What is to be done with the religious right?

[ComradePonov]

What's happening in America is scary. Rick Perry is just 2% behind Romney, and he carries the support ot haundreds of thousands of Americans.

With him just announcing that he is running for president a few minutes ago, what in your opinion is to be done with the religious right? I mean, these are the same people who belive god sent Hitler to force Jews to Israel...

What is a reasonable course of action when dealing with these individuals?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The most scary thing about this is that the Dems will use this to reinforce the "politics of lesser evilism". "Yeah, we truly are pathetic, we know Obama has disappointed everyone, but now is not the time to desert us, look how crazy and scary the right is".

Socialists have to be socialists, expose how both parties are utterly embedded with capital, how neither party have any answers to our predicament and how important it is for an independent working class movement.

We have to expose both the absurdities of the Tea Party and the bankruptcy of the Dems.

[NGNM85]

I started a thread on this earlier today, with a video of Perry, and his associates. Perhaps they could be merged?

[No_Leaders]

They're all quasi fascists. The religious right could rot for all i care. I think people need to fight back against these clowns though, definitely.

[00000000000]

It's so depressing to see how prevelant the christian-right are in the US, socially and politically. Even in the wake of the financial crisis and all that came out about the greedy, amoral bastards that saw it coming and made a fortune out of it, little or no significant change has come about (other than voting in the Dems...just like the UK; Cons for a bit, Labour for abit, Cons for a bit...on and on and on)
Anyway, it's going to take a long time to irradicate the Christ-right mind-set and its supporters. Left wing (or 'liberal') ideas are seme to be treated with so much suspicion and disdain.
The main problem, I think, is the religious side of it. The fundies hi-jacked and claimed the Right for their own in the 80's, so supporting these candidates goes beyond rational political debate and into the realm of 'what God wants you to do'. It's hard to fight that kind of blinkered and deeply imbedded belief that your political views have the backing of the Almighty.
'The Lord favours lower taxes and is against same-sex marriage'...I mean, what do you say to that? *bangs head against wall* :mad:

[Thirsty Crow]

They're all quasi fascists. The religious right could rot for all i care. I think people need to fight back against these clowns though, definitely.
I don't think it's that far from truth to predict that if massive social unrest is to occur, and I think that prospects for a fightback are there, these people could become the new brownshirts, the battering ram of creeping Fascism. This depends, of course, on the scale and intensity of class struggle, and I don't think that these idiots would represent a real threat* outside such situations. It's well known, or it should be, that state administration is bound up with definite interests which need to be managed, which means that the room for manoeuvre is limited, and that political platform is very much subjected to conjunctural demands for specific actions with regard to what keeps all of this going - capital accumulation.

* of course, when I'm speaking of a "real threat", I'm aiming at the possibility of a political development in a clear direction towards fascism, which would necessarily take on the form of a severe modification, if not abolition, of parliamentary democracy and civil rights, especially for militant opposition. Even outside such a situation, these fuckwits do represent a threat, especially for womens' rights, immigrants' and other peoples' via their control of the military (though, I'm not so sure if the religious right has a foothold in Pentagon) and workers' living standards.

[Euronymous]

Maybe go into a few churches and spread the leftist ideology in their own safe havens? That would turn out quite...interesting..or bloody.

Sadly you can't reason with people who are so entrenched in their religious banality. Sadly a couple of my religious friends are so apathetic towards politics because of their religious choices. I even tried to talk to one of my friends whos going to India to "help the needy through the teachings of Jesus". I asked why is had to be for Jesus and not for the sake of helping them, or even to try and fix the main problem that is capitalism. She said it's because Jesus brings happiness and that Capitalism can never be fixed....

I was speechless.

[00000000000]

"Jesus brings happiness..."

I've always wondered how that works. Is there something about submitting your free will to a 'higher' being' that makes you euphoric? Is it like taking a drug? Or is it a case of 'ignorance = bliss'?

I might put that to the next street preacher I come across

[Iron Felix]

The religious right has been historically very strong in America. What is happening right now is no surprise, America has always been a very Christian and very racist society.

[Susurrus]

Although I agree the right is a problem, they are NOT fascists. They advocate a free market and limited government, fascism is a market controlled by a government with unlimited powers. If we throw around the word fascism, it soon loses all meaning, and we forget who to watch out for.

[Nox]

Burn them all!! :thumbup1:

[KevlarPants]

The only real reason the religious people of the USA (and hell, almost everywhere else) support the right is because of the cultural brainwashing, through biased education by the rightist government, and because we usually have far less puritanical views than the ones backed up by the Bible.

If they really payed attention, mainly to the supposed teachings of Jesus Christ, they would surely be on our side. Now, I'm not religious, but I attended a Catholic school from 1st to 4th Grade, and we were taught another, less popular set of "rules", and those rules were Jesus's commandments. The Commandments of Jesus can be smashed down to one main idea: "Love and treat everyone equally". And besides that, there are many more parts that would be considered radically leftist by the puritanical government of the USA. He preached respect, generosity, tolerance and forgiveness. If he was actually a real guy, and if what he wrote was truly his creation, he was one of us.

But, of course, the rightist agenda is much more keen on spreading the other parts of the Bible, written by greedy and evil assholes, and some "made" by the Idiot Piece of Shit King (the popularly fabricated God).

I can't post any links because of my low post count, but seriously, look up The Commandments of Jesus, it's a good read.

[Azula]

What's happening in America is scary. Rick Perry is just 2% behind Romney, and he carries the support ot haundreds of thousands of Americans.

With him just announcing that he is running for president a few minutes ago, what in your opinion is to be done with the religious right? I mean, these are the same people who belive god sent Hitler to force Jews to Israel...

What is a reasonable course of action when dealing with these individuals?

First. Make attacks on gays and females into hate crime. It should be illegal to promote pro-life positions and homophobia.

Second. Strengthen liberal churches at the expense of fundamentalist churches.

Third. Throw such people as Fred Phelps and Billy Graham in prison.

[RGacky3]

First. Make attacks on gays and females into hate crime. It should be illegal to promote pro-life positions and homophobia.

Second. Strengthen liberal churches at the expense of fundamentalist churches.

Third. Throw such people as Fred Phelps and Billy Graham in prison.

You'd need a dictatorship for that, and there are more chances that you'd have a dictator that throws you in prison, and given your utter disdain for basic freedom of speach you'd have nothing to complain about.

[Azula]

You'd need a dictatorship for that, and there are more chances that you'd have a dictator that throws you in prison, and given your utter disdain for basic freedom of speach you'd have nothing to complain about.

I am sure the first thing is possible to achieve even with the Bill of Rights.

The second two things are harder.

Socialists and other progressives should attack christian fundamentalists everywhere, and strive to engage women and minorities against them, in order to create a vibrant and dynamic struggle.

The fundamentalists would not hesitate to abolish your freedoms. Therefore, they have no rights.

[RGacky3]

The second two things are harder.


No they are impossible, unless you throw away entirely the notion of freedom of speach.


The fundamentalists would not hesitate to abolish your freedoms. Therefore, they have no rights.

Wait is that how it works? Then I guess you have no rights.

[Azula]

No they are impossible, unless you throw away entirely the notion of freedom of speach.

Today, the reactionaries have freedom of speech, whereas the people doesn't have it. Under Socialism, it will be the other way.


Wait is that how it works? Then I guess you have no rights.

You don't understand Socialism, RQuacky3.

Liberals believe that actions are "good" and "evil" in their own right. We Socialists believe that actions are "good" or "bad" depending on who is affected by them.

Depriving Fascists of their "freedom of speach": Good


Depriving Socialists of their "freedom of speach": Bad

[RGacky3]

Today, the reactionaries have freedom of speech, whereas the people doesn't have it. Under Socialism, it will be the other way.


Under socialism every one has freedom of speach.
Under Capitalism everyone has "freedom of speach" but inreality its for sale.
Under YOUR socialism everyone that agrees with the great leader has freedom of speach, and everyone that disagrees is labeled as a reactionary.


Liberals believe that actions are "good" and "evil" in their own right. We Socialists believe that actions are "good" or "bad" depending on who is affected by them.


A: What does liberal mean? Its a meaningless term.
B: I am a socialist, your an authoritarian fetishist.
C: Good or bad depending on who is affected makes no sense, who decides what group matters and what group does not? You?


Depriving Fascists of their "freedom of speach": Good

Depriving Socialists of their "freedom of speach": Bad

Thats not freedom of speach, your presuming that YOU or someone else gets to choose what speach is acceptible and what is not, which is rediculous.

[Azula]

Under socialism every one has freedom of speach.
Under Capitalism everyone has "freedom of speach" but inreality its for sale.
Under YOUR socialism everyone that agrees with the great leader has freedom of speach, and everyone that disagrees is labeled as a reactionary.

Under "my Socialism", anti-social groups who wish to harm the interests of the working class will not have the ability to do so. Imagine how those same people who today consist the Tea Party would react if Socialism was going to replace Capitalism? Would you allow them to organise?


A: What does liberal mean? Its a meaningless term.
B: I am a socialist, your an authoritarian fetishist.
C: Good or bad depending on who is affected makes no sense, who decides what group matters and what group does not? You?

A: A social model which is about "compromising" between the classes and interests, ensuring that everyone look like they are validated but in reality justifying the oppression, by having everything adhering to laws.

B: No.

C: The working class decides that under Socialism.

[RGacky3]

Under "my Socialism", anti-social groups who wish to harm the interests of the working class will not have the ability to do so. Imagine how those same people who today consist the Tea Party would react if Socialism was going to replace Capitalism? Would you allow them to organise?


Yes I would, but you know what, without Koch brothers funding they arn't really any good, because not one really cares about them without funding from "americans with prosperity."


A: A social model which is about "compromising" between the classes and interests, ensuring that everyone look like they are validated but in reality justifying the oppression, by having everything adhering to laws.


Well then no one here is a liberal, and also no one actualy defines liberalism as that, so your really just making a strawman here.


C: The working class decides that under Socialism.

YOu need a functioning democracy for that, and for a functioning democracy you need freedom of speach.

[Azula]

We will have freedom of speech. Not just for all opinions.

Some opinions should not be uttered out loud.

[Susurrus]

The right will be like the Mensheviks after the October Revolution; with no real influence and trying to flee as fast as they can(across the border to Mexico perhaps?). Suppression will not be required.

[Azula]

The right will be like the Mensheviks after the October Revolution; with no real influence and trying to flee as fast as they can(across the border to Mexico perhaps?). Suppression will not be required.

They are heavily armed.

If you ever are having a revolution in the USA, as soon as you have control over the cities, you need to secure aircrafts, in order to bomb the militias on the countryside into submission (or obliteration).

[Iron Felix]

Although I agree the right is a problem, they are NOT fascists. They advocate a free market and limited government, fascism is a market controlled by a government with unlimited powers. If we throw around the word fascism, it soon loses all meaning, and we forget who to watch out for.
Fascism is the final form of capitalism mate.

[RGacky3]

We will have freedom of speech. Not just for all opinions.

Some opinions should not be uttered out loud.


That is literally the definition of destroying freedom of speach, if you ban certain opinions you don't have freedom of speach. its not freedom of speach if our aloud to say somethings.


They are heavily armed.

If you ever are having a revolution in the USA, as soon as you have control over the cities, you need to secure aircrafts, in order to bomb the militias on the countryside into submission (or obliteration).

You literally sound like a made up Glenn Beck Conspiracy.

[Azula]

That is literally the definition of destroying freedom of speach, if you ban certain opinions you don't have freedom of speach. its not freedom of speach if our aloud to say somethings.

So, you think that Holocaust denial should be legal? Or advocating pro-life positions?


You literally sound like a made up Glenn Beck Conspiracy.

You really think the Tea Party wouldn't resist a Communist takeover violently?

[Demogorgon]

We will have freedom of speech. Not just for all opinions.

Some opinions should not be uttered out loud.Who is harmed by an opinion being uttered out loud exactly? I am uncomfortable enough with the notion of banning the public organisation of certain groups or preventing them from participating in the political process (which can be justified under extreme cases, it was proper to prevent the Nazi party from reforming for instance), but to propose to ban the simple expression of views is just awful. Certainly the ability to speak your mind to others must be one of the most basic foundations for any form of democracy.

Oh BTW, your definition of liberal is awful. I can't let that go, liberalism is a very broad spectrum of views but I don't think any form of it could fit yours.

[Susurrus]

Fascism is the final form of capitalism mate.

I thought that was imperialism, oh Lenin avatar?


But no, if you actually read the texts of fascism you'll find that they are coporativists, not capitalists.

[Azula]

Who is harmed by an opinion being uttered out loud exactly? I am uncomfortable enough with the notion of banning the public organisation of certain groups or preventing them from participating in the political process (which can be justified under extreme cases, it was proper to prevent the Nazi party from reforming for instance), but to propose to ban the simple expression of views is just awful. Certainly the ability to speak your mind to others must be one of the most basic foundations for any form of democracy.


If a person is allowed to sprout nonsense, others might find the nonsense appealing, and slowly the centre of discussion is moved towards the nonsense as more people starts to parrot it.

It is better to stigmatise and illegalise those who are speaking the nonsense, since in all debates - no matter how much you beat them - there are always some people who would follow the reactionaries, not of any rational reasons but because they have found their home.

[Susurrus]

They are heavily armed.

If you ever are having a revolution in the USA, as soon as you have control over the cities, you need to secure aircrafts, in order to bomb the militias on the countryside into submission (or obliteration).

For one thing, if revolution ever happens in the US it will be be the working class, who are usually the ones with the guns in the South.

And secondly, how did bombing the insurgents work out for the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Nazis in France et al, the US in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/Korea/everywhere?

[Azula]

For one thing, if revolution ever happens in the US it will be be the working class, who are usually the ones with the guns in the South.

And secondly, how did bombing the insurgents work out for the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Nazis in France et al, the US in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/Korea/everywhere?

It worked in the Russian Civil War.

Those with the guns in the south are more the equivalent of small-town kulaks. They are so drenched in the gospel and the constitution...

[Demogorgon]

So, you think that Holocaust denial should be legal? Or advocating pro-life positions?
Plainly he does. As do I. I'll put caveats on the former in that there are reasons for countries that were under Nazi rule-particularly Germany-to ban Holocaust denial, but for places like Britain or America to do so would just be absurd. Nobody gains from doing so.

As for the pro-life position. Hasn't it occurred to you that banning the expression of pro-life views, asides from being a massive restriction of free speech, would simply make pro-lifers pretend to be otherwise? It is analogous to what happened in the Eastern Bloc in fact. When the so called Communist regimes collapsed there many party figures happily revealed that they had never favoured socialism and had simply been playing along. Don't you think that those kind of people might just have had a vested interest in not governing well? Don't you think things might have been better if people could honestly express their views and you could see who actually favours socialism and who does not?

[Susurrus]

It worked in the Russian Civil War.

Those with the guns in the south are more the equivalent of small-town kulaks. They are so drenched in the gospel and the constitution...

Umm, I'm fairly certain the Red Army did not have an air force in that time period...

Not really, there are more leftists than one would imagine, and if they had socialism (and reality for that matter) properly explained to them, they would make excellent revolutionaries.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Many fundamentalist church groups, "mega churches" and Xtian fundamentalist lobbying groups like Focus On The Family essentially operate as tax dodges. They pay no taxes on millions of dollars of property.The US Internal Revenue Service could take a good hard look at their tax except status, if they wanted to, and take many of them down. This would not intefere with freedom of religion but would merely take away the free ride these organizations have long held in US society.The media could also expose some of the anti-scientific absurdities of these groups and the effect they have on young people.This won't happen because Christian fundamentalism to a large extent fits into the needs of imperialism. When it gets too far out of hand, like aggressively opposing stem cell research, this begins to create problems for the ruling class. So there is a fine line.

I don't think Rick Perry will actually get too far into the primaries. His purpose is to "energize the base", that is Republicanspeak for getting religious ultra conservatives and paranoid petty bourgeois riled up so they'll vote, send money, and do campaign work for whoever the Republicans actually end up nominating and scare liberals back to Obama. That's his purpose. When the time is right(but not before) the media will begin publicizing the lunacy of Perry (the Statue of Liberty represents a pagan goddess, the Illumanti have a secret cabal running the New World Order, etc.) and he'll be out. They will only do this after he's served his purpose though, not before.

Obama will be reelected, the Wall Street boys are sending in their checks and capital still needs "Change We Can Believe In".Barry is their man. There will be record low voter turn outs though.

When do we srtart organizing a US Labor Party to bring an end to this horseshit?

[Demogorgon]

If a person is allowed to sprout nonsense, others might find the nonsense appealing, and slowly the centre of discussion is moved towards the nonsense as more people starts to parrot it.

It is better to stigmatise and illegalise those who are speaking the nonsense, since in all debates - no matter how much you beat them - there are always some people who would follow the reactionaries, not of any rational reasons but because they have found their home.
Do you have any examples of completely banning people from expressing themselves turning out well?

[Azula]

Plainly he does. As do I. I'll put caveats on the former in that there are reasons for countries that were under Nazi rule-particularly Germany-to ban Holocaust denial, but for places like Britain or America to do so would just be absurd. Nobody gains from doing so.

As for the pro-life position. Hasn't it occurred to you that banning the expression of pro-life views, asides from being a massive restriction of free speech, would simply make pro-lifers pretend to be otherwise? It is analogous to what happened in the Eastern Bloc in fact. When the so called Communist regimes collapsed there many party figures happily revealed that they had never favoured socialism and had simply been playing along. Don't you think that those kind of people might just have had a vested interest in not governing well? Don't you think things might have been better if people could honestly express their views and you could see who actually favours socialism and who does not?

Good argument. There must exist a good way to weed out such opinions.

[Azula]

Do you have any examples of completely banning people from expressing themselves turning out well?

The destruction of paganism?

[Susurrus]

The destruction of paganism?

Christianity is a good outcome??

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Germany bans overt expressions of Nazism. Canada, France, and other countries ban explicit "hate speech" however defined.Holocaust denial is illegal in some of these countries and as I understand the revisionist historian David Irving did prison time for this a few years ago connected with a libel suit. RevLeft itself bans supporters of a certain pedophile rights organization and strongly discourages discussion of "age of consent laws" (I agree with this ban)

Its a complicated argument. John Stuart Mill versus Marx, I guess.

Most open expressions of racism, wearing a swastika in public, are in and of themselves offensive to whatever minority they are directed to.

In the US context the best strategy is to make fascists and racists know they are not welcome in our communities, and while not outrightly banning free speech, we can do much to deny them a platform.

[Susurrus]

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." -Karl Popper

[Azula]

Christianity is a good outcome??

In comparison with paganism perhaps. But the point is that it is a successful destruction of a set of ideas through banning.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not exactly sure of the legal technicalities but couldn't extreme anti-abortion and homophobic groups like the Westboro Baptist Church be considered guilty of incitement to murder? They may stop just short of advocating this, but it can be clearly shown that they create a climate strongly encouraging this.Without changing laws or restricting freedom of speech I think a lot of these groups can be shut down.

Of course restrictions originally designed to fight the right can and are used against the left. Working class based politics and activism is the best way to fight the right.

[Azula]

The first start should be to ban homophobic expressions as hate incitement.

[Kosakk]

Hate speech and insinuating murder/killing of certain groups of people (religious/etnic/political/etc.) should be outlawed.
It's allready outlawed in some european countries. Because it's a problem, some people take it seriously …

[Azula]

Hate speech and insinuating murder/killing of certain groups of people (religious/etnic/political/etc.) should be outlawed.
It's allready outlawed in some european countries. Because it's a problem, some people take it seriously …

I think it also should be illegal to do it against women and LGBTQ people.

[Susurrus]

I think it also should be illegal to do it against women

Men too then. Just say on basis of gender.

[Coach Trotsky]

What's happening in America is scary. Rick Perry is just 2% behind Romney, and he carries the support ot haundreds of thousands of Americans.

With him just announcing that he is running for president a few minutes ago, what in your opinion is to be done with the religious right? I mean, these are the same people who belive god sent Hitler to force Jews to Israel...

What is a reasonable course of action when dealing with these individuals?

Destroy them, or suffer life under them (as long as they let us sinners live, that is). They are the Christian Taliban.

[Azula]

Men too then. Just say on basis of gender.

Not necessary.

If a man says, "all women are whores", that is sexism and should be punished.

If a woman says, "all men are pigs", nothing should be done.

Why? Because women are one of the most oppressed groups in the world. The oppressed have the right to express their grievances against the oppressor.

[Coach Trotsky]

Hate speech and insinuating murder/killing of certain groups of people (religious/etnic/political/etc.) should be outlawed.
It's allready outlawed in some european countries. Because it's a problem, some people take it seriously …

You can't just 'ban' this. You have to destroy it root and branch. Anyone who strives to oppress another people must be destroyed, not just tolerated nor merely banned or even jailed. If they start wars, finish them with our victory and their burial. This political-religious oppressive cult has gone on long enough...time to feed them to the lions once and for all. Workers, opppressed and youth...rise and fight together as band of hungry lions. Either we will have a future and bury our oppressors through the fruits of our own self-emancipatory collective action, or in their future they will have us for dinner instead.

The cross is an enemy military symbol. We should take it just as seriously as the swastika.

[Susurrus]

Not necessary.

If a man says, "all women are whores", that is sexism and should be punished.

True


If a woman says, "all men are pigs", nothing should be done.

Why? Because women are one of the most oppressed groups in the world. The oppressed have the right to express their grievances against the oppressor.

So by this logic if Africans-Americans were to start lynching whites for dating black women, or if Israel was to invade Germany and put everyone not Jewish in a concentration camp, or if China were to invade Japan and create mass executions and mass rapes nothing should be done?

[Azula]

So by this logic if Africans-Americans were to start lynching whites for dating black women, or if Israel was to invade Germany and put everyone not Jewish in a concentration camp, or if China were to invade Japan and create mass executions and mass rapes nothing should be done?

No.

But if African-Americans called whites slur words, it is less aggravating than the opposite.

Israel is an imperialist country today.

A Chinese invasion of Japan would only be justified if it was Maoist China we would talk about.

[Azula]

You can't just 'ban' this. You have to destroy it root and branch. Anyone who strives to oppress another people must be destroyed, not just tolerated nor merely banned or even jailed. If they start wars, finish them with our victory and their burial. This political-religious oppressive cult has gone on long enough...time to feed them to the lions once and for all. Workers, opppressed and youth...rise and fight together as band of hungry lions. Either we will have a future and bury our oppressors through the fruits of our own self-emancipatory collective action, or in their future they will have us for dinner instead.

The cross is an enemy military symbol. We should take it just as seriously as the swastika.

Wisely spoken comrade.

[Klaatu]

In my opinion, I think we should be counter-attacking with the idea that Jesus was Communist. Not Communist, per se, but Communist-like, as Communism did not actually exist 2,000 years ago. We could also say he was Socialist-like.

Of course, that's just my viewpoint. I think we should try it and see what happens, if not just as an experiment.

[Azula]

In my opinion, I think we should be counter-attacking with the idea that Jesus was Communist. Not Communist, per se, but Communist-like, as Communism did not actually exist 2,000 years ago. We could also say he was Socialist-like.

Of course, that's just my viewpoint. I think we should try it and see what happens, if not just as an experiment.

Interesting idea. That might be accompanied with a persecution campaign against conservative churches.

[Coach Trotsky]

Interesting idea. That might be accompanied with a persecution campaign against conservative churches.

We won't have to worry about going after them. They'll come after us first. Fascism in America will come carrying the cross and wrapped in the American Scars and Stripes flag. Sound like any political forces on the scene today? Who were the first opposition forces that the current American mass movement of right-wing cross and flag bearers came out against? They came out against the unions and their supporters in Wisconsin. That was just very early foreshadowing of what these tea bagger religious right Christian American patriot fascists are going to bring to us tomorrow. Now that everyone of our enemies has seen what happened in the UK rebellion---especially how fucking pathetic the overall British Left response was to it, and how instead it was the EDL types that took the streets in defense of the shops and acted as the auxiliary morality police hand-in-hand with the bourgeois media priesthood---of course the ruling elites in America will take the hint. They know they have everything to gain and nothing to lose at this point by whipping up and unleashing their right-wing kooks and thugs against us...it's not likely the organized Left forces in America will respond substantially and effectively against that, since most of the American Left is just as co-opted into this system, is satisfied with their 'middle class' lifestyles and too terrified of losing these lifestyles by actually rocking the boat, and is still very isolated and disconnected from those masses at the bottom of this society. It seems that the middle class snob British Left just looks down on them all as a 'lumpen' underclass...a fascinating 'wolves in sheep's clothing' twist on using Marxian lingo to express their own disgusting support for cappie class stratification and continued/worsened oppression and exploitation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again---most of the organized Left is part of the problem (and often co-opted parts of the system), now more then ever.
When push comes to shove, they always show their true colors, and those colors ain't red.

I hope one day the fighting working masses not only expropriate the bourgeoisie, but also expropriate all these phony misleader system-tools posturing on the co-opted organized Left (who are right now preaching cappie values and offering finger-wagging "thou shalt nots" to those at the bottom of this society who have no future under this system and nothing to lose but their chains). Not one more vote or one more cent to the system's "Left" loyal opposition! Break away from the sellout/bankrupt reformist mostly middle class Left, and turn to build the next revolutionary Left especially rooted among and oriented towards the worse-off more precarious workers, the oppressed peoples, and the youth without hope under this system (you know, all those people whom the current Left turns up its nose to in practice and seems to consider 'low class' 'trash' 'animals' 'lumpen' etc.)

[RGacky3]

So, you think that Holocaust denial should be legal? Or advocating pro-life positions?


Yes, and if those positions are so wrong you'll have no problem arguing against it.


You really think the Tea Party wouldn't resist a Communist takeover violently?

Your missing the point, you are the total cariacture of a communist boogie man that glenn beck makes up that wants to make an all powerful nanny state.

And btw, they probably would'nt, if we got to the point where we oculd build socialism in the US, the koch brothers and americans for prosperity would'nt exist, and most tea-partiers probably would'nt be fooled anymore, btw, they are a tiny tiny part of the country.


If a person is allowed to sprout nonsense, others might find the nonsense appealing, and slowly the centre of discussion is moved towards the nonsense as more people starts to parrot it.

It is better to stigmatise and illegalise those who are speaking the nonsense, since in all debates - no matter how much you beat them - there are always some people who would follow the reactionaries, not of any rational reasons but because they have found their home.

So basically your afraid of other ideas because your not confident in your own ideas, if you were, you would'nt be afraid of them.

If they "banned" communism btw, would that have stopped you?

But, anyway, it boils down to this, you don't believe in freedom of speach, and you have a fetish for authoritarianism, you have no interest in real socialism.


A Chinese invasion of Japan would only be justified if it was Maoist China we would talk about.

Why would that matter to the Japanese?


If a man says, "all women are whores", that is sexism and should be punished.


By who? What if the people decide your ideas are terrible, should you be punished for saying them?

[Demogorgon]

The destruction of paganism?
Centuries of oppression, mass killing of the innocent, torture and the groundwork for the medieval witch hunts is your definition of turning out well?

[Azula]

Centuries of oppression, mass killing of the innocent, torture and the groundwork for the medieval witch hunts is your definition of turning out well?

Yes. Paganism is relegated to small Neonazi sects and LARP virgins.

It is destroyed. Therefore, it was a success.

If it takes thousands of years to purge all incorrect and reactionary lines of thinking... well, we then will purge them for thousands of years.

[RGacky3]

It is destroyed. Therefore, it was a success.

If it takes thousands of years to purge all incorrect and reactionary lines of thinking... well, we then will purge them for thousands of years.

yeah, and they exchanged paganism with a bloodthirsty church.

The type of world you invision is a sick one and something that has nothing to do with progress or socialism.

[Azula]

Yes, and if those positions are so wrong you'll have no problem arguing against it.

It is not a matter of arguments.

The weaker position in arguments could and often do defeat stronger positions, simply because of the material interests those arguments correspond to and the perceived charisma and strength of those bringing forth the arguments.

As Osama bin Laden said, when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they choose the strong horse.


Your missing the point, you are the total cariacture of a communist boogie man that glenn beck makes up that wants to make an all powerful nanny state.

Ad Hominem.


And btw, they probably would'nt, if we got to the point where we oculd build socialism in the US, the koch brothers and americans for prosperity would'nt exist, and most tea-partiers probably would'nt be fooled anymore, btw, they are a tiny tiny part of the country.

Wishful thinking. You must be prepared to hurt people, to make them shiver and cry, to humiliate and to hunt them down. Otherwise you are only a spectator, not a revolutionary.



So basically your afraid of other ideas because your not confident in your own ideas, if you were, you would'nt be afraid of them.

It is not a matter of ideas fighting, it is a matter of groups fighting. It is unlikely that such people are convertable since their reactionary positions are grounded in the defence of certain privileges. The ideas are merely weapons in a material struggle.


If they "banned" communism btw, would that have stopped you?

No, but it would make it harder for me to operate.

As for the matter, the difference between Communism and reactionary positions is that Communism is the correct line of thinking. The other lines are incorrect.


But, anyway, it boils down to this, you don't believe in freedom of speach, and you have a fetish for authoritarianism, you have no interest in real socialism.

Slander. I am ready to commit anything to see a bright, red future.

It is you who are weak. You lack faith in your ideology, that is why you don't dare to hurt proponents for other ideologies.

If you really had the faith, you wouldn't hesitate to do anything in your power to silence your enemies.

[Azula]

yeah, and they exchanged paganism with a bloodthirsty church.

The type of world you invision is a sick one and something that has nothing to do with progress or socialism.

What is sick with the idea of all children of the worl properly clothed, fed and schooled? What is sick with a world where no one is starving, everyone has a useful employment and where there is no repression of workers, women or minorities?

[RGacky3]

Thats what I want, what you want is one where you basically have a one party state, a dictator, no free speach, no room for grievences, and basically, well, a hell hole.

I want real socialism, empowering workers, and workers democracy.

[Azula]

Where have I written that I want a dictator? The leader of the Communist Party is responsible before the Communist Party.

Answer my other post.

[Susurrus]

It is not a matter of arguments.
As Osama bin Laden said, when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they choose the strong horse.


As for the matter, the difference between Communism and reactionary positions is that Communism is the correct line of thinking. The other lines are incorrect.

I am ready to commit anything to see a bright, red future.

It is you who are weak. You lack faith in your ideology, that is why you don't dare to hurt proponents for other ideologies.

If you really had the faith, you wouldn't hesitate to do anything in your power to silence your enemies.




I'm sorry, but you are sounding exactly like a religious extremist right now.

[RGacky3]

The leader of the Communist Party is responsible before the Communist Party.


Thats rarely ever been the case, its almost always the other way around.


It is not a matter of arguments.

The weaker position in arguments could and often do defeat stronger positions, simply because of the material interests those arguments correspond to and the perceived charisma and strength of those bringing forth the arguments.

As Osama bin Laden said, when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they choose the strong horse.


Then if the weaker position beats them, and then YOUR position gets banned, then there we go, your done, no more speach.


Wishful thinking. You must be prepared to hurt people, to make them shiver and cry, to humiliate and to hunt them down. Otherwise you are only a spectator, not a revolutionary.


I think this is more your sick fantasy rather than actual revolutoinary stratagy.

Anyway, if you want to do that to people and expect them to be on yourside go ahead.


It is not a matter of ideas fighting, it is a matter of groups fighting. It is unlikely that such people are convertable since their reactionary positions are grounded in the defence of certain privileges. The ideas are merely weapons in a material struggle.


ideas are not weapons dumbass, they are ideas, thats just a metaphor.

What you want to do is destroy the basis for democracy, btw, it does'nt matter if you can't convert them as long as people that know their argument and know its bullshit.

So basically your idea is, kill everyone that disagrees with you ... Great, your a real socialist.


No, but it would make it harder for me to operate.

As for the matter, the difference between Communism and reactionary positions is that Communism is the correct line of thinking. The other lines are incorrect.


SAYS YOU, there is no objective truth, unless you believe in God, which it almost sounds like you do.


Slander. I am ready to commit anything to see a bright, red future.


Your especially eger and ready to commit to destroying any notion of communism to get to the future you want, which is killing people who disagree with you, basically, and banning stuff you don't like.


It is you who are weak. You lack faith in your ideology, that is why you don't dare to hurt proponents for other ideologies.


I have the balls to debate them head on, all the time, you would just rather ban them.

As far as hurting people, no I don't hurt people who think differently from me because I'm not a spoiled child.

I'm not saying there you won't have to hurt people in a revolutoin, such as people that hurt other people, or try to kill people.

But what your talking about is childish and supid, you dont' like what someone said, so you want to ban it and kill them, really your not interested in socialism at all, if you were you'd be for freedom of speach and democracy.


If you really had the faith, you wouldn't hesitate to do anything in your power to silence your enemies.


And I do that, by making them look stupid for having such dumb ideas, obviously your unable to do that.


Why would that matter to the Japanese?


What matter?

[Azula]

I'm sorry, but you are sounding exactly like a religious extremist right now.

Yes. And that is why they are so strong.

They don't hesitate. If we hesitate, we are weak, and those who are stronger will destroy us.

[RGacky3]

Yes. And that is why they are so strong.

They don't hesitate. If we hesitate, we are weak, and those who are stronger will destroy us.

its not because yo uare strong, its because you are insanely out of touch and without the ability to reason.

[Azula]

I forgot to edit your last quote, that about the Japanese.


Thats rarely ever been the case, its almost always the other way around.

Illustrate.


Then if the weaker position beats them, and then YOUR position gets banned, then there we go, your done, no more speach.

Debates are not determining the future of the world. We should not debate against our adversaries, since that could reveal our thinking for them. We should strive to destroy their organisations.


ideas are not weapons dumbass, they are ideas, thats just a metaphor.

What you want to do is destroy the basis for democracy, btw, it does'nt matter if you can't convert them as long as people that know their argument and know its bullshit.

So basically your idea is, kill everyone that disagrees with you ... Great, your a real socialist.

Of course I want to destroy the basis of bourgeois democracy.


SAYS YOU, there is no objective truth, unless you believe in God, which it almost sounds like you do.

There is an objective truth. That is science. It teaches us that society must evolve from capitalism to socialism, and it has been proved by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoxha.


I have the balls to debate them head on, all the time, you would just rather ban them.

As far as hurting people, no I don't hurt people who think differently from me because I'm not a spoiled child.

I'm not saying there you won't have to hurt people in a revolutoin, such as people that hurt other people, or try to kill people.

But what your talking about is childish and supid, you dont' like what someone said, so you want to ban it and kill them, really your not interested in socialism at all, if you were you'd be for freedom of speach and democracy.

If I debate them, I will validate them, acknowledge that they are humans and that we could discuss.

There is however no room for compromise with them. They must be completely and utterly denied any platform to sprout their reactionary nonsense, through legal and illegal means.

[Susurrus]

Yes. And that is why they are so strong.

They don't hesitate. If we hesitate, we are weak, and those who are stronger will destroy us.

So should we blame everything on the jews and pledge full allegiance to our leader? The nazis were pretty strong...

[Azula]

So should we blame everything on the jews and pledge full allegiance to our leader? The nazis were pretty strong...

Strong doesn't equal correct.

Incorrect ideas could win over correct ideas because they have stronger and more charismatic proponents and are more ruthless.

[RGacky3]

Illustrate.


The purges done by Mao and Stalin were getting rid of communist party members that were not Loyal to Mao and Stalin.


Debates are not determining the future of the world. We should not debate against our adversaries, since that could reveal our thinking for them. We should strive to destroy their organisations.


absolutely, the institutions of capitalism should be destroyed, but as soon as you have an authority to ban free speach, you've basically destroyed any point or dream of socialism.


Of course I want to destroy the basis of bourgeois democracy.


the basis of ANY democracy, the very concept of democracy.


There is an objective truth. That is science. It teaches us that society must evolve from capitalism to socialism, and it has been proved by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoxha.


No, again says you, its not science, it economics, which people still debate, even if it was science, which it is not, banning it would be stupid at that point.

But then again, I'll ask, if put to a popular vote, your ideas are found to be unpopular, would it be ok to ban your ideas? Or is that wrong, becuase your right and everyone else is wrong?


There is however no room for compromise with them. They must be completely and utterly denied any platform to sprout their reactionary nonsense, through legal and illegal means.

Because what, your afriad their arguments are better than yours? Honestly, it really seams like you juts have an authoritarian fetish.

[Susurrus]

Strong doesn't equal correct.

Incorrect ideas could win over correct ideas because they have stronger and more charismatic proponents and are more ruthless.

But what if you warp your correct ideas in the process of ruthlessly enacting them?

[Azula]

The purges done by Mao and Stalin were getting rid of communist party members that were not Loyal to Mao and Stalin.

Wrong.

They were getting rid of traitors, opportunists and right-wing deviators.


the basis of ANY democracy, the very concept of democracy.

People would still be allowed to disagree within the perimeters of the politically correct line.


But then again, I'll ask, if put to a popular vote, your ideas are found to be unpopular, would it be ok to ban your ideas? Or is that wrong, becuase your right and everyone else is wrong?

The whims of the majority does not express the objective will of the people.


Because what, your afriad their arguments are better than yours? Honestly, it really seams like you juts have an authoritarian fetish.

No matter how foolish their ideas are, they would still gain supporters from dissatisfied or privileged groups. Therefore, it is the incorrect line to validate them.

[Azula]

But what if you warp your correct ideas in the process of ruthlessly enacting them?

That could be done if there is no other option, but any deviation should only be tactical and temporary.

[gendoikari]

But the point is that it is a successful destruction of a set of ideas through banning.

...srsly?

[Azula]

...srsly?

Yes. How many pagans exist today in predominantly christian countries?

[Susurrus]

Yes. How many pagans exist today in predominantly christian countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wicca_numbers_by_country.png

[Azula]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wicca_numbers_by_country.png

That is puny.

And Wicca is not even original paganism. It was invented in the 1950's.

[Susurrus]

That is puny.

More than communism.


And Wicca is not even original paganism. It was invented in the 1950's.

Marxist-Leninism is not even original Marxism. It was invented in the 1920s.

[gendoikari]

Yes. How many pagans exist today in predominantly christian countries?

Not my point, but a good deal and they're usually nice people.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is an objective truth. That is science. It teaches us that society must evolve from capitalism to socialism, and it has been proved by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoxha.

wait...what? :blink:



Because if the proof is in the pudding I have some bad news for you...all that proof you talked to...was capitalism evolving to...wait for it,...capitalism. Or...might you be suggesting that China, Russia, Albania are all shining examples of socialism these days??

[Azula]

It failed because of revisionists infiltrating the Vanguard parties.

[Thirsty Crow]

Wow, that's taking the idealist conception of history to a whole new level: infiltration by enemies.
And puff Marxism out the window. Nice.

[Susurrus]

It failed because of revisionists infiltrating the Vanguard parties.

Which is why vanguard parties lead to counter-revolution.

[Azula]

Which is why vanguard parties lead to counter-revolution.


In short, more cultural revolutions and more self-criticism. Moreover, people saying right-wing deviationist things should more actively be persecuted.

[Susurrus]

In short, more cultural revolutions and more self-criticism. Moreover, people saying right-wing deviationist things should more actively be persecuted.

Or give power directly to the people, collectivize and maintain propaganda campaigns.

[RGacky3]

Wrong.

They were getting rid of traitors, opportunists and right-wing deviators.


As defined by, Mao and Stalin .... meaning anyone that disagreed with them, ever hear of the 1000 flower campaign?


People would still be allowed to disagree within the perimeters of the politically correct line.


Allowed by who? And don't say the working class, because thats meaningless, in a socialist society thats everyone.

THe fact that there is a politically correct line, negates any free speach.


The whims of the majority does not express the objective will of the people.


But I'm guessing Mao does, yes the people need to be told whats best for them and not think for themselves. Your a lunatic.


No matter how foolish their ideas are, they would still gain supporters from dissatisfied or privileged groups. Therefore, it is the incorrect line to validate them.

No one is saying validate them, because they are not valid, we are saying basic free speach means basic free speach, i.e. your allowed to say whatever you want, if you have the authority to take away some speech you have the authority to take away any speach.

[Demogorgon]

Yes. Paganism is relegated to small Neonazi sects and LARP virgins.

It is destroyed. Therefore, it was a success.

If it takes thousands of years to purge all incorrect and reactionary lines of thinking... well, we then will purge them for thousands of years.
Given this...
You must be prepared to hurt people, to make them shiver and cry, to humiliate and to hunt them down.I am pretty sure you are either a troll or completely and utterly insane. But let's have a last go.

I asked you to name an instance where what you wanted went well. You named a campaign of brutal oppression that installed a vicious theocracy. If that is your definition of something going well or a model to be followed, well...

[Azula]

Given this...I am pretty sure you are either a troll or completely and utterly insane. But let's have a last go.

I asked you to name an instance where what you wanted went well. You named a campaign of brutal oppression that installed a vicious theocracy. If that is your definition of something going well or a model to be followed, well...

It worked.

Paganism was wiped out.

I am not a troll. I think you haven't thought through what circumstances might force you to do in a revolutionary situation.

[Thirsty Crow]

It worked.

Paganism was wiped out.

I am not a troll. I think you haven't thought through what circumstances might force you to do in a revolutionary situation.
Fuck. The new model for workers' self-emancipation: the Holy Inquisition.
Just fabulous.

[Demogorgon]

It worked.

Paganism was wiped out.

I am not a troll. I think you haven't thought through what circumstances might force you to do in a revolutionary situation.
No see, here is the thing, a goal being achieved does not mean that it went well. If the Holocaust had been completed and all the Jewish people killed we wouldn't say it went well as it worked, we would say it was even more awful than it already was. Paganism was mostly destroyed, but that doesn't mean it was a good thing. You were going on about your bloodthirsty fantasies of wiping out certain viewpoints and I asked you for an example of that working out well. Notice I did not ask for an example of a view being wiped out. I asked for an example of it having a good outcome for humanity. If you think what happened to paganism and what Christian Theocracy did was good for the human race, you are mad.

Moving on, you have-inevitably-come up with the whole "you haven't thought through a revolution" line. No. Your problem is you have taken the worse possible outcome and reveled in it. You see the possibility of sadistic cruelty and it excites you. It is one thing to accept violence might at times be necessary, it is quite another to actively look forward to it and seek the most sadistic forms. The fact you saw positives in what the medieval church did is another example of this. If you are not a troll then you are-quite frankly-an individual who needs to be seen by a psychologist.

[Azula]

I don't think it was particularly good or bad. It was probably necessary, as Christianity was a new and more advanced religion, so it had to destroy the old particularist beliefs.

I only used it as an example on where suppression have worked.

No matter what people say, I am not a monster.

[Thirsty Crow]

No matter what people say, I am not a monster.
I don't think anyone's said it here, but it sure seems you're familiar with the statement. Makes me wonder.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think it was particularly good or bad. It was probably necessary, as Christianity was a new and more advanced religion, so it had to destroy the old particularist beliefs.


:confused::confused:

Holy shit we have a Christian fundamentalist on this forum. Christians may have seen themselves as so much more advanced than the pagans they repressed but people in the modern era should know better than to think that burning heathens at the stake is more humane than, say, Aztec sacrifice, Hindu Satee, Greek execution for blasphemers against the Olympians, or the various other practices which so-called "pagans" participated in.

[Rooster]

Debates are not determining the future of the world. We should not debate against our adversaries, since that could reveal our thinking for them. We should strive to destroy their organisations.

You know who Marx is, right? How he published books and stuff detailing communist thought and stuff for everyone to see?

[Skooma Addict]

Yes. Paganism is relegated to small Neonazi sects and LARP virgins.

It is destroyed. Therefore, it was a success.

If it takes thousands of years to purge all incorrect and reactionary lines of thinking... well, we then will purge them for thousands of years.
Did the idea ever occur to you that maybe your beliefs are wrong? You want to enforce your beliefs on the entire population, but so far you have only made assertions. I for one don't agree that communism would be preferable to capitalism. I also do not believe women are exploited in Western countries.

Also, some of the concepts which you imply as being positive are actually normative. For example opposing communism and abortion can stem from normative beliefs.

But anyways, if the policies you are advocating were adopted, we would more likely see a fascist wave of violence as opposed to some socialist revolution.

[Azula]

Did the idea ever occur to you that maybe your beliefs are wrong? You want to enforce your beliefs on the entire population, but so far you have only made assertions. I for one don't agree that communism would be preferable to capitalism. I also do not believe women are exploited in Western countries.

Also, some of the concepts which you imply as being positive are actually normative. For example opposing communism and abortion can stem from normative beliefs.

But anyways, if the policies you are advocating were adopted, we would more likely see a fascist wave of violence as opposed to some socialist revolution.

A fascist wave of violence would in fact be a desirable outcome, since reactionaries then will throw their masks and reveal themselves in all their ugliness. Then we could arrest them and destroy their networks.

I am also contemplating the creation of fake reactionary opposition groups in order to catch as many reactionaries as possible and then drag them in after they have formed networks and conducted crimes against the revolutionary new order.

[PhoenixAsh]

Skooma...meet Azula...

I think you two will get along like a house on fire...

*Sits back and watches the throw down*

[RGacky3]

I am also contemplating the creation of fake reactionary opposition groups in order to catch as many reactionaries as possible and then drag them in after they have formed networks and conducted crimes against the revolutionary new order.

I think George Bush borrowed your idea, you and him would get along quite well.

[Skooma Addict]

A fascist wave of violence would in fact be a desirable outcome, since reactionaries then will throw their masks and reveal themselves in all their ugliness. Then we could arrest them and destroy their networks.

I am also contemplating the creation of fake reactionary opposition groups in order to catch as many reactionaries as possible and then drag them in after they have formed networks and conducted crimes against the revolutionary new order.

What happens when the fascists take over like they did in Italy? In America, Fascism would beat Communism easily. The problem with your ideas are that they rely too much on violence and coercion, and you create a breeding ground for other violent ideologies when your plans go wrong.

Although I suppose at the end of the day if we look at this from a strategic level you really are a non issue. Those who support various forms of capitalism can market their ideas better than you and the small minority that agrees with you. They are also generally wealthier, greater in number, and more reasonable.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think it was particularly good or bad. It was probably necessary, as Christianity was a new and more advanced religion, so it had to destroy the old particularist beliefs.

I only used it as an example on where suppression have worked.

No matter what people say, I am not a monster.


Christianity was a new and more advanced religion? It set science and societal and cultural development back centuries and was directly responsible for the period known as the dark ages.
:laugh:

You are hillarious. And yes...if what you say is what you actually believe then I would not only count you as a monster I would count you as a vicious sociopath.

[RevLeft By Birth]

What's happening in America is scary. Rick Perry is just 2% behind Romney, and he carries the support ot haundreds of thousands of Americans.

With him just announcing that he is running for president a few minutes ago, what in your opinion is to be done with the religious right? I mean, these are the same people who belive god sent Hitler to force Jews to Israel...

What is a reasonable course of action when dealing with these individuals?

Mass arrests, and hold them until they renounce fundamentalist religion. The DPRK used to have a significant conservative religious movement but they are basically non existent today and totally marginalized. :)

EDIT: Until socialism in society as a whole is enacted, targeted action like you see from the Shining path against superstitious traditional medicine men and catholic priests is a good starting point. In many areas of Peru there are no shaman left anymore ripping people off with their fake cures. Working to marginalize both modern and traditional religion is a necessary starting point to building socialism.

[Kosakk]

You can't just 'ban' this. You have to destroy it root and branch. Anyone who strives to oppress another people must be destroyed, not just tolerated nor merely banned or even jailed. If they start wars, finish them with our victory and their burial. This political-religious oppressive cult has gone on long enough...time to feed them to the lions once and for all. Workers, opppressed and youth...rise and fight together as band of hungry lions. Either we will have a future and bury our oppressors through the fruits of our own self-emancipatory collective action, or in their future they will have us for dinner instead.

The cross is an enemy military symbol. We should take it just as seriously as the swastika.

I was just saying there's law against it allready, i.e. hatespeech.
But I agree, better to destroy it's roots and branches. Just outlawing hatespeech is like applying a bandaid for a gun wound

[Azula]

I was just saying there's law against it allready, i.e. hatespeech.
But I agree, better to destroy it's roots and branches. Just outlawing hatespeech is like applying a bandaid for a gun wound

Why not both?

[Jazzratt]

A fascist wave of violence would in fact be a desirable outcome, since reactionaries then will throw their masks and reveal themselves in all their ugliness. Then we could arrest them and destroy their networks. To be honest I could easily imagine you riding on the crest onf any wave of reactionary violence, you bloodthirsty nutter.


I am also contemplating the creation of fake reactionary opposition groups in order to catch as many reactionaries as possible and then drag them in after they have formed networks and conducted crimes against the revolutionary new order. Why bother? If you define reactionary actions broadly enough you can murder people who disagree with you on an industrial scale without bothering with forming your own secret police.

[Azula]

Ad hominems and wild assertions.

You maybe prefer to coddle the reactionaries and give them teddy bears so they could develop into loving people and hug children of colour and gays?

[PhoenixAsh]

Ad hominems and wild assertions.

You maybe prefer to coddle the reactionaries and give them teddy bears so they could develop into loving people and hug children of colour and gays?

I hardly see how this is more invalid than the assertion of....oh...lets say....forcing little boys to wear dresses in order to make them less sexist.

What abhors me is that after your vile statement that you prefer men to become more violent against women so that women will get more radicalissed....you now seem to advocate increased violence by fascists in order to better identify them.

And I am not even talking yet about your other opinions all based on exclusion, force, punishment, violence and sexism.

The entire body of your posts IMO border hatespeech themselves and I am not really sure if your opinions are not alltogether just as worrying as the opinion of the religious right.

[Jazzratt]

Ad hominems and wild assertions. To be honest I don't think calling you a bloodthirsty nutter that wants to murder people on an industrial scale is that wild of an assertion given what you've been saying throughout this thread.


You maybe prefer to coddle the reactionaries and give them teddy bears so they could develop into loving people and hug children of colour and gays? You have a go at me for ad hominem attacks and then you start on some false dichotomy bollocks. Knob off. Allowing someone to express their views, even the ones I find despicable, is a fair price to pay for no living in a barbaric shithole. You can argue with people as well as kill them or imprison them, you deranged psycho.

As for your "horrific levels of suppression work because there aren't many pagans around any more" argument I think it's worth noting how the indigenous populations of North America and Australia are currently miniscule - does that justify genocide and colonialism? It certainly seems a "success" by your fucked standards.

[Azula]

You have a go at me for ad hominem attacks and then you start on some false dichotomy bollocks. Knob off. Allowing someone to express their views, even the ones I find despicable, is a fair price to pay for no living in a barbaric shithole. You can argue with people as well as kill them or imprison them, you deranged psycho.

As for your "horrific levels of suppression work because there aren't many pagans around any more" argument I think it's worth noting how the indigenous populations of North America and Australia are currently miniscule - does that justify genocide and colonialism? It certainly seems a "success" by your fucked standards.

The world would be a barbaric shithole if pro-lifers, religious fundamentalists and fascists are allowed to spread their gospel. Better to just torch down the forest in order to build a new public discourse.

I am certainly against the murder of the native populations of America and Australia, and I cannot see those means enacted in a political struggle unless an entire population in a conquered territory during a world war-scale conflict is vehemently Anti-Communist, which is unlikely.

We should, however, apply the lessons learned by our opponents, even the more reactionary ones, and use them to further progressive goals which would liberate humanity.

[Jazzratt]

The world would be a barbaric shithole if pro-lifers, religious fundamentalists and fascists are allowed to spread their gospel. Better to just torch down the forest in order to build a new public discourse. I think you overestimate the amount of sway such people have now, not to mention after a revolutionary upheaval.


I am certainly against the murder of the native populations of America and Australia, and I cannot see those means enacted in a political struggle unless an entire population in a conquered territory during a world war-scale conflict is vehemently Anti-Communist, which is unlikely. The point is that looking at the consequences of something with the same relentless, psychotic disintrest that you use leads to that kind of thinking. If you start using things like the pagan extermination as a model for you behaviour don't be surprised when you end up with some kind of socialist-in-name-only Torquemada.


We should, however, apply the lessons learned by our opponents, even the more reactionary ones, and use them to further progressive goals which would liberate humanity. My aim is to liberate the working class, not just the survivors.

[Azula]

I think you overestimate the amount of sway such people have now, not to mention after a revolutionary upheaval.

They are on the offensive. We must stop them before they become a real problem.


The point is that looking at the consequences of something with the same relentless, psychotic disintrest that you use leads to that kind of thinking. If you start using things like the pagan extermination as a model for you behaviour don't be surprised when you end up with some kind of socialist-in-name-only Torquemada.

Torquemada was a reactionary not for his methods, but for his aims.

We should condemn people for their aims, and for the methods we should only condemn them if they are counter-productive or needlessly cruel without a purpose.

[Jazzratt]

They are on the offensive. We must stop them before they become a real problem. Their numbers are waning. Making martyrs of them isn't going to help anyone.


Torquemada was a reactionary not for his methods, but for his aims. It's impossible to argue wiuth you because you say shit like this. There can be no mutual frame of reference when you are so fucking inhuman. I'm just glad that you're part of a miniscule political sect and don't really interact with the working class.

[RGacky3]

We should condemn people for their aims, and for the methods we should only condemn them if they are counter-productive or needlessly cruel without a purpose.

No we should condemn people for what their actions produce.

All of the actions that your heros did, and not only their actions but the power they had that you support produced hell holes and terror states WORSE than western capitalism.

You call North Korea the most progressive state around ... That alone makes you uncredible to talk about any sort of socialism.

[DinodudeEpic]

The Spanish Inquisition.....

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI

Our cheif weapons are fear, surprise....whatever!

Anyways, apparently Azula seems more concern with totalitarian witch hunts then actual socialism.

How will the workers control the economy democratically and there be democracy when you keep on destroying all opposition. Democracy, liberty, and equality can only come when you can tolerate the people who espouse things the opposite of what you want.

I think you're a totalitarian jerk who merely wants a government-controlled economy/society. Should I censor your views(IRL)? No! You have just as much right to speak as the rest of us. And, so do the fascists. People can say all the hate speech they want, but it is weak to accept their words. Ignore it! Or debunk it.

Also, the revolutionary left is also about protecting our liberties and rights from coercion. (Via corporations or government) This is why I think Stalinism/Maoism are not leftist ideologies. To be considered a leftist by me, you have to accept the values of liberty and equality. Your authoritarianism has no liberty and it creates inequality with equality rhetoric.