLeod is...and the Cassini division, to my knowledge, refers to a gap in Saturn's ring system.

Thus I must bear the responsibilities for the ideas in this thread...inadequate though they might be.

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

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

[redstar2000]

I think that you need to try to make your ideas workable on a larger scale.

The question of scale is, of course, something worthy of discussion all by itself.

My own inclination is to think that political entities won't exist on anything larger than a "regional" scale.

How big is a "region"? I don't know, but it will certainly be smaller than the nation-state of the present. I expect that "nations" as a concept will probably disappear...certainly the borders will.

Of course, that's just my idea...people may well decide they want a "global" federation with various delegated powers. I'm not too keen on anything that might be seen as a "political center of gravity" for obvious reasons...but it's possible that there may be some things that can only be arranged on a global scale.


There is obviously going to have to be some sort of Organization. We can do this without class...There will be some who make and uphold the laws. This doesn't mean there are classes.

Yes, that's true. But what I'm concerned with in this thread is not the "existence" of new classes but the possibility of their emergence.

Or, how do we arrange matters so that things don't turn to shit?


If you want it to work you need to have structure. Where ultimately everything is up to all the people, but organized by the few who have been trained for those positions. Who will be able to fill these positions? Anyone with the appropriate training and qualifications.

That fact that "ultimately" everything is up to all the people is not very helpful. After all, a bourgeois socialist could (and probably would) make that argument now...that people could "vote in" socialism tomorrow, they have that nominal "ultimate authority" now.

It's a kind of "easy" (bourgeois) solution to say that we'll leave all the crucial decisions about everything to "people with the appropriate training and qualifications" (hereafter ataq) and step in now and then to "vote" on "how they're doing".

After a while, those with "ataq" are likely to question this arrangement. Why should their fates be subject to the whims of the "ignorant" and "unqualified" majority?

Here are the words of one person who certainly thought he and his associates had plenty of "ataq"...


As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!...The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship... regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy.

I am not opposed to "structure" or "organization" as such (for that matter, neither are most anarchists)...the problem to me is one of making structure/organization genuinely participatory and keeping it that way.

It's not going to be easy.

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

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

[RyeN]

Understood then. I guesse that with my view of perfect communisum, I never thought that anyone would want to oppose it. I have a vision of the percfect Etopian world and cant Imagine anyone wanting different. Alas they do though. The capitolist system in place now has thousands of ways they proactivley keep communisum and other ideologies from comming to rise. One of the most predominate is the elections making people think they have the power. Perhaps when communisum is achived we will need some measures in place to keep communism in control?

You see in doing this the people arent free anymore and our system has befome corupt. Once you have a sytem of control in place to oppress something like new ideologies its just as bad as what we have now. Although people are dumb and will want to try different things. There has to be the freedom for atempting such nonsense as going against the system of communism, but to disalow it would be wrong.

Now by the time Communisum has been achived, there will have beeen some sort of a sotialist system in place before. Already weining people from the ideas of thier forfathers. Once there is a new generation that can look back on the foly of capitolism I think few people will embrace such barbaric and ridiculous ideologies.

After the system of communisim is in place and we have achived global fortitude, people will be able to explore more. By then having more of an understanding of our galaxy. Perhaps that will be the future of manking. Fully evolved, working together like ants to asemble the universe. We are the cure for chaos.

[RyeN]

Oh props for the dedication though!! Boiyaaa

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 07:25 PM
Understood then. I guesse that with my view of perfect communisum, I never thought that anyone would want to oppose it. I have a vision of the percfect Etopian world and cant Imagine anyone wanting different. Alas they do though. The capitolist system in place now has thousands of ways they proactivley keep communisum and other ideologies from comming to rise. One of the most predominate is the elections making people think they have the power. Perhaps when communisum is achived we will need some measures in place to keep communism in control?

You see in doing this the people arent free anymore and our system has befome corupt. Once you have a sytem of control in place to oppress something like new ideologies its just as bad as what we have now. Although people are dumb and will want to try different things. There has to be the freedom for atempting such nonsense as going against the system of communism, but to disalow it would be wrong.

Now by the time Communisum has been achived, there will have beeen some sort of a sotialist system in place before. Already weining people from the ideas of thier forfathers. Once there is a new generation that can look back on the foly of capitolism I think few people will embrace such barbaric and ridiculous ideologies.

After the system of communisim is in place and we have achived global fortitude, people will be able to explore more. By then having more of an understanding of our galaxy. Perhaps that will be the future of manking. Fully evolved, working together like ants to asemble the universe. We are the cure for chaos.
I reckon you are fundamentally wrong.

Very few people would not want idealised communism (I personally know died in the wool capitalists who will happily admit that they would love idealised communism). What people reject is the notion that it is practically achievable. It's this problem that needs addressing, and this problem is exacerbated by wild cannons like RS telling potential Socialists to spread the message that what us Socialist stand for is a notion that everything will be perfect if we kill all the capitalists.

Its a message that is bound to be rejected on two fronts :

1. It dont seem to offer any realistic expectation of delivering what it claims it will.
2. It includes an instruction to engage in what looks like exactly the sort of brutal extremism and spitefulness that people have been repeatedly told is what Socialism is 'really' all about.

Th pied pipers message appeals only to those who will settle for any promise regardless of whether it looks likely to be fulfilled. Usually this means the young and idealistic, but rather unsceptical. Or not to put too fine a point on it, the naive.

Some of the pied pipers other views he dont like to talk about too much include : 'Global warming is not a problem'; 'Cigarettes dont kill you'; 'paedophiles should not be punished'. Before you get carried away with believing what he is telling you about communism have a little think about those other views. It is easy to start accepting things when people tell you exactly what you want to hear anyway. Even easier when they dress it up in phrases which you like the sound of and link those phrases together to create an illusion of objectivity. Its what religion has always done

Dont trust people who do this. EVER.

[Dhul Fiqar]

From redstar2000:

Too many people speak as if "after the revolution, it will be like Heaven".

It won't. It will just be very different. The purpose of speculation is to discover in what ways we would like it to be different...so that we may fight for more than just a slogan.




Sc4r wrote this LATER in this same thread:

wild cannons like RS telling potential Socialists to spread the message that what us Socialist stand for is a notion that everything will be perfect if we kill all the capitalists


Ever actually read one of redstar's posts? It can be somewhat interesting - and might give you some ideas as to what he is talking about ;)

--- G.

[sc4r]

Please Dhul, I'm not illiterate, I can read; and I do read, and amazingly enough I'd managed to read that sentence of his all by myself without your help.

I am fully aware that Redstar can say that he is being realistic and quite happily tell us not to expect heaven, and tell us that he is not telling us that.

Its hardly a defence to accusations which include total inconsistency, to point out that he has said that is saying something different now, to what he has in effect promised previously is it?

Or maybe you think that : a world in which everyone manufactures what other people need/ want in the quantities required, without being told to do so, a world in which armed 'militia's' dont abuse the very power they have been given; A world in which no-one is compelled to work, but they all do so anyway; A world in which everyone is equal; a world in which criminals are 'cured' rathe than punished; A world in which global warming is not a problem; and people dont die from cigarette smoking; A world in which everyone can help themselves to whatever goods they feel appropriate, A world in which the few small incidents of revisionism are immediately dealt with by people who just know they should do; A world in which the Anarchists always win, and anarchist society never suffers a serious problem; and many other promises; is not pretty much 'heavan' ?

I suggest Dhul that you read what he says in the round, not what he says in individual sentences. Its the totality of what he says that is buggered, not the individual phrases.

He reserves all his hatred and bitterness for whatever exists, or may come to exist; he basically says 'smash it up, destroy it, kill people, dont worry they deserve it'. Then he says 'but not for a few hundred years when conditions are ripe'. Its true he isnt really suggesting a way to achieve heaven, he is suggesting a way to achieve hell.

If merely denying a crime made you innocent then all criminals would be innocent.

[Dhul Fiqar]

You seem to be the only one seeing the words: "This is how it will be - I have perfected a vision of the future" in redstar's posts.

There is NOTHING wrong with throwing up hypotheticals and discussing different options and their limitations - that is what this forum is all about (Theory - that is).

Now, if this is in the right forum and the theory does not claim any absolute validity and it's author has repeatedly said it is just pure speculation - we must ask ourselves WHY is Sc4r insisting on twisting it all around to make it look like redstar2000 thinks is setting up the perfect commune for the future (cleverly ignoring the dozen or so times he stresses that is not his intention)?

Ah, yes, that is right - perhaps I should read better myself. You said so already several times in this and other threads - it is a personal vendetta - if redstar argued 1+1 = 2 then you would be up in arms claiming it was 3. Why on earth should anyone take anything you say seriously if we know it is only meant to piss off some other person whom you care so much about that you commit vast amounts of time to attempting to annoy him? How can we even trust you believe what you are typing when it all seems to serve the one purpose of being a dick to a total stranger you have never met?

Yeah, I guess there is no reason to take you seriously...

--- G.

[redstar2000]

Some of the pied piper's other views he don't like to talk about too much include: 'Global warming is not a problem'; 'Cigarettes don't kill you'; 'paedophiles should not be punished'.

Of course, those quotation marks are sc4r's own invention as I never specifically said any of those three things.

I have actually said that the evidence for global warming is convincing, but no one actually knows whether it will be a "problem" or not. The uncertainties in climate prediction models are enormous.

I have actually said that I continue to find the "evidence" that tobacco "kills" to be unconvincing.

I suggested that non-violent paedophiles be subjected to house arrest and should be kept away from any occupations that involve contact with children.

I will now state unequivocally that I will no longer engage in "discussion" with sc4r because I have become convinced that he is a capitalist troll posing as a "socialist" with the conscious purpose of discouraging people who want to become revolutionaries.

He's not only a fake, but a belligerent and abusive one at that.

I see no further reason to put up with his venomous troll-crap...so I decline to do so.

Let somebody else argue with that asshole.

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

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

[sc4r]

NO Dhul I am not the only one. I'm not even the only one in this thread. I've been a bit more scathing and persistent is all.

Frankly if I wished to be scathing without addressing substance it would not be difficult. I couod simply point out that statements like 'or as it sometimes known...', followed by a term the writer has just invented is not even a rote lesson in theoretical terms, let alone actually being a discussion of theory.

A hypothetical without any reasoning given to assume it is either attainable or consistent is not theory, or theoretical. It is merely a wish, or dogma, or both.

If Redstar (or you) can answer my 'twisted questions' I'd like to ask why it is that youse never do? The reality is that these questions are not twisted, they are awckward. They are actually fairly difficult to phrase too. Because asking a question of somebody who has expressed two or three or four incompatible views and summed them up with a completely unwarranted statement about what any of them mean must address the question of inconsistency and incompatiblity. That is hard to do without being merely personal.

I'm not forcing you or anyone else to take me seriously. How could I ? People make their own minds up.

And this little episode my friend has been occasioned because not for the first time RS (and his buddies) have successfully diverted questions and observations about RS's views into a discussion about whether someone else should be allowed to comment on them.

I will remind not only you but others that this 'personal vendetta' was both started and has been continued by RS not me. I've acknowleged it exists is all. I do not take kindly to being called a traitor, and I have specifically invited RS to make a mutual end to it. He has declined that offer (and sneered at me for making it).

I will continue to attack RS's views when they are nonsensical until such time as I am forced to desist. Which I sense will not be long now. I will refrain from directly attacking RS as a person as I have pretty much done throughout this 'feud', I wish I could say that he had excercised the same restraint. I do not say 'RS's views should not be listened to because he is a 'pretend anarchist'; I say do not listen to them because they do not make sense, and I usually justify that statement except when (as now) the discussion has become basically about me not him.

If this forum is not in fact dedicated to Socialism at all but to Redstar Feel free to come out and say so.

[sc4r]

Thats the defence is it ? you never used the exact words ? You did not say 'Global warming is not a problem' but said 'No-one knows if it will be a problem'.

You did not say that 'cigarrettes dont kill you'; but said that it is not known if they do.

You did not say 'paedophiles should not be punished' but suggested treating them in a way that does not involve punishment.

That sort of nonsense is just playing with words redstar.

The idea that I'm a Capitalist Troll is bloody laughable and very desparate. I invite anyone here to dig into my background on non Socialist forums and see if that ludicrous defamation can even remotely be substantiated. I suggest MrFixitonline.com politics forum as a starter.

AS for you not replying to me, thats fine, I'm afraid it dont follow that I will therefore cease to reply to you and question your doubtful views, or that I will cease to post my own views. As threats go m8 this one of yours is about the most puny and ineffective one I've ever heard.

[RyeN]

I will now state unequivocally that I will no longer engage in "discussion" with sc4r because I have become convinced that he is a capitalist troll posing as a "socialist" with the conscious purpose of discouraging people who want to become revolutionaries.


Ive suspected this as well. You hear that fascisit, youve been called out.

Seriously Sc4r all the time you make a post it realy has little value what so ever. You rarley have any support of your statements, and most of the time just ripp about redstar. At least his post have some value. Where as when I see your name I think. hehehe what shit is sc4r spreading about redstar. No hmmm I wonder if this person has any real insight.

[sc4r]

NO . I will not express my feelings about that here.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Like I said, Sc4r has lost all credibility on all issues - as it has become abundantly clear he has no oppinion or position other than to disagree with redstar and continually try and pick out a sentance or two that are less than perfect.

Congrats, great way to spend your time - making strangers across the world shake their head and disregard all you say as another chapter in your pointless personal vendetta - I mean. Very productive. The revolution thanks you. I shall personally erect great statues to your courage and vision - your gravesite would be a tourist Mecca in the post-revolutionary period:

"Here lies Sc4r - disagreed with everything redstar2000 said right to the bitter end - even if it meant giving up his belief in gravity, communism and evolution. It was a small price to pay for a pedantic asshole such as himself - let us never let his memory fade."

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 06:03 PM

Some of the pied piper's other views he don't like to talk about too much include: 'Global warming is not a problem'; 'Cigarettes don't kill you'; 'paedophiles should not be punished'.

Of course, those quotation marks are sc4r's own invention as I never specifically said any of those three things.

I have actually said that the evidence for global warming is convincing, but no one actually knows whether it will be a "problem" or not. The uncertainties in climate prediction models are enormous.

I have actually said that I continue to find the "evidence" that tobacco "kills" to be unconvincing.

I suggested that non-violent paedophiles be subjected to house arrest and should be kept away from any occupations that involve contact with children.

I will now state unequivocally that I will no longer engage in "discussion" with sc4r because I have become convinced that he is a capitalist troll posing as a "socialist" with the conscious purpose of discouraging people who want to become revolutionaries.

He's not only a fake, but a belligerent and abusive one at that.

I see no further reason to put up with his venomous troll-crap...so I decline to do so.

Let somebody else argue with that asshole.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
'Global warming is not a problem'

I distinctly remember you saying something along those lines of it existed but its a good thing...

'Cigarettes don't kill you'

Yep I definatly remember you saying that, the arguments went on for like a month.

'paedophiles should not be punished'

Well I dont know about that.

At least his post have some value.

Really thats new to me. Usually all I see is him deny historical/scientific fact to make his ideals seem more feasable then they really are. It is also quite a bold statement from one who can only be described as a "wet behind the ears" newbie.

Ive suspected this as well. You hear that fascisit, youve been called out.

Well I am beggining to suspect that you are nothing but a little puppy who clings to established members you persieve to be clever because you dont actually have any of your own idea's. Sorry "comrade" but you've been called out. Now go and play fetch with redstar.

I will now state unequivocally that I will no longer engage in "discussion" with sc4r because I have become convinced that he is a capitalist troll posing as a "socialist" with the conscious purpose of discouraging people who want to become revolutionaries.


Lets see how long that lasts, you said that you would never engage in discussion with RAF, but you still do? Are all your policys suffering from TonyBlair sindrome?

Like I said, Sc4r has lost all credibility on all issues

If you hadn't noticed Redstar does exactly the same thing to sc4r, or do you suffer from selective reading?

"Here lies Sc4r - disagreed with everything redstar2000 said right to the bitter end - even if it meant giving up his belief in gravity, communism and evolution. It was a small price to pay for a pedantic asshole such as himself - let us never let his memory fade."

Thats my piece... ohh and I nearly forgott: -




:redstar2000:

[RyeN]

Look at what was said. In contex to the original post, I wasnt even agreeing with Redstar. Infact I was disagreeing. Then scar comes in and states that " I recon you are fundamentaly wrong" So in ensence he is agreeing with redstar. doesnt put any effort into why he thinks Im wrong but he just starts rippin red star. From the beging he has labeled me a redstarist. I havent agreed with this guy that much. Relax take a rest, Itll all be over soon and this wont really matter that much.

[sc4r]

You saying it is so dont make it so. Thats pretty much the theme of what I've been saying throughout this thread.

Do I disagree with everything RS says. Nope. Thats why I dont express disagreement eith everything he says.

Do I disagree very emphatically with the gist of it, and can I identify specific problems with it. You betcha, thats what I've been doing.

Have either you or Ryen, or Redstar actually defended a single one of the problems and inconsitencies that I highlighted? Nope, what you have done is to deny that I have any legitimate right to air such questions. Why? because apparently you believe Redstar to be an almost infallible writer of the Socialist Gospel. It is rather up to you to think what you want, but you go too far in your arrogance when you insist that others must think it too. That really is the intellectual equivalent of totalitarianism; the thing RS professes to despise, but which to my eyes he has a great affinity for. Nor am I the first to observe upon that.

Have I been very much more aggressive towards Redstar than I would be towards someone with the same views who had not chosen to call me a reformist, a Imperialist sympathiser, a bourgeoise sympathiser, etc. Yes I have. What would you expect?

RS's very first response in this thread was to do what he normally does do in such circumstances and assert that I was unworthy to question him because I was not interested in questioning him (hahaha) and had (according to him) got both a history which I dont have, and motives which I dont have. In doing so he did, as you are doing, and simply diverted attention from any discussion of substance into one about my motives. The fact that he lied (both by ommission and by emphasis) about even the history says something very very clear about redstar.

This BTW has now got deeply personal, I'm not pretending that the last 3-4 posts have been about substance, they have not been., because I've been responding to personal attacks.

My advice - If you cannot answer the questions then just dont. When you question my right to even ask the questions you make it simultaneously obvious that you have no good answers and that all the talk about opposition to 'rulers' and 'authority' and 'suppresion' is so much empty blather. Respond in such a vein to questioning from people who are actually hostile to the idea of Socialism (which is 90% + of people in the west) and you invite both derision and disgust. Which is exactly what I have been saying.

I am indeed an asshole chummy. I'm just not what you mean by it (if you even know, or was this perhaps another example of your supposed commitment to substance being rather at variance with your actual ability to respond?)

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 07:11 PM
Look at what was said. In contex to the original post, I wasnt even agreeing with Redstar. Infact I was disagreeing. Then scar comes in and states that " I recon you are fundamentaly wrong" So in ensence he is agreeing with redstar. doesnt put any effort into why he thinks Im wrong but he just starts rippin red star. From the beging he has labeled me a redstarist. I havent agreed with this guy that much. Relax take a rest, Itll all be over soon and this wont really matter that much.
OMG LOLOLOL

So your REAL problem is that you disliked me disagreeing with YOU! Then why did you not say so little boy? were you perhaps just a little too keen to ride on someone elses coattails and engage in character assasination as it seemed easier than attempting to defend what you had said.

NO lad I most emphatically was not agreeing with Redstar. What I did was disagree with your basic point and point out that Redstar suffers from the same failure to see the real problem.

I said you were fundamentally wrong that it is a problem to get people to see the merits of idealised communism. I said that you (as redstar does) fail to see that the real problem is to get them to see that anything like it is worth even pursuing.

I gave a little bit of backing up to those statements. You were at liberty to question it. You chose not to. This could be because you are so arrogant as to believe you communicate perfectly, it could be that you misread the gist of what I was saying, It could be that I did not make that gist clear, it could be all sorts of things.

But one thing that is now abundantly clear is that it was your ego that was bruised; you resented having your words of wisdom challenged or misunderstood and instead of having either the balls or the honesty or the humility to say 'No Sc4r it aint like that'; you instead chose to jump on the bandwagon of an all out assualt on my character.

I have fought Fascists you little prick. Have you ?

[Dhul Fiqar]

The problem here is not disagreeing with people - we do it all the time - and in fact I have had heated exchanged with redstar over issues we disagree on.

You have however ADMITTED to purposely hounding him down for the purposes of disagreeing with him - before you even see the fucking post. That is unhelpful - destructive - pointless - and likely to stifle any debate coming from people with actual oppinions and not relying pruely on personal vendettes and reverse psychology. Your words have no meaning to anyone here if you persist in wasting your time here engaging in personal vendettas. In fact, I think we should institute a new rule against personal vendettas - we will name it after you.

And Enigma, show me where redstar2000 has done exactly that same thing and I will level the same harsh words against him.

--- G.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 7 2003, 07:30 PM
You have however ADMITTED to purposely hounding him down for the purposes of disagreeing with him - before you even see the fucking post.

Rubbish. Where?

I've said that RS has picked a fight and I have every intention now that he has done so of both fighting and winning.

Thats not the same thing at all matey. You are adding a massive (and highly prejudicial) lot of supposition about exactly how and when I judge and respond to RS's posts; and you are stating it as though it actually came direct from me.

I also said very clearly that the reason I would do this with such vigour is because he has persisted for quite a while now in using perjurative labels about me personally that I knew would be taken up without any real reason by quite a few. Essentially I said that I would not fight Shit throwing merely with shit throwing.

Now I would imagine you are going to dig until you can find a heated exchange in which something of the sort you say was said was said, and present it as though it had no context. But you will find nothing that even remotely has the little extra 'before you even see the fucking post. ' bit you tagged on and which if absent makes your little accusation very much less sunstantive dont it? Its easy to win support for a postion based on an accusation if you feel you can just 'improve' the accusation a little.

I disagree with Redstar when he says something dumb, unsubstantiated, inconsistent, or counter productive to the progress of Socialism. Admittedly that is pretty much every time he picks up his keyboard, but thats hardly my fault.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 7 2003, 08:30 PM
The problem here is not disagreeing with people - we do it all the time - and in fact I have had heated exchanged with redstar over issues we disagree on.

You have however ADMITTED to purposely hounding him down for the purposes of disagreeing with him - before you even see the fucking post. That is unhelpful - destructive - pointless - and likely to stifle any debate coming from people with actual oppinions and not relying pruely on personal vendettes and reverse psychology. Your words have no meaning to anyone here if you persist in wasting your time here engaging in personal vendettas. In fact, I think we should institute a new rule against personal vendettas - we will name it after you.

And Enigma, show me where redstar2000 has done exactly that same thing and I will level the same harsh words against him.

--- G.
And Enigma, show me where redstar2000 has done exactly that same thing and I will level the same harsh words against him.

Take a look in the thread in the CC.

[Invader Zim]

BTW scar dont bother with having a "fight" with Redstar, its not worth the hassle believe me. I have tried and tried to end my constant arguing with redstar, and got a load of abuse for it. Its sad because I even agree with a lot of his stuff.

[sc4r]

Thanks Enigma. But the sad truth is that I dont mind a fight at all. I would not pick one and before this gets taken out of context I definitetly do not see this as meaning that I'll fight only for the joy of it or that I'll fight when I do not see it as justified.

I do not agree with much that Redstar says at all, except the very obvious bits that no Socialist with any pretentions to serious aquaintance with the idea would agree with. I find his interpretations pretentious, overwhelmingly impractical, and likely to sow the seeds of confusion and inaction. That is why I disagree with him so frequently, it is not simply a case of 'personal dislike'.

I like the spirit of individual dignity through voluntary co-operation on behalf of society that Anarchism and Communism at their best embody. But I wont therefore dump or ignore the reality that a consistent mechanism (not merely an attitude) is needed to allow people to approximate behaviour which reflects that spirit. I wont ignore that such a spirit will be, at best, pretty fragile in an emerging Socialist society; and that failure to run it so that individual people can see that they themselves are definitely not being taken for a ride to benefit others; will result in very swift repudiation of the whole idea.

Mistrust, jealousy, materialism, and similar vices are unlikely to die out overnight; and anything that relies upon them doing so is not likely to survive long.

Nor will I ignore what RAF calls 'grounding in the present' when discussing what may come to be. Perhaps I do get a little heavy on demanding that people consider practical steps rather than ultimate dreams sometimes. It seems to me that others here (partiularly the anarchist and Communist factions) lean far far too much in the other direction and trivialise the enormous task that lies ahead in ever achieving serious progress. I truly dont think they realise just how ingrained the ideas of Capitalism are, or how much easier it is to convince people to adopt Fascism when thing go wrong rather than Socialism.

What we mainly have on our side right now is dreamers who want the world to be better and fairer. The trouble is that rather a lot of them have strong notions that anything imperfect is to be rejected even as a stepping stone. More than a few have far more knowlege of terminology than understanding of what it means and how it fits together. In fact they adopt the attitude of the religous in defence of established doctrine. That can be a good thing in some ways, but it is deeply destructive of finding ways to cope with the realities of today rather than those of 150 years ago.

Ultimately I'm a do'er not a dreamer. I like plans and action, not vague good intentions. Socialism needs both sorts of people; but it has far too many of the latter, and far too many of those drift off once they realise that no real progress is being made and maybe they have a few temptations waved at them. We need a way to allow such people to stay in contact and stay committed while succumbing a little. Thats the only way we will grow in numbers and solidarity and so maybe achieve something.

((Boring, pretentious, fart mode off))

best wishes

[RyeN]

I actualy like when you disagree with me because It gives me an oportunity to prove you wrong. However when you post things like "you are fundamentaly wrong" and then start ripping redstar I think, hmm is this post worth responding to. I still dont understand how you associate me disagreeing with redstar as ridding his coattails.


NO lad I most emphatically was not agreeing with Redstar. What I did was disagree with your basic point and point out that Redstar suffers from the same failure to see the real problem.

I said you were fundamentally wrong that it is a problem to get people to see the merits of idealised communism. I said that you (as redstar does) fail to see that the real problem is to get them to see that anything like it is worth even pursuing.

I really dont understand what you are trying to say here. I may not be able to communicate perfectly, but you however have more contradictions than the Holy Bible. What do you concider " a little bit of backing up into those statements"? Your main argument against what was bieng said was "What people reject is the notion that it is practically achievable." Then you started sauce talking.


I said you were fundamentally wrong that it is a problem to get people to see the merits of idealised communism.
I think that if you red my post you would find no instince of me stating otherwise. You dont even argue logicaly. The reason I chose not to respond to your post is because your use of rhetoric is incorect and doesnt make any sense. I would love to see you write something that actualy had a point of view or a main focus.

No sc4r my ego wasnt bruised either. I dont resent being chalenged or misunderstood. I dont come here to make friends or for self image. I am here because I care about our future. Im sick of being screwed by capitolism and hope to gain insight on how to combat it.
I also feel obligated to opologie if my assult on your chacter has hurt your feelings in any way. However this is a post board where people post opinions. My opinion is you are a facist.


I have fought Fascists you little prick. Have you ?
No im not going to tell an undercover facist cop anything.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 06:14 AM
I actualy like when you disagree with me because It gives me an oportunity to prove you wrong. However when you post things like "you are fundamentaly wrong" and then start ripping redstar I think, hmm is this post worth responding to. I still dont understand how you associate me disagreeing with redstar as ridding his coattails.


NO lad I most emphatically was not agreeing with Redstar. What I did was disagree with your basic point and point out that Redstar suffers from the same failure to see the real problem.

I said you were fundamentally wrong that it is a problem to get people to see the merits of idealised communism. I said that you (as redstar does) fail to see that the real problem is to get them to see that anything like it is worth even pursuing.

I really dont understand what you are trying to say here. I may not be able to communicate perfectly, but you however have more contradictions than the Holy Bible. What do you concider " a little bit of backing up into those statements"? Your main argument against what was bieng said was "What people reject is the notion that it is practically achievable." Then you started sauce talking.


I said you were fundamentally wrong that it is a problem to get people to see the merits of idealised communism.
I think that if you red my post you would find no instince of me stating otherwise. You dont even argue logicaly. The reason I chose not to respond to your post is because your use of rhetoric is incorect and doesnt make any sense. I would love to see you write something that actualy had a point of view or a main focus.

No sc4r my ego wasnt bruised either. I dont resent being chalenged or misunderstood. I dont come here to make friends or for self image. I am here because I care about our future. Im sick of being screwed by capitolism and hope to gain insight on how to combat it.
I also feel obligated to opologie if my assult on your chacter has hurt your feelings in any way. However this is a post board where people post opinions. My opinion is you are a facist.


I have fought Fascists you little prick. Have you ?
No im not going to tell an undercover facist cop anything.
I actualy like when you disagree with me because It gives me an oportunity to prove you wrong.

Fair enough.


However when you post things like "you are fundamentaly wrong" and then start ripping redstar I think, hmm is this post worth responding to.

Really as I read it he actually sat down and wrote several paragraphs on why you were wrong: -

I reckon you are fundamentally wrong.

Very few people would not want idealised communism (I personally know died in the wool capitalists who will happily admit that they would love idealised communism). What people reject is the notion that it is practically achievable. It's this problem that needs addressing, and this problem is exacerbated by wild cannons like RS telling potential Socialists to spread the message that what us Socialist stand for is a notion that everything will be perfect if we kill all the capitalists.

Its a message that is bound to be rejected on two fronts :

1. It dont seem to offer any realistic expectation of delivering what it claims it will.
2. It includes an instruction to engage in what looks like exactly the sort of brutal extremism and spitefulness that people have been repeatedly told is what Socialism is 'really' all about.


So really your arguement has more holes than a cheese grater...

My opinion is you are a facist.

My opinion is that you are just another one of Rdstars sheep, and one who doesnt know the meaning of the word fascism.

Enigma

[sc4r]

Ryen : " I have a vision of the percfect Etopian world and cant Imagine anyone wanting different. Alas they do though".

That what I said was fundamentally wrong. And since the rest of my response contrasted this with what I do see as the fundamental problem; which is getting people to see that anything like a perfect utopian world is achievable, it is difficult to see how anyone could think otherwise.

Now either you agree with that or you do not. If you do agree with it, then WTF other than a bruised ego are you complaining about? If you do not agree with it then the adult response was to say so; and to say why.

Redstar rejects many ideas that are intended to make socialist implementation easier, and focuses very heavily on describing his view of a post capitalist society and as such it is not irrelevant to mention his position on this issue. Since you had just said that you agreed with him on much, and since this is actually a Redstar thread, it was not exactly unreasonable to mention his views as they relate to the above. Which is what I did. I wasn't polite about him, but then he is hardly polite about me.

This is not an email corresponce son. A response to something you have written does not have to relate only to you, or merely refute exactly what you say. Nor is the idea of such a forum simply to argue with individuals and prove them wrong and yourself right. The idea is to explore ideas. Nor for that matter is there any guarantee that someone will understand what you mean every time.

The 'riding on coat-tails' fairly obviously relates to the fact that following RS's lead you have taken it upon yourself to start throwing shit in my direction. You have not actually responded in any way to the observations I actually made in the post that followed yours. Not one word about them.

Very typical of egotistical young twats. Also very typical to start crying 'Fascist'. Do you know what a Fascist is? assuming you do (a big assumption mind) then suppose you try to find any hint at all anywhere that I am one. Or is it , for you, sufficient proof that I once said you were fundamentally wrong about something you said, and tried to explain briefly why I thought so.

I didn't call you a prat or a fascist for expressing a view that seemed to be at variance with mine. You, however, have taken exactly this attitude with me.

Bottom line is that if you want to take part in a discussion then dont expect no-one ever to disagree. You apparently cannot take such disagreement and see it as a personal affront that anyone would do so. That my boy actually is an attitude that Fascists share; go join em; they'd be pleased with the raw material you offer, and they look for exactly the degree of rabid indignation about disagreement and willingness to denounce people that you seem to have.

I'm not a Fascist little boy, nor a Capitalist. And accusations from spoilt ignoramuses like yourself dont make me one.

[RyeN]

I very much like yourself realize that there are many steps that have to be taken in order to achive socialism. I am also aware of all the additional steps there will be in order to achive communisum. Many of your points are educated and make some logical sense.

I don't however agree with your constant outlandish remarks to redstar, which is why I havent comment on them. As well many of your posts are negative without explenation. I am acepting of people who disagree, but its better to show why its wrong and how to improve, rather than "its wrong, your an idiot" These such outright attacks are what gave me the impresion of facisim from you. So duly labeled. I dont actualy think your an under cover facist cop. It was the way you associated me with redstar that made me react by labeling you. I dont often denounce people for what they do. That deffinatley is not what Im all about.

[sc4r]

Look matey :

Take a bloody look at my first two contributions to this thread. The ones before Redstar decided to say that I had no right to disagree with him and introduce his (false) version of our history.

Take a look at almost any thread I contribute to (before the inevitable personal attack on me from Redstar supporters comes that is). You wont find one paragraph shite saying 'Redstar is a wanker/Fascist/paedophile/Cappie'; you will find typically 10 or a dozen paragraphs expressing my reasoning on a position, and where I am saying Redstar, or anyone else, is wrong you will typically find me asking them to answer questions (just as in this thread).

Now you may not agree with that reasoning or understand it. But reasoned discusion there most certainly is. As there was in my response to you. If you think you can show the reasoning to be wrong then bloody well try and say so, and why. You still have not.

After long exposure to Redstars views I have formed the conclusion that they are trite, psedo-intellectual, and inconsistent. I often say so in addition to commenting on the particular triteness he is currently advancing. But I rarely if ever ONLY say this.

And the bottom line is that this personal clash with Redstar was not initiated because I attacked him, but because I disagree with his views and he took to responding not with a defence of them, or even himself, but with assertions about my character; repeated attacks. The same sort he has routinely subjected several others to.

In fact take a look at this thread. Redstar has, like you, not responded to a single actual question I raised; what he did was to say that I must be ignored because I was posting 'bourgeoise babble'. Has it occured to you that him saying that is what it is does not make it so? Or for that matter that if it was, he seems to find the 'bourgeoise babble' awfully difficult to actually refute.

If you dont actually think I'm a Fascist or an undercover Fascist cop then I strongly suggest you dont say that you do. You throw shit and some will come flying back your way son, with interest. If you said that sort of thing to my face you would get something a bit more damaging than a stern letter admonishing your manners in return.

You may think you know all about Socialism, and be a bit of a hero. To me you are nothing yet. Your posted thoughts have all the hallmarks of someone whose understanding of People, Socialism, Economics, and 'Revolution' comes out of 'Jack and Jill discuss socio-economics'. If you want to prove otherwise then try actually doing so instead of getting on board with what you doubtless think is the popular side to be on in a fight.