Is it okay to be socially conservative?

[Nehru]

Is it?

Because cultures are different all over the world ... for instance, a person in Saudi may be progressive in the Marxist sense, but he may still hold conservative views on some matters.

[Smyg]

No.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sure. I notice that most people tend to be robots who don't think for themselves, they just follow what other leftists follow. Hey, had to be said, lol. I'm so bad, but I suppose I'm restricted for a reason, hehe.

[Smyg]

Yes. Yes you are. Now get back in your cage.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes. Yes you are. Now get back in your cage.

Nah I chose to be in this cage. I asked the admins to restrict me.

[Smyg]

Cool story, bro.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Cool story, bro.

It's surprisingly true actually. My views changed so I asked for a restriction. :)

[#FF0000]

Depends. Conservative social views usually range from dumb but harmless to profoundly dumb

[Broletariat]

It's surprisingly true actually. My views changed so I asked for a restriction. :)

Let me guess, you had never actually read Capital?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I doubt she have read any books at all.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I doubt she have read any books at all.

Not true. I have read leftist books. I just don't see it as something that is practical.

[Astarte]

Its not a matter of social conservatives being "dumb and dumber" - its a matter of them being ignorant-->dangerous.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's technically "ok" to be socially conservative, but it's not ok to be racist, sexist or LGBT-phobic. I will personally challenge such things wherever I see them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's technically "ok" to be socially conservative, but it's not ok to be racist, sexist or LGBT-phobic. I will personally challenge such things wherever I see them.

Exactly. I have some right leaning views, but I'm still very against homophobia, racism, etc.

[eric922]

Define socially conservative. If by that you mean sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. then no it is not okay and should be challenged whenever possible. What do you mean by socially conservative?

[Apoi_Viitor]

It certainly depends on the view. I don't see anything wrong with having prudish views towards sexuality (so long as they aren't sexist or homophobic), believing in age of consent laws, or supporting monogamous relationships. On the other hand, being Pat Buchanan is not cool.

[Red Commissar]

It depends, I think, on what views they are holding and whether that's guiding the way they live or affecting a worldview they have they think others should follow.

I think there are plenty of 'leftists' who may seem rather reserved in the way they live- but what matters is if they keep this to themselves or impose it on others, or discriminate against some who does so. Say if they don't drink alcohol- that's fine, but the problem comes if they begin imposing their teetotalism on others.

Same thing goes for your sexual ideas, drugs, gender roles, and what not. I guess what I think is it becomes a problem when it affects the way someone else decides to live.

[Fopeos]

Anyone can believe what they want. It's your interactions with others that matter. You may not understand or like the idea of homosexuality, but as long as you treat those that you meet the same as anyone else, then i guess it's not a problem. Look at Cuba's attempt to eliminate racism. They've effectively banned institutionalized racism, but most Cubans will admit that some still exists. It's not easy to change how people feel inside. If some people want to cling to some old fears, i'm not sure there's much that can be done about it.

[cb9's_unity]

I agree a lot with the above post. Edit: I might red commissars post.

Obviously its not OK to be racist, homophobic, sexist no matter where you live. A homophobe in Saudi Arabia isn't suddenly correct.

I think more leftists should actually be a bit more skeptical about monogamy as well. I don't necessarily want to be critical of monogamy, as it is a valid way to have a relationship, but we shouldn't think it as the only acceptable form of sexual relationship. It really isn't our place to judge how 2, 3, etc., consenting adults choose to do amongst themselves.

[Kamos]

No, it's not okay to be socially conservative. Even if you totally keep it to yourself, it's not okay. (Of course, I mean the common definition of the word - organised religion, homophobia etc.)

[Nox]

Why would you want to be socially conservative?

[RedAnarchist]

A lot of socially conservative views are both irrational and harmful to society, although some can be benign.

[Luc]

ah fuck nevermind I can't word it right.

Answer: No

Reasons: see above

[Die Rote Fahne]

Social conservatism is reactionary. It's okay in the sense that you are free to believe what you want, but you believing it means you're ignorant or simple minded.

A couple of questions:

What "conservative" views do you have?

What "leftist" books have you read?

Can you explain why "leftism" is not practical. What specifically? Which tendency? Social democracy? Marxism? Anarchism? What of the different forms?

[L.A.P.]

I don't think conservative moral values are compatible with communist economics at all. Social norms and moral values are products of class society. So I don't see how recognizing these social constructs are created by and for the interest of the current economic system while being against that economic system can be compatible with still advocating the social constructs created by that very economic system. So in a nutshell, communism inherently supports social progress.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't think conservative moral values are compatible with communist economics at all. Social norms and moral values are products of class society. So I don't see how recognizing these social constructs are created by and for the interest of the current economic system while being against that economic system can be compatible with still advocating the social constructs created by that very economic system. So in a nutshell, communism inherently supports social progress.

This.

[Red Future]

The USSR was pretty socially conservative.Contemporary Russian Communist groups use the example of capitalism bribing the youth with " chances of wealth and wild sex" in their Propaganda.

[Rafiq]

It's contradictory to have socially conservative beliefs while you're a Marxist.

[Bud Struggle]

Social Liberalism has been a distraction for the Left for the last 40 years. While the Left focused loudly on (very worthy) social issues like racial equality, gay rights, etc. the Right was changing the economic playing field in America and changing the rules for taxation and wealth accumulation. The Left has civil rights and the Right is richer than ever. That was the trade off.

The Right really doesn't care if two gays get married but they do care about the bottom line.

Always follow the money. So if you are Liberal--you should be Socially Progressive. It is all you have.

[Rafiq]

We aren't Liberals. We were never 'socially liberal'. We are Socially Revolutionary.

We had nothing to do with the American regime, anyway. Those economic changes were a result of the growing power of labor, not the Left becoming weak.

[Bud Struggle]

We aren't Liberals. We were never 'socially liberal'. We are Socially Revolutionary.

We had nothing to do with the American regime, anyway. Those economic changes were a result of the growing power of labor, not the Left becoming weak.

Whatever. The Liberal social agenda is very close to the same or the same as the "Social Revolutionary" agenda.

How is being a Social "Revolutionary" different than being a Social Liberal? But you are right the Social Revolutionary agend has had no effect on America.

And PS: no changes have happened because of the "growing power of labor" in a looooonnnnng time.

[kapitalyst]

I think that if your social views don't involve hatred or a desire to force your will upon others, then it's ok to be anything you want.

[Agent Equality]

only socially conservative thing I might have is monogamy.

I'm not religious in any sense of the word (im an atheist) but I still value being bonded with one person who i love above all others and I dont want that person potentially being taken away from me (although marriage doesnt always guarantee this, it still does so MUCH more effectively than say a normal bf/gf relationship. It in a sense throws a symbolic seal on your relationship)

I think Monogamy is more of an emotional and mental concept than it is one of sexuality. Sure a group of adults can consent to have sexual relations with each other but I highly doubt that a group of more than 2 people can effectively have an emotional bond to each other that stands the test of time. If that is possible then I have yet to see it. So I think the whole sexual argument is completely void in this sense, unless of course someone can prove to me that they can simultaneously love and upwards of 2, 3, 4 people in equal measure and have each of those people love each other as well. I don't know about y'all, but that does not sound like the kind of relationship I would want to be in :bored:

[L.A.P.]

only socially conservative thing I might have is monogamy.

I'm not religious in any sense of the word (im an atheist) but I still value being bonded with one person who i love above all others and I dont want that person potentially being taken away from me (although marriage doesnt always guarantee this, it still does so MUCH more effectively than say a normal bf/gf relationship. It in a sense throws a symbolic seal on your relationship)

I think Monogamy is more of an emotional and mental concept than it is one of sexuality. Sure a group of adults can consent to have sexual relations with each other but I highly doubt that a group of more than 2 people can effectively have an emotional bond to each other that stands the test of time. If that is possible then I have yet to see it. So I think the whole sexual argument is completely void in this sense, unless of course someone can prove to me that they can simultaneously love and upwards of 2, 3, 4 people in equal measure and have each of those people love each other as well. I don't know about y'all, but that does not sound like the kind of relationship I would want to be in :bored:

As much as I myself will one day most likely marry. I think marriage is one of those social constructs of class society that are so deeply embedded into us that it's useless to break off any time soon. The origins of marriage have more to do with the male gaining ownership over the female than some romantic idea of two people standing the test of time. After socialist society is implemented, who knows what will become of it?

[L.A.P.]

Whatever. The Liberal social agenda is very close to the same or the same as the "Social Revolutionary" agenda.

Not true, the basis for the social views of leftists and liberals are far different. The social basis of leftists is based on proletarian internationalism and derives from a class-based perspective. Liberal social views are based on idealist concepts of "equality" that were ultimately bourgeois reactions to the growing tensions of class struggle.


How is being a Social "Revolutionary" different than being a Social Liberal?

Read above.


But you are right the Social Revolutionary agend has had no effect on America.

Do you even know what spearheaded the civil rights movement? Do you know what spearheaded the anti-war movement that in turn created the hippie movement? Do you know who organized all those riots and protests that took place shortly before the Progressive Era?


And PS: no changes have happened because of the "growing power of labor" in a looooonnnnng time.

Read above, again.

[Bud Struggle]

Not true, the basis for the social views of leftists and liberals are far different. The social basis of leftists is based on proletarian internationalism and derives from a class-based perspective. Liberal social views are based on idealist concepts of "equality" that were ultimately bourgeois reactions to the growing tensions of class struggle. In theory--well maybe yes. But since nobod knows your theories....but in practice they are identical so really it doesn't matter.




Read above. Do the same



Do you even know what spearheaded the civil rights movement? Do you know what spearheaded the anti-war movement that in turn created the hippie movement? Do you know who organized all those riots and protests that took place shortly before the Progressive Era? Oh I know--and that fight (though a good one) left you open to the Conservative end run. That is why there is a Tea Party and no equivilant on the Left.




Read above, again. The radical left is irrelevant. It is of historical interest--nothing more.

[Drosophila]

If you believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat, but think that women shouldn't have any rights, then you don't belong on "the left". This is one of the main reasons I think why leftist ideologies distance themselves from all religions.

[Revolution starts with U]

I exist right here and now Bud Struggle, I am worth more than merely "historical significance" :mad:

[Agent Equality]

As much as I myself will one day most likely marry. I think marriage is one of those social constructs of class society that are so deeply embedded into us that it's useless to break off any time soon. The origins of marriage have more to do with the male gaining ownership over the female than some romantic idea of two people standing the test of time. After socialist society is implemented, who knows what will become of it?

Well I certainly do not want to gain ownership over the female :bored: but I know what you are talking about. It certainly has always been(in a historic context) male ownership of the woman and the dowry that comes with her. I think the romantic idea of two people standing the test of time came about this past century with the coming of women's rights and what not.


If marriage as in the historic perspective is what is to be preserved then I would be completely against that but I am not against at all two individuals having a deep emotional bond together solidified with a formal ceremony. I would hope that in socialist society that intense fanatics will not simply write it off as the former and try and do away with it(even if it is traditionally used by the bourgeois state and church).

[Nehru]

Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean conservative as in hateful or bigoted toward LGBT, women etc. I meant conservative lifestyle - not taking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, and so on.

[Drosophila]

Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean conservative as in hateful or bigoted toward LGBT, women etc. I meant conservative lifestyle - not taking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, and so on.

Then in that case, no. I'm sure most leftists act that way. However we wouldn't look down upon someone who is not 'socially conservative'.

[Veovis]

Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean conservative as in hateful or bigoted toward LGBT, women etc. I meant conservative lifestyle - not taking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, and so on.

I don't think those things have anything to do with conservatism; they're just lifestyle choices. I drink very rarely because I'm poor and I'm also on antidepressants. I also dress relatively modestly because I don't have a body I'm proud to show off. Does that make me conservative? Hardly.

[Klaatu]

Depends. Conservative social views usually range from dumb but harmless to profoundly dumb

I might also add "profoundly dumb, and dangerous to freedom, peace, and civil rights"

[RGacky3]

The word conservative has been so basterdized that it basically now just means being hateful to people different than you and forcing how you live your life on other people, and LEGISLATING that hatefulness.

Obviously its possible to be economically a socialist and kind of a dick culturally however.

[Thirsty Crow]

Is it?

Because cultures are different all over the world ... for instance, a person in Saudi may be progressive in the Marxist sense, but he may still hold conservative views on some matters.
I fail to see how personal choices with regard to issues like alcohol consumption and clothing can even be thought of as political. That is, unless the before mentioned choices are turned into parts of a political program. In that case, we're dealing with obstructions of people's free choice of lifestyle.

[Bud Struggle]

I fail to see how personal choices with regard to issues like alcohol consumption and clothing can even be thought of as political. That is, unless the before mentioned choices are turned into parts of a political program. In that case, we're dealing with obstructions of people's free choice of lifestyle.

I would think such things are very important. In Capitalism is you are an alcoholic or a druggie--is really hurts no one but yourself, but as a Communist you recieve from the community and you have a responsibility to contribute to the community. Activities that in any way may harm you contribution is a concern of the community.

After the Revoluion I don't think it would be very hard to form a concensus in the community is limit alcohol consumption and disallow drugs altogether.

It will really be up to the community to decide what limits could and should be placed on activies harmful to the good of the whole.

[ComradeMan]

Playing Devil's Advocate here... but what does "socially conservative" mean and in what context. Surely this varies from place to place, someone who would be considered a liberal and towards the left in Saudi Arabia might not be considered socially conservative in say Norway.

Perhaps we should define exactly what socially conservative means and its context because it's not really clear reading through this thread at all- even though a lot of people have rough notions.

[L.A.P.]

In theory--well maybe yes. But since nobod knows your theories....but in practice they are identical so really it doesn't matter.

But it isn't the same in practice. Leftists take it much farther than liberals, liberals draw a line that leftist cross. And liberlas take it that far in the first place because of the push from leftist and labor movements, they always hop on the bandwagon and then dominate the whole scene.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then in that case, no. I'm sure most leftists act that way. However we wouldn't look down upon someone who is not 'socially conservative'.

Most leftists are not "socially conservative" in this way. I know quite a few socialists who are very fond of alcohol, for instance.

[#FF0000]

I would think such things are very important. In Capitalism is you are an alcoholic or a druggie--is really hurts no one but yourself, but as a Communist you recieve from the community and you have a responsibility to contribute to the community. Activities that in any way may harm you contribution is a concern of the community.

After the Revoluion I don't think it would be very hard to form a concensus in the community is limit alcohol consumption and disallow drugs altogether.

It will really be up to the community to decide what limits could and should be placed on activies harmful to the good of the whole.

no

[Bud Struggle]

no

Like hell.

I want a Revolutionary society where everyone pulls their fair share--and I think I can find a lot of like minded people who will agree with me.

You just wait, my young Comrade, for the world we will build for the betterment of man. We ALL will have to work ceaselessly for that tommorrow. NO SLACKERS.

After the Revolution is going to be a whole new world and the person that can make the consensus--makes the rules. :)

[#FF0000]

Like hell.

I want a Revolutionary society where everyone pulls their fair share--and I think I can find a lot of like minded people who will agree with me.

You just wait, my young Comrade, for the world we will build for the betterment of man. We ALL will have to work ceaselessly for that tommorrow. NO SLACKERS.

After the Revolution is going to be a whole new world and the person that can make the consensus--makes the rules. :)

i'm p. sure that not even anarchists think consesus decision making is a good idea.

C'MON SON

[LOLseph Stalin]

Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean conservative as in hateful or bigoted toward LGBT, women etc. I meant conservative lifestyle - not taking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, and so on.

As others have said those are lifestyle choices(and ones that I happen to adhere to) and has little to do with social conservatism. If they're not forcing it on other people then it's fine.

[Rafiq]

Whatever. The Liberal social agenda is very close to the same or the same as the "Social Revolutionary" agenda.

How is being a Social "Revolutionary" different than being a Social Liberal? But you are right the Social Revolutionary agend has had no effect on America.

Socially Revolutionary is much more progressive than Socially liberal. Liberals wish to retain the current family structure, and be 'moderate' about things. We revolutionaries are radicals, never moderate within the constraint of Bourgeois politics.



And PS: no changes have happened because of the "growing power of labor" in a looooonnnnng time.

Since Reagan. The growing power of Labor forced the American Bourgeoisie to introduce Neo-Liberal reforms to "Discipline" labor. We took a blow, but we are coming back, and this time we aren't falling for the idealist hippie bullshit that contributed to our demise.

[MattShizzle]

No. Socially conservative doesn't mean your own personal behavior - it means such bad things as discriminating against homosexuals, anti-abortion, forcing Christianity down everyones throat (in the US anyway), etc.

[Bud Struggle]

i'm p. sure that not even anarchists think consesus decision making is a good idea.

C'MON SON

I'd be just as happy with an up or down vote. The first 100 years are going to be a VERY hard working time for Comrades. Especially the younger ones.

[RGacky3]

In Capitalism is you are an alcoholic or a druggie--is really hurts no one but yourself

No, you steal from people, you get in fights, you get much much worse, then end up in prison, or in the hospital, meaning your gonna cost a lot more to society than if you just gave the guy treatment and an opportunity.


Activities that in any way may harm you contribution is a concern of the community.


Not really, you don't have a responsibility to the community, it has nothing to do with that, if you want to participate you can participate, if you don't then don't.


After the Revoluion I don't think it would be very hard to form a concensus in the community is limit alcohol consumption and disallow drugs altogether.


In all the examples of what I consider genuine socialist revolutoins or socialistic societies thats happened once, in the Zapatista territories, and thats because alcoholism is a major problem amung the indigenous peoples in Mexico, but then again, alcohol is banned in many indian reservations in the US too.


I want a Revolutionary society where everyone pulls their fair share--and I think I can find a lot of like minded people who will agree with me.

You just wait, my young Comrade, for the world we will build for the betterment of man. We ALL will have to work ceaselessly for that tommorrow. NO SLACKERS.

After the Revolution is going to be a whole new world and the person that can make the consensus--makes the rules. :)

I don't think thats true at all, getting rid of waste in the economy would lower the work load a ton.

People assume that people are juts going to willingly be slakers, but that is not the case at all, where I live in Norway you don't need to work to live a confortable life, yet ... 2% unemployment ... And an extremely productive society. People WANT to be useful, don't believe me? Ask an old person.

[Tenka]

Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean conservative as in hateful or bigoted toward LGBT, women etc. I meant conservative lifestyle - not taking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, and so on.
I don't think teetotallism is inherently socially conservative by any means; but by your definition, the majority of leftists and, indeed, rightists (at least in the U.S.), are far from 'socially conservative'.

[Bud Struggle]

I might also add "profoundly dumb, and dangerous to freedom, peace, and civil rights"

But of course those people would have the right to set the standards for their community as you would have for yours.

If certain soviets(?) decided to have no abortions or no same sex marriage--I'm sure that would be their right.

[Queercommie Girl]

If certain soviets(?) decided to have no abortions or no same sex marriage--I'm sure that would be their right.


No it's not, because it directly harms other people. Also under a democratic centralist system there must be certain global standards too.

[Bud Struggle]

No it's not, because it directly harms other people. Also under a democratic centralist system there must be certain global standards too.

We'll take the vote--or have the consensus. If you don't like it--what are you going to do, send in the Red Army or the KGB?

We will organize society as WE SEE FIT in our communities. You can go elsewhere to organize things with people that see things your way.

[Queercommie Girl]

We will organize society as WE SEE FIT in our communities. You can go elsewhere to organize things with people that see things your way.


Not when it harms other people. What will happen to LGBT people in a "community" that makes homosexuality illegal? Send them to the gas chambers?

Today, in some parts of England, a few local communities may have majority support for the likes of the EDL and the BNP. (After all, in the last general election, the far right got significantly more votes than the revolutionary left or even the radical reformist left did in the UK) Does this mean fascism should be tolerated in these places?

[Bud Struggle]

Not when it harms other people. What will happen to LGBT people in a "community" that makes homosexuality illegal? Send them to the gas chambers?

Today, in some parts of England, a few local communities may have majority support for the likes of the EDL and the BNP. (After all, in the last general election, the far right got significantly more votes than the revolutionary left or even the radical reformist left did in the UK) Does this mean fascism should be tolerated in these places?

So how you going to stop people from living as they please? If you are going to be free--that means FREE. Not free within the bounds of what is allowed by the Central Committee.

Who should make the laws? If you think you should make the laws--well that means I can, too. And believe me I'm GOOD at talking people into doing things the way I want them.

I'm no Fascist, but I certainly against killing little babies in the womb. After the revolution--I believe I can live in a community with people who believe the way I do.

Do what you want where you live. If you send your storm troops into my community--maybe I will do the same in kind.

[Queercommie Girl]

So how you going to stop people from living as they please? If you are going to be free--that means FREE. Not free within the bounds of what is allowed by the Central Committee.

Who should make the laws? If you think you should make the laws--well that means I can, too. And believe me I'm GOOD at talking people into doing things the way I want them.

I'm no Fascist, but I certainly against killing little babies in the womb. After the revolution--I believe I can live in a community with people who believe the way I do.

Do what you want where you live. If you send your storm troops into my community--maybe I will do the same in kind.

Freedom is not absolute. In a socialist society people don't have the freedom to exploit, harm or oppress other people. "Law of the jungle" is neoliberal market capitalism, not communism.

[Robert]

Does this mean fascism should be tolerated in these places? As long as they don't invade Poland with guns, tanks and Stukas, what do you propose? Hate crime legislation? Prison? SWAT teams to remove them? To where would you re-locate them? Will there be compulsory lobotomies to change their way of thinking? Firing squad?

[Queercommie Girl]

As long as they don't invade Poland with guns, tanks and Stukas, what do you propose? Hate crime legislation? Prison? SWAT teams to remove them? To where would you re-locate them? Will there be compulsory lobotomies to change their way of thinking? Firing squad?

Fascism is not permitted in a socialist society. For instance, Lenin banned the semi-fascist Black Hundreds group in Russia after the October Revolution.

And if you don't stop them when they are still not explicitly conducting violence, when they do explicitly conduct violence, who is going to stop them then?

Killing should always be minimised, but not absolutely out of the question. A worker's state is not absolutely pacifist.

If there is no hate crime legislation, what's going to protect the victims of hate crime? It's funny how some people always put themselves on the side of the criminals rather than the victims.

Why is it that the "law of the jungle" holds such attraction for some people, I can never fathom.

[Bud Struggle]

, Lenin banned...

See Gack.

That's Communism. :(

It's a good idea and all of that...but in the end it's all about you doing what I want you to do or me doing what you want me to do.

Capitalism is more honest--at least we don't pretend there are no masters.

[Queercommie Girl]

See Gack.

That's Communism. :(

It's a good idea and all of that...but in the end it's all about you doing what I want you to do or me doing what you want me to do.

Capitalism is more honest--at least we don't pretend there are no masters.

You primarily care about freedom, I primarily care about justice, that's the essential difference. I think freedom without justice is a kind of hell.

[Bud Struggle]

You primarily care about freedom, I primarily care about justice, that's the essential difference. I think freedom without justice is a kind of hell.

As you define justice your way. The USA already defines justice its way. Other places; other definitionitions. And each place enforces justice as it sees fit.

In the end it's all about power. Not justice.

Stalin was the perfect Communist.

[Queercommie Girl]

As you define justice your way. The USA already defines justice its way. Other places; other definitionitions. And each place enforces justice as it sees fit.

In the end it's all about power. Not justice.

Stalin was the perfect Communist.

And how is freedom different? Different people define freedom differently. In the end only the powerful have genuine freedom, and in capitalism that means only the rich have genuine freedom.

Why don't you tell the Foxconn workers who committed suicide how "free" your market system is?

Obviously there is a subjective element in justice. In a genuine socialist system justice is defined by the democratic will of the entire working class.

[Bud Struggle]

. In a genuine socialist system justice is defined by the democratic will of the entire working class.

And if that is anti-abortion? Or anti gay marriage? That's fine with you? Certainly with freedom of speech you will let anyone argue any belief they have....And if that belief wins the day? So be it.

That's freedom.

[Robert]

If there is no hate crime legislation, what's going to protect the victims of hate crime? It's funny how some people always put themselves on the side of the criminals rather than the victims.Oh no, you don't. Nobody's talking about legalizing violent crime. The question was what do you do with people who have fascist ideation, live together and think and discuss and speak approvingly of fascism, but do not act on it?

You going to have anarchist cops or commie cops arrest them? Then what?

Anyway, you already answered here:


Killing should always be minimised, but not absolutely out of the question.

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway, you already answered here:

Owww! :(

This is how Communism ends. Now with a bang but a wimper.

[Robert]

Back to the OP, I guess the poor guy got his answer. He hasn't been seen since the first commie told him what he was allowed to think and not to think.:lol:

[RGacky3]

You primarily care about freedom, I primarily care about justice, that's the essential difference. I think freedom without justice is a kind of hell.

And justice is impossible without freedom.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

i'm p. sure that not even anarchists think consesus decision making is a good idea.

The Anarchist FAQ denounces consensus, arguing that it degrades debate and dissent, as well resulting in a decision that no one is happy with. I would agree.


Oh no, you don't. Nobody's talking about legalizing violent crime.Yes they are. If fascism "wins out" as Bud said, then fascists aren't going to sit around discussing how much the Jews suck, they're going to get a pogrom going, and build an SS. Bud has asked numerous times what would happen if a commune voted to ban abortion; as an extension, we can ask what action if any could be taken against a commune that votes to sanction violence against certain people.

Of course communes don't have that kind of power. A commune could vote on building a new school, a bridge, a library, how to use common land, etc. issues effecting the area. Restricting non-violent activity(including non-violent actions by fascists, which is a result of capitalism and its social conditions anyways) is beyond their control.

Abortion under socialism would be different, with much wider availability and education about contraceptives as well as the fact that everyone, including children would be provided for would result in less abortions. Since fetuses can't tell the difference between touch and pain I don't regret abortion too much, and a ban on abortions is an attack on women, since illegal abortions are very unsafe.

Also Bud, same-sex marriage is a non-issue in a socialist society. The privileges of marriage(tax breaks, inheritance, easy shared ownership of finances, etc.) would not exclusive to the married, or would be irrelevant. Gay marriage is only a concern for liberals and assimilationists.


Like hell.

I want a Revolutionary society where everyone pulls their fair share--and I think I can find a lot of like minded people who will agree with me.

You just wait, my young Comrade, for the world we will build for the betterment of man. We ALL will have to work ceaselessly for that tommorrow. NO SLACKERS.

Again the FAQ defends the right of lazy people to not work, but still have basic amenities. I would tenuously agree, if there are surpluses(and once the inefficiencies of capitalism are gone there will be). Whenever the question arises the response of most of revelft has been if they don't want to participate, they don't get the benefits.

Some cities have created "wet houses" for the chronically homeless alcohlics who cost taxpayers quite a lot by getting hospitalized and into prison(often for bullshit, like sleeping on a park bench or public drunkeness, open container, etc.) and detox repeatedly. At the wet houses they are cared for and given money for alcohol, told that treatment is always available, but most die there. I see this as perfectly compatible with socialism since alcoholism is a disease and genetic, the people who suffer from it and can't be sober should be cared for. Same for any other drug addict who fails treatment repeatedly and feels they never will be cured(although depending on the drug they can still work and function, heroin for example.)


After the Revolution is going to be a whole new world and the person that can make the consensus--makes the rules:)Uhh, no. What if the consensus is there should be annually human sacrifice to appease the gods so they may allow a good harvest? Or slavery? No one "gets to make the rules." Property is socialized, the economy run democratically and any forceful activity is criminal.

[Travis Bickle]

I totally agree.

[ComradeMan]

Freedom is not absolute. In a socialist society people don't have the freedom to exploit, harm or oppress other people. "Law of the jungle" is neoliberal market capitalism, not communism.

Err... playing Devil's Advocate again- but either freedom is absolute or it is nothing (as long as freedom does not impinge on others' freedom). In terms of LGBT rights, it is in those same neoliberal market capitalist societies and not communist societies that LGBT rights have been protected the most.

In China homosexuality was illegal until 1997 and only not considered a mental illness in 2002. It was only in 2009 that we had any definitive sort of moves from Cuba. Vietnam is "ambiguous" but it was still labelled a "social evil" as late as 2002 and in North Korea "who knows?". In former communist countries the story was not so pretty either.

This is not to say that the radical left is de facto homophobic but there are certain realities, dare I say hypocricies, that the radical left must acknowledge,

[Luc]

Well clearly if a community somehow votes fascists or w/e your talking about it is no longer a socialist community but a fascist one.

Therefore we would not act towards them as a socialist community but a fascist community. o wait! No, it would be a fascist state because they don't want direct democracy and would abolish the community.

just pointing it out :)

edit: when I say "community" I mean "Commune" just clearifying that as "abolish the community" sounds ridicualous without that context :lol:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

No.
This. This x1000.

[RED DAVE]

Err... playing Devil's Advocate again- but either freedom is absolute or it is nothing (as long as freedom does not impinge on others' freedom).Where did you get that stupid idea? Nothing is absolute. Freedom is social; it is defined socially. It's impossible to define freedom in terms that lack a social definition.

RED DAVE

[Iron Felix]

Never, otherwise, how can we have large orgies and drug fests in the streets?! Society ain't nothing without orgies.

[Per Levy]

I've just finished the last of a series of studies conducted among progressive minded left wing radicals of all ages. It was basicly an inquiry into the relationship between radical left wing cultural values and the related birth rate.

The results clearly suggest that left wing radicals holding "liberal" cultural values are far removed from being able to reproduce in sufficient numbers. Progressive cultural values depresses the birth rate and undermine sustainability.

Taken to its logical conclusion such cultural left "progressivism" do not contribute value. Social conservatism produces value (which is appropriated by the cultural progressivists).

Don't shoot the messenger.

the fuck? first of all are left wing radicals now a species that needs to "reproduce"? second your conclusion is bogus, how the fuck does social conservatism produces "value"? seriously, if that is your atemp of trolling it was terrible.

[DinodudeEpic]

Social conservatism is what the right wing is about.

Not free markets nor capitalism. But, being socially conservative.

[RED DAVE]

Don't shoot the messenger.Three Billy Goats Gruff (http://www.pitt.edu/%7Edash/type0122e.html) need to send troll back where he came from. Maybe he'll join the Bridge Inspectors Union and get really radicalized.

RED DAVE

[Bud Struggle]

This. This x1000.

Sorry but, yes x7 billion. No Proletarian should rest after the revolution till ALL the people of the planet earth have the same equal food housing and clothing.

After that you can write your poetry.

[RGacky3]

... How about after the revolution people get to do what they want, because thats teh point of the revolution.

Stop telling us what people will decide to do, you have no idea.

[Bud Struggle]

... How about after the revolution people get to do what they want, because thats teh point of the revolution.

Stop telling us what people will decide to do, you have no idea.

But that's what I want to do. ;) Somebody's got to take contol after the Revolution--why not me. From what I see all these Revolutions go south, so why shouldn't I and like minded individuals like Robert and kapitalyst) drive the bus. We'll take good care of you. You can trust us. Really. :)

[Robert]

I think they already got a job picked out for me in the Revolutionary Community Latrine, but yeah, you guys can drive.

[Queercommie Girl]

Err... playing Devil's Advocate again- but either freedom is absolute or it is nothing (as long as freedom does not impinge on others' freedom). In terms of LGBT rights, it is in those same neoliberal market capitalist societies and not communist societies that LGBT rights have been protected the most.


I don't deal in metaphysical absolutes. And frankly even if I have to deal in them, I'd rather consider "justice" as the "absolute" rather than "freedom", not least because "freedom" is the central value of neoliberal market capitalism, which I oppose.

As for LGBT rights, I'd say there is class difference here. Wealthy trans people generally aren't the ones who are getting murdered, very poor trans prostitutes are. Mainstream LGBT organisations are generally very commercialised and have little to offer homeless queer people of colour (mostly) who are living on the streets of US cities.



In China homosexuality was illegal until 1997 and only not considered a mental illness in 2002. It was only in 2009 that we had any definitive sort of moves from Cuba. Vietnam is "ambiguous" but it was still labelled a "social evil" as late as 2002 and in North Korea "who knows?". In former communist countries the story was not so pretty either.
Tangent: Vietnam recently produced a relatively good gay film, called "Paradise Lost".

But did I ever give you the impression that I'm a Stalinist?



This is not to say that the radical left is de facto homophobic but there are certain realities, dare I say hypocricies, that the radical left must acknowledge,
At the moment though, among the non-Stalinist radical left, explicit homophobia and transphobia is rather rare. Though I do agree that I've personally encountered implicit homophobia/transphobia among the radical left.

[Queercommie Girl]

And justice is impossible without freedom.

Freedom is also impossible without justice.

After all, capitalism is supposed to be the most free system to have ever existed. And we all know where this "freedom" is leading us.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh no, you don't. Nobody's talking about legalizing violent crime. The question was what do you do with people who have fascist ideation, live together and think and discuss and speak approvingly of fascism, but do not act on it?

You going to have anarchist cops or commie cops arrest them? Then what?

Anyway, you already answered here:

Why is it that reactionaries always like to make a clown out of themselves by apologising for the most reactionary of forces? How much weight do you think your argument would carry, given that most normal people and not just leftists generally hate fascists?

Even if you want to pick a deliberately awkward example to "catch socialists out", couldn't you at least pick one that does not rely on having sympathies for the far-right-wing?

You see, while you are focussing on the rights of fascists, I'm focussing on the rights of the Foxconn workers who committed suicide. You are disgusted at the fact that a worker's state might have to resort to capital punishment to deal with violent fascists, I'm disgusted at the fact that human beings are treated like livestock by capitalists in our "free market" system. This is essentially the fundamental difference between our mentalities.

[efficiency]

I am socially conservative but not homophobic. I am a Christian but I don't judge other people because they believe differently. I don't expect people to change their view because of a conversation I might have with them. Typically there is a lot of emotion behind other people's views on religion and politics so I don't bring either subject up even though I have highly seasoned views and a lot to share.

I am not a Marxist but an independent person who recognizes that capitalism has certain inherent evils. I sympathize with anarchism in as much as I can relate to the benefits of libertarianism and the possibility of a money-less society.

I have read definitions of anarchism that say the church is an authority that must be opposed along with government and capitalism. One writer calls it "slavery over the spirit." I think that the church's authority is misunderstood. If I give my self to someone voluntarily this is not slavery. The church has no authority over me unless I choose to subject myself to it.

As I see it, the church can only have authority over me if it is moving in the Spirit of God. When this happens the church, being in harmony with God, always has my best interest in mind so, wherever that is the case, it is a boon rather than a bane to me to heed its will. This is not to say that the church as an institution always moves in the Spirit. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. My belief is that as an institution it does so mystically and generally but not specifically and constantly in every instance. She's a good mother, teacher and friend. Sometimes she's a complete jerk that needs to wake up, sometimes a criminal, detestable. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There is too much good to draw from the well there. People who reject the church are robbing themselves of a sometimes amazing resource.

As I pan through my history books I notice that very little used to be said on the subject of abortion. I observe that the political right has become the new church speak so that today it is almost all the left thinks about when it thinks of the church. Really, I don't think this would have happened if it weren't for abortion turning into an industry. I think the difference is that today almost every person has had a personal encounter with abortion. Most have either fathered or mothered a fetus they considered aborting at some point in a previous or current relationship, or perhaps did. This just was not the case in the first eighteen hundred years of church history, or prior to that.

What seems surprising to me is that the radical left would not be AntiAbortion. All I'm really hearing is that anarchist's cry "thou shalt not tell me what to do" but there is something missing. There is a parallel between the exploitation by the borgeois over the proletariat and that of adults over the needy, including children, infants and fetuses. The view being taken is entirely that of the one with the property. As such, being ProChoice is a form of very radical capitalism. The left is asserting its right to treat its children as its property and do whatever the hell it wants with it because, hey, that's my body.

Of course, you know it is not your body, but that of someone else that you are treating with the same arbitrary amoral violence that you moan about with respect to capitalism.

The arguments then get presented that the fetus has no feeling or lacks human development, or if they are in the USA, that they lack legal rights, as if this could dehumanize them. Suddenly, the new morality is based on law. No way do they give capitalism a pass because it is legal. No way is murder justified just because a victim can't feel it or lacks intelligence. Under that logic, capitalism is justified because the proletariat doesn't know they are being duped. The fact that it is intrinsically evil is beyond their comprehension since they have been conditioned to accept it as the only way there is.

Then there is China. Obviously, they are not anarchists over there and those with the least amount of liberty live in wombs. It is ironic, the very thing that makes me as a Christian with a very soft heart sympathize with the egalitarians compels me also and especially to consider the poorest of the poor and the neediest of the needy, particularly those without a voice, - the fetuses. For some reason I simply can't comprehend, the left both misses this and continually denies it. They scuff it off as some religious prohibition imposed by church authorities, rather than recognizing a highly tweaked conscience that thirsts for justice and for a beginning of all that is good, the very thing they should see most easily.

Here then when someone says that they are a social conservative what gets said in response is that it is okay depending on how "socially conservative" is defined. So long as by these terms it is not meant that a person is a racist, sexist or LGBT-phobe it's OK. This response is met with approval by others on this forum.

Goodness. I can't think of one person I've ever met who would define socially conservative as any of those things. If I meet someone who is a racist, the name given to that kind of person is "racist." The word "socially conservative" hardly comes to mind. Sexist? Maybe what was meant to be said was gender discriminatory. It is those who tend away from sexual morality who tend to be sexists (philanderers), by definition. If social conservatism has anything to do with morality, which it certainly tends to, then I can only think that the person bringing this up has never met an actual social conservative, but has been reading about them entirely from leftist sources that seek only to denigrate them. Perhaps what was meant was sexual discrimination. I have never met a social conservative who believed in sexual discrimination. I have, however, met many people who put gender discrimination into practice, sometimes in favor of women, especially beautiful ones, other times in favor of men, as if men were better suited for certain types of work, especially managerial or executive work. This is a social phenomenon rather than a political or ideological one and sometimes equal work does not result in equal pay to this day but I don't think anyone has conducted a study to see what percentage of cases where such discrimination exists it is found that the guilty parties side with the left or right.

Then there is the "LGBT-phobes" term. The word "homophobe" was a clever and catchy term of intimidation used by the gay left, which transferred to something very much like the equivalent of white guilt. The later more encompassing term is "LGBT-phobe." Can we simply deal with the issues? I'm sure there are people with phobias of every sort and these phobias sometimes effect political opinion but the term itself serves no purpose beyond making the leaping conclusion that if anyone disagrees on an issue that it must stem from lack of experiential adaptation.

What issue is in question? Gay marriage? GLBTs in the military? Polygamy? Extramarital sex? The issues of the day that define whether a person is "socially conservative" are these first two. Is a person automatically a homophobe if they oppose gay marriage? I don't think so. Generally these people are religious. Some of them may have seen psychological studies that show that on average children wind up healthier when the parents are heterosexual. I've seen some reports from some of those studies. I can't imagine that those reports would be sufficient reason to want to prohibit gay marriage though.

What I see instead, among those who oppose it, is the idea that the state ought to dictate traditionally religious moral norms. In America, they maintain that the country's founding father's meant to set up a Christian nation specifically, but free from the tyranny of a specific church. They saw variety within Christianity, or at least deism. That's what they say. Others disagree, pointing out that private opinion and the constitution itself ought to be separated. Context shouldn't matter. So there you have a question about constitutional interpretation - certainly nothing about phobia.

Me, I'm not expert on the constitution of the USA. I have a masters degree in theology. My expertise is in early church history and eschatology. I went to a Catholic seminary in the 1980s where I studied Gustavo Gutierrez, Leanardo Boff and Charles Curan and an 86 member Conference of Catholic Bishops of America came out with a document called Economic Justice For All, that never once mentioned the accumulated deficit of the US. After I pointed this out, and the fact that I did not approve of the Mary Knoll missionaries sending guns to the Sandinistas I got black balled and lost my matriculation and graduated in 1995 from an Orthodox seminary instead.

My point is that I really don't care that much about the US Constitution. It's just one country. As a Christian, what matters to me when it comes to GLBT marriage is the distinction between a religious sacrament and a human experience. If the state wants to call something marriage and some one partakes of it, then what they have is the state's marriage, usually called a civil marriage. If the state's opinion is what matters to a gay couple then the church has nothing to do with that decision, regardless of what the founding fathers may have thought about it and that's that. If, on the other hand, someone wants to as for the church to call something a marriage and a sacrament this seems to me to be an entirely different issue. It is one thing to offer a blessing. It is another to offer a sacrament. Episcopalians have started not only marrying gays in what they call sacraments but also ordaining them. Communion is offered to everyone even if they have traditionally unchristian beliefs, even beliefs that are mutually contradictory. Their idea is that the communion ought to draw people into unity. I kind of like that approach.

On the other hand, I don't approach the matter with certainty. As much as I appreciate where the Episcopalians are coming from I'm lacking what I need to definitively take their side. I have a respect for what seems to have always been taught, particularly when it seems to be traceable to or consistent with what was probably taught by Jesus and his disciples. My approach is to search and to consider. This approach is very different than most who would describe themselves as "social conservatives." The majority of social conservatives align themselves with a major denomination. I am primarily a historian rather than a follower of a denomination. Of the Christian denominations I see I find the Orthodox to be the most helpful to me personally, but I take a critical approach. Most who approach Orthodoxy critically or Catholicism critically wind up abandoning the faith. I've found more to validate Orthodoxy than abandon it from what I've found in the historical evidence. Most who do so enter wholeheartedly, uncritically. Their social conservatism aligns with the church's official teachings and probably derives from them rather than from homophobia.

I consider any extramarital sex to be a sin. There are many kinds of sins. Lying, stealing cheating, hurting, and there is sex outside of the sacrament. It isn't love if it hurts someone and there are many ways to hurt people including yourself. If you have doubts and then you do it then usually there is some form of hurt (sin). The only difference between me sinning by watching pornography, for instance, and a bisexual person sinning by engaging in the lifestyle is that I acknowledge that it is sin, while the GLBT claims that what they do is not sin. I see them saying that they can't help being how they are and denying there is anything wrong with what they do. I can understand them feeling helpless in their lifestyle. I call this an addiction. Sexual addictions, in particular, are extremely difficult, probably the most difficult type of addiction to overcome. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it stop hurting people. Every cigarette, every toke from a crack pipe, every sexual image in my head, digs me deeper into a type of hurt. I could say that I'm only hurting myself, not anybody else. It's my choice. What's wrong with that? The answer is there is indeed something wrong with hurting myself. There is something wrong with it. It's sin. Sexual sin is no different, whether alone or with others, and when any sin continues and becomes a lifestyle something else happens, we either distance ourselves from God or we reinvent who we think God is in order to justify ourselves. We have to cope.

Now the Marxists suppose they have the upper hand on Christians in this since they believe that Christians merely lack right thinking to begin with. There is no God to be alienated from. There is only an imagined God that we are better off abandoning. The problem is that that position takes more faith than I have. I find it harder to prove that there is not a God than to prove that there is one. Knowing that there might be a God instills respect for the possibilities. I can't deny that such possibilities are real. For me, it has prompted me to become the church historian that I am. I could have chosen any religion, or made one up for myself depending on what I found when I searched. I have come to the conclusions that I have through very intense study that has lasted decades. I have come to see that the reason the Bible is as long as it is and involves so many thousands of years of history is that God desired to provide evidence of who He is through prophecy. He wanted for people like me, who would search for answers, to have certainty. It was a search that began with doubt but with a faith that acknowledged the possibility of God. Knowing what I do, the Nihilism of Marxism is something I won't ever be able to embrace. It is for those who trust in Hegel and Marx and those who succeeded them and refuse to search for a God because they believe they shouldn't or because their comrades tell them not to.

[Robert]

Why is it that reactionaries always like to make a clown out of themselves by apologising for the most reactionary of forces?

Commiegirl, I asked you what you would in your community do with people who simply say they are fascists.

Your "answer" makes you sound like a thought policeman.

Just try to answer the question, if you can, and we'll try to see where we disagree.

[Queercommie Girl]

Commiegirl, I asked you what you would in your community do with people who simply say they are fascists.

Your "answer" makes you sound like a thought policeman.

Just try to answer the question, if you can, and we'll try to see where we disagree.


Only those who are objectively fascists would be punished.

But seriously, why waste time thinking about fascists when you can think about oppressed workers instead?

[RGacky3]

Freedom is also impossible without justice.

After all, capitalism is supposed to be the most free system to have ever existed. And we all know where this "freedom" is leading us.

BUt its not the free system.

[JFB.anon]

If the government is too big, it'll become oppressive!
Also, I think the government should oppress you.

Make sense to me!:thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

Also, I think the government should oppress you.

Make sense to me!:thumbup:

Boy, are you posting in the wrong forum. :D

[Robert]

Only those who are objectively fascists would be punished.

Whuuu? How do you decide that someone has become "objectively" fascist? You mean demonstrably? Overtly? You mean if they commit crimes in the name of race or nationalism? We're way past agreeing on that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Whuuu? How do you decide that someone has become "objectively" fascist? You mean demonstrably? Overtly? You mean if they commit crimes in the name of race or nationalism? We're way past agreeing on that.

I don't know. How do you decide that someone is really a criminal today? :rolleyes: Or do you think we should abandon the bourgeois legal system completely as well? :rolleyes:

[Robert]

A very mixed up and evasive answer.

M'lady.:wub:

[Judicator]

No. Socially conservative doesn't mean your own personal behavior - it means such bad things as discriminating against homosexuals, anti-abortion, forcing Christianity down everyones throat (in the US anyway), etc.

If you really believe the gays are going to hell, wouldn't you try to stop them? If you really believe abortion was murder, wouldn't you try to stop it?

These seem like examples of people acting on strongly held believes based on cognitive errors. Surely it's okay to make a cognitive error, and it's okay to have strong beliefs and act on them.

[Bud Struggle]

If you really believe the gays are going to hell, wouldn't you try to stop them? If you really believe abortion was murder, wouldn't you try to stop it?

These seem like examples of people acting on strongly held believes based on cognitive errors. Surely it's okay to make a cognitive error, and it's okay to have strong beliefs and act on them.

Good point and what socially conservatives are doing is no different than what Communists are doing. They elieve Capitalism is wrong for people so they want to change it. They believe the market system is unfair so they want to change it.

All on strongly held beliefs. Beliefs by both parties that the vast majority of people think is crazy.

[RGacky3]

All on strongly held beliefs. Beliefs by both parties that the vast majority of people think is crazy.

There are huge protests on wall street and in cities all over the US saying the same thing most of us are saying.

Social conservatives want to get into peoples perosnal lives, we are talking about eocnomics, which is by definition a social affair.

[Bud Struggle]

There are huge protests on wall street and in cities all over the US saying the same thing most of us are saying.

Social conservatives want to get into peoples perosnal lives, we are talking about eocnomics, which is by definition a social affair.

There are more people in church in--pick any small town in America--then there are on Wall street. That actualy numbers of people out there are insignifigant.

No religion is a highly social thing. It affects people's over all relationship to the community and the world. On the other hand--one of the BIG problems with Communism is that it does affect people's belief system. You should read the big boards on RevLeft once and a while and see what you Commies what people to believe.

[RGacky3]

There are more people in church in--pick any small town in America--then there are on Wall street. That actualy numbers of people out there are insignifigant.


Really? There are 10s of thousands of people in every chuch in America? Its not juts wallstreet, its in most major cities now.


No religion is a highly social thing. It affects people's over all relationship to the community and the world.

I agree, but the socially conservative stuff they want to put into law is just making rules on peoples personal life.

I have nothing wrong with religion, I am religious, its legislating it that is the problem.


You should read the big boards on RevLeft once and a while and see what you Commies what people to believe.

You should see the REAL left out in the world.

[Bud Struggle]

Really? There are 10s of thousands of people in every chuch in America? Its not juts wallstreet, its in most major cities now.



Well in some of them:

Top 16 Largest Churches in America for 2009
13,000+ attendance

Lakewood Church (http://www.lakewood.cc/) (Houston, TX) :: Joel Osteen
43,500 (#1) for 2009
43,500 (#1) for 2008
47,000 (#1) for 2007
45,000 (#1) for 2006
LifeChurch.tv (http://lifechurch.tv/) (Edmond, OK) :: Craig Groeschel
26,776 (#2) for 2009
20,823 (#5) for 2008
19,907 (#5) for 2007
16,071 (#13) for 2006
Willow Creek Community Church (http://www.willowcreek.org/) (South Barrington, IL) :: Bill Hybels
23,400 (#3) for 2009
22,500 (#4) for 2008
23,500 (#2) for 2007
21,500 (#5) for 2006
North Point Community Church (http://northpoint.org/) (Alpharetta, GA) :: Andy Stanley
23,377 (#4) for 2009
22,557 (#3) for 2008
17,700 (#7) for 2007
16,700 (#12) for 2006
Second Baptist Church (http://www.second.org/) (Houston, TX) :: Ed Young Sr.
22,723 (#5) for 2009
23,659 (#2) for 2008
23,198 (#3) for 2007
22,266 (#3) for 2006
Saddleback Church (http://www.saddleback.com/) (Lake Forest, CA) :: Rick Warren
22,418 (#6) for 2009
19,414 (#8) for 2008
22,000 (#4) for 2007
20,595 (#6) for 2006
Fellowship Church (http://www.fellowshipchurch.com/) (Grapevine, TX) :: Ed Young Jr.
18,355 (#7) for 2009
19,913 (#7) for 2008
13,000 (#16) for 2007
18,124 (#9) for 2006
Southeast Christian Church (http://www.southeastchristian.org/) (Louisville, KY) :: Dave Stone
17,261 (#8) for 2009
16,264 (#12) for 2008
18,013 (#6) for 2007
18,520 (#7) for 2006
Woodlands Church (http://www.fotw.org/) (Woodlands, TX) :: Kerry Shook
17,142 (#9) for 2009
16,380 (#11) for 2008
15,600 (#12) for 2007
14,120 (#18) for 2006
Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale (http://www.calvaryftl.org/) (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) :: Bob Coy
15,921 (#10) for 2009
18,000 (#9) for 2008
17,000 (#9) for 2007
18,300 (#8) for 2006
Central Christian Church (http://www.centralchristian.com/) (Las Vegas, NV) :: Jud Wilhite
15,081 (#11) for 2009
13,010 (#22) for 2008
12,000 (#22) for 2007
8,994 (#43) for 2006
First Baptist Church (http://www.fbchammond.com/) (Hammond, IN) :: Jack Schaap
15,059 (#12) for 2009
13,678 (#19) for 2008
12,000 (#20) for 2007
11,300 (#26) for 2006
Prestonwood Baptist Church (http://www.prestonwood.org/) (Plano, TX) :: Jack Graham
14,975 (#13) for 2009
14,450 (#17) for 2008
14,000 (#14) for 2007
14,871 (#17) for 2006
Thomas Road Baptist Church (http://trbc.org/) (Lynchburg, VA) :: Jonathan Falwell
13,100 (#14) for 2009
13,000 (#23) for 2008
17,445 (#8) for 2007
7,626 (#71) for 2006
Calvary Chapel (http://www.calvaryabq.org/) (Albuquerque, NM) :: Skip Heitzig
13,000 (#15) for 2009
13,500 (#20) for 2008
12,000 (#19) for 2007
12,000 (#24) for 2006
New Birth Missionary Baptist (http://www.newbirth.org/) (Decatur, GA) :: Eddie Long
13,000 (#16) for 2009
15,000 (#14) for 2008
15,000 (#13) for 2007
22,000 (#4) for 2006




You should see the REAL left out in the world.

I've been in the CPUSA, the IWW and now the CNT. (All as Bud Struggle.)

[Judicator]

There are huge protests on wall street and in cities all over the US saying the same thing most of us are saying.

Social conservatives want to get into peoples perosnal lives, we are talking about eocnomics, which is by definition a social affair.

Despite what some conservatives may tell you, asking for more regulation and rule of law (for example, ending fraudulent foreclosures) isn't communism.

[RGacky3]

:)
Well in some of them:

Top 16 Largest Churches in America for 2009
13,000+ attendance

Comparing church attendance and a one off protest where people are getting beat is rediculous, also religion and political economics is totally different.


I've been in the CPUSA, the IWW and now the CNT. (All as Bud Struggle.)

Those are not the real left, the IWW and CNT are part of the real left, but the real left is in Wisconsin protests, occupy wallstreet, and in europe, UKuncut, los indignados and so on.


Despite what some conservatives may tell you, asking for more regulation and rule of law (for example, ending fraudulent foreclosures) isn't communism.

.... yeah ...

[efficiency]

:)Comparing church attendance and a one off protest where people are getting beat is rediculous, also religion and political economics is totally different.It's ridiculous when the numbers prove you wrong. My church around the corner has 20,000 in weekly attendance, which is already more than all Wall Street protests combined, not that the liberal press would reveal that. What's more, that is just one of over 300 churches in the county with weekly attendance of over 100 on average, and our county has lower church attendance than most other areas of the country. Multiply that by hundreds of counties in the US.

You also say Wall Street is "people getting beat" when they're not. That's just the liberal press showing a few rare photos where instead of peacefully protesting they are crossing the line, trying to make a story when there isn't one. Contrast that with people being blown up in churches who've done nothing to provoke anyone. They are. But even that isn't the rule.

Look again at the numbers. Occupy Wall Street is totally outnumbered by the churches and the churches have been meeting regularly weekly for centuries. There has only been a slight decline despite a great deal of negative press. 1:4 Americans regularly attend church one or more times per week to this day. That's according to religioustolerance.org , which seeks to minimize the numbers because of its political agenda, while regular polls show attendance much higher. See http :/ ? en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Church_attendance

I'll grant that religious attendance and political attendance is different, but that is not because those in politics wish that to be the case. It is a fair comparison as a counter to the claim that nobody believes in God any more. God may be irrelevant to you, but not to the majority. The stats I'm quoting are for those who not only believe but show their belief by attending at least once a week. Some many times more.

That said, it also strikes me that any cause that thinks it can push their anti-religion in order to stay true to its orginal expression (ie Marxism) is to be intolerant/fascist. The whole subject of this thread is whether "social conservatism" among the class-transcendant left ought to be allowed. This thread is about leftist intolerance. Your arguments don't work both ways at the same time. You nullify yourself by insisting that Marxism is tolerant on the one hand, but that there is no place for social conservatism on the other. Which is it?


Those are not the real left, the IWW and CNT are part of the real left, but the real left is in Wisconsin protests, occupy wallstreet, and in europe, UKuncut, los indignados and so on.So you think Occupy Wall Street is 'the real left'? On this community board that means they are Marxists. Try to tell that to the millions of people hearing about it who think it is just the Democratic Party platform seeking higher taxes on the rich, more equitable wages, less corruption and more union power, while throwing in some posters for gay rights, green advocates and pro choice groups. The people out there and those reading about them will ridicule anyone who says that there are communists underneath it while your claim is that it is the real left - namely communist. Maybe I've misunderstood you. Could you please clarify your position?

[RGacky3]

People that go to Church are both right nad left wing, even if every single person in AMerica wen't to chuch it would'nt dimish the importance of the Protest.


So you think Occupy Wall Street is 'the real left'? On this community board that means they are Marxists.

The real left is Occupy Wall Street, Madison square, the Arab Spring, los indignados the general strikes in euorpe and so on.


The people out there and those reading about them will ridicule anyone who says that there are communists underneath it while your claim is that it is the real left - namely communist. Maybe I've misunderstood you. Could you please clarify your position?

I'm talking about the anti-capitalist left.

[#FF0000]

You also say Wall Street is "people getting beat" when they're not. That's just the liberal press showing a few rare photos where instead of peacefully protesting they are crossing the line, trying to make a story when there isn't one. Contrast that with people being blown up in churches who've done nothing to provoke anyone. They are. But even that isn't the rule.

I really don't understand this "liberal press" thing. MSNBC is the only network I saw that said anything against police behavior at the protests. I'll give you CNN if you want, but then you still have Fox and literally all of talk radio.

I mean I don't really care for MSNBC or CNN or any of this. I'm just saying the "liberal media" thing doesn't really carry water.

And if you look at the raw video I really think you'd struggle to find anything these people did wrong. Cops abuse their power plenty, either way, and very rarely get punished.


You nullify yourself by insisting that Marxism is tolerant on the one hand, but that there is no place for social conservatism on the other. Which is it?

I can't really think of a socially conservative position that isn't restrictive or "authoritarian", honestly. I mean if you could maybe point out a "socially conservative" position that isn't, that'd be great, but if we're talking about things like this anti-gay marriage stuff, and enforcing traditional gender roles, then, no these aren't things that should be tolerated. I mean you wouldn't call someone intolerant for not tolerating something like racism, would you?



And Gack, I don't know what you're talking about with this "real left" stuff. Most of these guys are left-leaning or liberal and disillusioned with the democrats. Others are Ron Paul conspiracy weirdos. Either way to say they're "ours" is pretty much wrong. They're working people who are angry for good reasons, and that's about it.

[Bud Struggle]

\And Gack, I don't know what you're talking about with this "real left" stuff. Most of these guys are left-leaning or liberal and disillusioned with the democrats. Others are Ron Paul conspiracy weirdos. Either way to say they're "ours" is pretty much wrong. They're working people who are angry for good reasons, and that's about it.

Exactly. for that matter I agree with most of those people in OWS (And I'm surely not one of "your people".) People got shafted in this economy and they are understandably pissed off and using their American right to say something about it. This ain't no revolution.

Good for them.

[RGacky3]

And Gack, I don't know what you're talking about with this "real left" stuff. Most of these guys are left-leaning or liberal and disillusioned with the democrats. Others are Ron Paul conspiracy weirdos. Either way to say they're "ours" is pretty much wrong. They're working people who are angry for good reasons, and that's about it.

Working people that are angry ARE the real left, thats what I'm talkinga about, revolutions arn't made by ideologically conscious people, thye arn't made by economists and people that have studied marx, they are made by people who are angry about what Capitalism has done.

Whether you call them liberal or left leaning or whatever does'nt matter, they are angry with the system, they are angry with Capitalism and what it has produced, they are angry with having no say oer the economy, I call that the real left.


Exactly. for that matter I agree with most of those people in OWS (And I'm surely not one of "your people".) People got shafted in this economy and they are understandably pissed off and using their American right to say something about it. This ain't no revolution.


Bud, they are arguing for things that you almost universally argued against in these threads.

[#FF0000]

This ain't no revolution.

Yet.

[RGacky3]

This ain't no revolution.

Many people ARE calling for revolution, listen to the people on the street Bud, they are arguing AGAINST capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is it OK to be socially conservative? I submit that it is not, has not been and will never be OK.

Social conservatism is about fear. Fear of social evolution, fear of people who are different or who don't confirm to a role ordained by God/King/Country. Fear of losing one's cosseted, pampered and privileged position at or near the top of society.

The kind of fear that manifests in conservatism doesn't just abandon any semblence of rationality - it actively rejects it, repudiating it root and branch.

There are many social issues that simply would not exist were it not for conservative fear-mongering. For starters, LGBTQ folk would be universally considered human beings like everyone else, and they would be free to love and marry each other as well as adopt children.

But no, thanks to social conservatism we have to endure their howling shrieks of dismay every time the rest of society moves forward, if we're that lucky. Other times it's an uphill battle all the way because the social conservatives make it their life's mission to attempt to obstruct the advancing social zeitgeist.

Fuck social conservatism.

[Robert]

Fear of losing one's cosseted, pampered and privileged position at or near the top of society.I don't know how "pampered and privileged" the skinheads and neo-nazis were (still are?) in the UK and in the rest of Europe, but I doubt they received their formation at the King's College School (http://www.kcs.org.uk/) and Oxford (http://www.ox.ac.uk/).

Quick wiki search says there are 25,000 "right wing extremists" in Germany now, of which 5,000 nazis. Are they from the upper classes?

And those guys over at Stormfront play more pool and poker than they do polo and bridge. I don't really know that last part, but I'd bet a beer on it ....

[#FF0000]

I don't know how "pampered and privileged" the skinheads and neo-nazis were (still are?) in the UK and in the rest of Europe, but I doubt they received their formation at the King's College School (http://www.kcs.org.uk/) and Oxford (http://www.ox.ac.uk/).

Quick wiki search says there are 25,000 "right wing extremists" in Germany now, of which 5,000 nazis. Are they from the upper classes?

And those guys over at Stormfront play more pool and poker than they do polo and bridge. I don't really know that last part, but I'd bet a beer on it ....

Historically fascists drew the most support from the "middle classes" and military.

And I don't know about Germany or England but from what I've seen, I would say that holds true, at least for America. Most neo-nazis (The serious ones, who aren't just criminals using shocking imagery) are moderately wealthy/middle-age "dad" types with their midlife crisis goatees and everything

[Robert]

People got shafted in this economy and they are understandably pissed offI wonder how many of them are represented in the protests. There was a poll of protesters taken by the New Yorker, quoted on the main board, that is pretty disheartening to the hard left: the protesters are mostly liberals. Of course, commies think "well, it's the New Yorker, so they probably only interviewed liberals.":rolleyes:

One really funny exchange over there between Commie 1 and Commie 2

You write:
"abolition of the police" and
"the answer to all of them: the abolition of capital, of capitalism and of the capitalist state."

Why is everything raised in the passive form of "abolition" without addressing the question of who does the abolishing (the working class) and how (revolution) through what (a workers' state, per Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program)?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/occupy-wall-street-t162341/index.html?p=2256421#post2256421


Sound familiar?

[RGacky3]

There was a poll of protesters taken by the New Yorker, quoted on the main board, that is pretty disheartening to the hard left: the protesters are mostly liberals.

Liberal is a catch all phrase, they call everyone liberal, the same with progressive, its like socialist in europe, everyone and their mother from the center to the left calls themself a socialist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know how "pampered and privileged" the skinheads and neo-nazis were (still are?) in the UK and in the rest of Europe, but I doubt they received their formation at the King's College School (http://www.kcs.org.uk/) and Oxford (http://www.ox.ac.uk/).

Quick wiki search says there are 25,000 "right wing extremists" in Germany now, of which 5,000 nazis. Are they from the upper classes?

And those guys over at Stormfront play more pool and poker than they do polo and bridge. I don't really know that last part, but I'd bet a beer on it ....

Privilege is about much more than mere wealth. It's pretty much a given that white heterosexual cisgendered males get better opportunities than anyone else in Western society, all other things being equal.

[Bud Struggle]

Many people ARE calling for revolution, listen to the people on the street Bud, they are arguing AGAINST capitalism.

No they aren't. They are looking for a realignment of Capitalism. There are no people trying to bring down Capitalism at all. They just want a fairer playing field--by changing existing laws to better suit the working people. The Capitalists do it all of the time--so why not the workers? All this is ENTIRELY within the workings of a Capitalist Democratic society.

Do you hear anyone saying "bring down Capitalism?" Do you see any signs saying, "Down with America."

No Anarchists out there.
No Communists. (Well, maybe 2 or 3.)

Just people that want a change to make things fairer. capitalists try to make things airer to them all of the time.

Gack, you are on one of your deluded binges. :(

[RedGrunt]

No they aren't. They are looking for a realignment of Capitalism. There are no people trying to bring down Capitalism at all. They just want a fairer playing field--by changing existing laws to better suit the working people. The Capitalists do it all of the time--so why not the workers? All this is ENTIRELY within the workings of a Capitalist Democratic society.

Do you hear anyone saying "bring down Capitalism?" Do you see any signs saying, "Down with America."

No Anarchists out there.
No Communists. (Well, maybe 2 or 3.)

Just people that want a change to make things fairer. capitalists try to make things airer to them all of the time.

Gack, you are on one of your deluded binges. :(

I have to agree from what I've heard so far, the majority isn't revolutionary but a united front against corporate interests dominating politics. I have seen a video with quick interviews of random people there(may have been the Boston one) which some were calling themselves socialists or calling for a "resource based economy". This video was also selective in whom it was showing to a large degree, as I'm sure mainstream news is doing.

I think the majority have seen alot of internet videos from all sides of the spectrum(such as Zeitgeist or the libertarian anti-fed ones) and people are waking up or seeing problems and contradictions within our system, but certainly not a very marxist or revolutionary-leftist crowd at the moment. I would however imagine anarchists are more numerous than communists though.

[Robert]

Just people that want a change to make things fairer.Yes. I will admit that there are many, many people who are so scared and frustrated and ashamed that they will, if reforms are insufficient, "kick it up a notch" as Emeril would say. I would feel the same if so unfortunate.

The terrible dilemma for them is that there are not nearly enough of them to make a difference. Commies will say "not yet," and that's a good point, assuming things will inevitably worsen.

But unemployment in the USA is not creeping up from the 9.2% - 9.3% it has been at for a long time. And among the university educated, it's about 5%.

Where things may go apeshit is when the large state and city governments start handing out pink slips. Those people will be in the streets a la Madison. But if given a choice between revolution to benefit all versus getting their own jobs back, what will they take?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I respect people's right to believe whatever they feel like, but society should most definantly not be organized around socially conservative ideas and I doubt anyone who is socially conservative will last long before they are restriced on revleft.

[RGacky3]

No they aren't. They are looking for a realignment of Capitalism. There are no people trying to bring down Capitalism at all. They just want a fairer playing field--by changing existing laws to better suit the working people. The Capitalists do it all of the time--so why not the workers? All this is ENTIRELY within the workings of a Capitalist Democratic society.


There are tons there, listen to them, they invited Richard Wolff to talk there, they invited many anti-capitalists, I'm listening to them, your just using your same old and word line.


Do you hear anyone saying "bring down Capitalism?" Do you see any signs saying, "Down with America."

No Anarchists out there.
No Communists. (Well, maybe 2 or 3.)


There are people saying bring down capitalism, and no one is saying bring down America, because why would they? Your still all into this cold war propeganda from the 50s.

There are plenty of anarchists out there and socialists, open your eyes, one of the first speakers out there was Michael Moore who calls himself a socialist.


Gack, you are on one of your deluded binges. :(

I still see that your heard is FIRMLY in the sand, the sands of the 1950s.

[Ismail]

To return to the topic subject, it's pretty hard for a Marxist to be "socially conservative." Do you think Engels was knocking on homosexuals (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm) because God said so? Marxists can be wrong on social issues, not really "conservative" since they don't interpret things through bourgeois lenses but seek to explain them in scientific and dialectical terms, and through historical materialism.

If a "Marxist" called abortion "evil" for instance he wouldn't be thinking as a Marxist. If, however, he justified illegalizing abortion with a number of socioeconomic arguments and claims that capitalism encourages abortions then he wouldn't be "socially conservative," just wrong. Likewise if he justified illegalizing abortion by only claiming that it was counteracting population growth he wouldn't be "socially conservative," just wrong.

Social conservatism justifies or condemns things with arguments either based on religion or reactionary authorities. Marxists don't do that. It's possible to use Marxism as a cloak for social conservatism, but only if said someone were religious and were trying to merge religious and Marxist analyses into an unholy blend, or if someone were still thinking with idealism rather than materialism.

[Bud Struggle]

If a "Marxist" called abortion "evil" for instance he wouldn't be thinking as a Marxist.

And that is why under Communism "Re-education Camps" proved to be so useful. ;)

[00000000000]

Personally, I can't see a society progressing towards a socialism and eqiality with conservative / family values. The socially conservative, as I see it, embody intolerance and a morality based on narrow interpretations of ancient religious texts (homosexuals = immoral and evil, women are mothers and home-makers etc).
So I don't think any leftist worth his salt could hold socially conservative beliefs and still be a leftist.

[ComradeMan]

Personally, I can't see a society progressing towards a socialism and eqiality with conservative / family values. The socially conservative, as I see it, embody intolerance and a morality based on narrow interpretations of ancient religious texts (homosexuals = immoral and evil, women are mothers and home-makers etc). So I don't think any leftist worth his salt could hold socially conservative beliefs and still be a leftist.

So all people who are socially conservative are de facto religious?

What was the fate of homosexuals after the Cuban revolution?

So-called "leftist" regimes in the past don't have such a great record on a lot of issues either...

[00000000000]

So all people who are socially conservative are de facto religious?

What was the fate of homosexuals after the Cuban revolution?

So-called "leftist" regimes in the past don't have such a great record on a lot of issues either...

No, not at all, my own mother has quite conservative views and isn't religious at all. I was commenting on the link the religion often has to conservative values / ideas, that's all.

I don't put much truck in the regimes (none of the so-called socialist countires past and present embody what I think of as socialism). I was saying that, in my opinion, the Left should be a reaction against conservatism, which sadly isn't always the case when a 'leftist' government is in power.

[graffic]

What is "conservative" about family values and respecting monogamy? This has nothing to do with revolution.

As most people know, capitalism is about capital. As marx said economics is the base of everything. People who tie up religion and patriarchy with capitalism in one big simplistic black and white slur are dogmatic Marxists and too ideological. As most people know, priests and muslims have been some of the most radical revolutionaries throughout history. And lots of revolutionaries have come from observant Jewish families where the family is the basis of everything. The democratic thing to do is to leave people to do what they wish however there will always be an athiestVreligious debate over what constitutes the correct way to educate children and adults on sex, marriage etc. But obviously i identify myself as a social democrat rather than a Marxist so I don't care whether its "ok" or not to be socially "conservative" or socially "liberal".

[EvilRedGuy]

Sunfarstar is a social conservative. Such a shame he is corrupted.

I actually liked him. Thought he was more progressive than that. :blink:

[Cheung Mo]

The USSR was pretty socially conservative.Contemporary Russian Communist groups use the example of capitalism bribing the youth with " chances of wealth and wild sex" in their Propaganda.

The Bolsheviks were strident supporters of gender equality. Sexual intercourse between persons of the same gender and abortion were both legalized in the Russian Soviet Republic when Lenin was alive. It was only Stalinist degeneration and reactionary Russian chauvinism that turned back the clock on issues of sexuality and gender. Subsequent to that, the West had a sexual revolution that the USSR did not have in the 1960s.

[Rafiq]

Of course, just ask that piece of shit Chomsky, who openly calls himself one to attract common ground with the enemy.

[NGNM85]

Of course, just ask that piece of shit Chomsky, who openly calls himself one to attract common ground with the enemy.

He says that to draw attention to the fact that the coalition of groups and individuals who gather under the banner of ‘conservatism’, as a rule, are actually Radical. Reactionary Statists, for the most part. George Bush, for example, isn’t any kind of conservative, certainly not a compassionate one. That’s just true. If by ‘Social Conservatism’ you mean what Republicans mean by it, y’know, putting women back in the kitchen, prohibiting, and demonizing abortion, and homosexuality, there’s nothing conservative about that, and he's strongly against it. This is even more bogus than the last batch of phony accusations you leveled at him.

[RadioRaheem84]

Reactionary Statists
:rolleyes: Why do you use right-libertarian jargon?



George Bush, for example, isn’t any kind of conservative


Good lord, is the ideal to you more important that the economic reality?

Yes, the man soared deficit spending, mostly on the military and on a prescricption drug plan but at the same time he continued the policy of under funding social services, giving the wealthy their tax cuts and allowed Wall Street to run amok on the housing market.

Most of the regulatory agencies under his administration were staffed with business insiders who cushioned deals for the people they were supposed to be regulating.

The man was right wing. Maybe not libertarian-conservative enough for you, but a damn good mainstream Republican conservative.

[NGNM85]

Why do you use right-libertarian jargon?

First of all; ‘Right-Libertarians’ should be filed, next to ‘unicorns’, under the heading of ‘Things That Do Not Exist.’ Libertarianism is a Leftist philosophy including Anarchism, and some Marxist variants, like Council Communists, or Left Communists.

Second; I don’t speak in jargon, I speak plain English, that’s one of the many differences between us. Second; beyond being an empirical fact, this was actually a very close paraphrase of Chomsky.


Good lord, is the ideal to you more important that the economic reality?

I don’t subscribe to your religious beliefs.

This would also be an example of jargon.


Yes, the man soared deficit spending, mostly on the military and on a prescricption drug plan but at the same time he continued the policy of under funding social services, giving the wealthy their tax cuts and allowed Wall Street to run amok on the housing market.

Yes.


Most of the regulatory agencies under his administration were staffed with business insiders who cushioned deals for the people they were supposed to be regulating.

Yes.


The man was right wing. Maybe not libertarian-conservative enough for you, but a damn good mainstream Republican conservative.

He wasn’t just Right-Wing, he was a Reactionary, which is hard right, being just shy of Fascism.

He was a more-or-less orthodox Republican.

There was nothing, literally speaking, conservative about the Bush administration. They pursued a radical social agenda, domestically, and an even more radical, neo-imperialist agenda, internationally.

[NewLeft]

What the fuck is socioeconomic? Why not just use class.. It's direct.

Since when was opposing homosexuality/gender equality conservative? Not defending conservatism, I am not a conservative in any sense of the term.

[The left is right]

No, leftism is inherently progressive in social issues as well as economic issues.

Most people who are left wing are so because they want to help people and to =liberate them, and that isn't done by being homophobic, chauvinistic, anti-abortion etc. All lot of conservative christian morality issues are (or should be) irrelevant to communists as they are merely a remnant of feudalism.

My cousin is also communist but he believes in capital punishment. I disagree fundamentally with this. In most of these cases, one acts criminally when living under repressive and unequal societies, such as our own capitalist system.

[The left is right]

No, leftism is inherently progressive in social issues as well as economic issues.

Most people who are left wing are so because they want to help people and to =liberate them, and that isn't done by being homophobic, chauvinistic, anti-abortion etc. All lot of conservative christian morality issues are (or should be) irrelevant to communists as they are merely a remnant of feudalism.

My cousin is also communist but he believes in capital punishment. I disagree fundamentally with this. In most of these cases, one acts criminally when living under repressive and unequal societies, such as our own capitalist system.

[Franz Fanonipants]

you can't be socially conservative w/out being economically conservative or vice versa.

"is it ok" is a poor question to as about a political position. a better question would be "is it correct" or "is it logical" or even "can a revolutionary be both socially conservative and revolutionary"?

the main thing is that Social "Progressivism" cannot and should not be mistaken for revolutionary ardor

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don’t subscribe to your religious beliefs.

keep up the good work on getting unrestricted comrade im sure you will be able to not have the red letter of reactionaryism on you soon as you continue to follow this line of rhetoric and denigrating historical mat'lism.

e: also pls share more of your total milquetoast, republican democracy-loving, capitalism defending political wisdom w/us.

[black magick hustla]

you can't be socially conservative w/out being economically conservative or vice versa.


not true. a lot of people in latin america are economically "left wing" but have shitty attitudes about gender etc. same with black people actually. but then again "conservative/liberal" is a fake divide.

[Rafiq]

Economically conservative includes the so-called progressive Liberals, as well. Come on, people, let's stick to the Marxist definitions of bourgeois parties.

Like I said before, Liberalism is the structural foundation of Bourgeois Ideology.... Things like Fascism are a mere desperate last resort.

[RadioRaheem84]

First of all; ‘Right-Libertarians’ should be filed, next to ‘unicorns’, under the heading of ‘Things That Do Not Exist.’ Libertarianism is a Leftist philosophy including Anarchism, and some Marxist variants, like Council Communists, or Left Communists.

Please tell me you're joking? In this context I meant American Libertarians.


Second; I don’t speak in jargon, I speak plain English, that’s one of the many differences between us. Second; beyond being an empirical fact, this was actually a very close paraphrase of Chomsky.If Chomsky said it, it doesn't make it right. This is something you have consistently failed to understand.


I don’t subscribe to your religious beliefs.

This would also be an example of jargon.You mean you do not subscribe to the basic fact that you're rarely going to find anyone match up to your ideal notion of a conservative?.




He wasn’t just Right-Wing, he was a Reactionary, which is hard right, being just shy of Fascism. Conservatives cannot be reactionary?


He was a more-or-less orthodox Republican.Republicans tend to be conservative.


There was nothing, literally speaking, conservative about the Bush administration. They pursued a radical social agenda, domestically, and an even more radical, neo-imperialist agenda, internationally.I think you are basically trying to say that Bush was not a classical liberal which is what conservatives in the literal ideal sense are supposed to be?

Regardless of his reactionary social views, his class politics remained very much in tune with conservatism. He gave corporations what they wanted. From unlimited free trade in Iraq to score big fat contracts to tax breaks to diminishing regulations.

Why are you not focusing on this? You keep believing the rhetoric of the right wing as if their ideals match their practice in office.

[RedAtheist]

Am I 'socially conservative'?

I have been labled a 'prude' for some of my political ideas. I do not feel comfortable wearing revealing clothes or being around people who wear revealing clothing, but I usually stay quiet about what others are wearing. I hear people complain about how those who wear revealing clothing are 'judged', but I feel that I have received far more judgment for not wearing revealing clothing, which is why I do not like being the 'odd one out' in an environment where everyone is wearing short skirts/shorts.

I feel uncomfortable around people who are drunk and do not attend parties where people plan to get drunk or do drugs. I am a rationalist who believes that it is important to have an accurate understanding of reality and would not engage in behaviours that distort people's perception because I believe they can be dangerous. In my ideal world people would feel no need to get drunk or high, but I think making them illegal will not help to end such behaviours and would do more harm than good.

I occassionally criticise behaviour such as excessive drinking, smoking, unrestrained sex and the viewing of women as objects of sexual pleasure, but have made no suggestion that the state should punish people for such behaviour. Yet I have been accused of being 'anti-freedom'. I also see way too many people (especially on the internet) get called 'losers' and 'whimps' for not engaging in such behaviour. If you call people who do not want to guzzle down alcoholic drinks 'whimps' and people who have not had sex 'losers' how are you being any less judgmental than a conservative?

I think I can still be a socialist, even if I don't think a socialist world should be one of unrestrained hedonism. I want people to be liberated in an intellectual and emotional way. This involves encouraging people to think critically, question authority/ the norm, and think about the big questions (how society should be organised, how do we change the world for the better, etc.) I want a world where people are not condemned for being different, unless they are harming people (does not getting drunk/doing drugs or having some physical flaw harm people? No) I think my view of liberation goes beyond the shallow 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' mentality.

I am also anti-Bolshevik. I do not think 'socialism' should be an excuse for tyranny (banning opposition parties, putting down uprisings, etc.)

[Ismail]

Here's a 1970's tract by a Canadian Maoist group denouncing abortion as a capitalist plot designed to foster the "genocide" of blacks and the exploitation of women by their bosses (while denouncing everyone from the Soviet revisionists to the Papacy): http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/index.htm

As I've noted earlier in this thread, it's basically impossible for a Marxist to be socially conservative, but it isn't hard for Marxists to be wrong on various subjects. That tract is a good example of being wrong while trying to make a Marxist analysis, however shoddy. Pretty much every argument made in it is from an economic angle.

[Franz Fanonipants]

not true. a lot of people in latin america are economically "left wing" but have shitty attitudes about gender etc. same with black people actually. but then again "conservative/liberal" is a fake divide.

since all social issues are ultimately economic issues, basically comrade they aren't economically "left wing" or whatever.

i mean i couldn't go around denouncing homosexuality and not pretend that western religious distaste for homosexuality did not have roots in the need for patriarchal economic formations to perpetuate or w/e.

[NGNM85]

keep up the good work on getting unrestricted comrade

That depends entirely on the powers-that-be. However; like I said, I don’t see how anyone can support a policy when nobody has been able to provide a cogent justification for it.


im sure you will be able to not have the red letter of reactionaryism on you soon as you continue to follow this line of rhetoric and denigrating historical mat'lism.

I wasn’t restricted for being a Reactionary. You (Quite inaccurately, and disingenuously.) accused me of that. You’ve also accused me of being a ‘Liberal’, and, even, a ‘Racist’, apparently unaware, or indifferent to the fact that at least two of these are mutually exclusive. Frankly; I don’t see how I could be expected to take anything you have to say seriously.

I'm not under any obligation to subscribe to Historical Materialism, or Dialectical Materialism. As Lady Catherine recently pointed out, this is not unusual, or unprecedented. I am a fairly 'orthodox' Anarchist, for lack of a better term. (Which just makes my Restriction all the more absurd.)


e: also pls share more of your total milquetoast, republican democracy-loving, capitalism defending political wisdom w/us.

I have no special love for Constitutional Republicanism. I think there are far superior political systems. My ideal would be something closer to Prof. Stephen Shalom's Parpolity model. Although; it is a substantial step up from Feudalism, etc.

I’ve never defended Capitalism.

[NGNM85]

Please tell me you're joking? In this context I meant American Libertarians.

There is a ‘Libertarian Party’, the Ron Paul cult. I’m aware of this group, and the subculture that support it. However; I refuse to surrender the honorable banner of Libertarianism to this marginal cult.


If Chomsky said it, it doesn't make it right. This is something you have consistently failed to understand.

It isn’t right because he said it, no. It’s right because it’s right.


You mean you do not subscribe to the basic fact that you're rarely going to find anyone match up to your ideal notion of a conservative?.

There used to be Conservatives. There still are, I just can’t think of any. Chomsky’s more Conservative (Literally speaking.) than Rick Santorum, who would happily criminalize abortion, and homosexuality. It’s the same as the so-called ‘Libertarians’ Our political discourse is riddled with this kind of nonsense. See ‘Defense Dept.’, etc. I mean; they can call themselves ‘Conservatives’, or ‘Libertarians’, or fucking ‘’Marmots’, that doesn’t make it so.


Conservatives cannot be reactionary?

Not literally.


Republicans tend to be conservative.

Republicans tend to describe themselves as ‘Conservative’, but I’d be hard-pressed to think of one that actually fits the bill.


I think you are basically trying to say that Bush was not a classical liberal which is what conservatives in the literal ideal sense are supposed to be?

That’s pretty close.


Regardless of his reactionary social views, his class politics remained very much in tune with conservatism.

See above.


He gave corporations what they wanted. From unlimited free trade in
Iraq to score big fat contracts to tax breaks to diminishing regulations.

Yes.


Why are you not focusing on this? You keep believing the rhetoric of the right wing as if their ideals match their practice in office.

That isn’t what I doing, that isn’t what Chomsky was doing. His point, which I was echoing, was to highlight the doublespeak that infects our political discourse, to expose the extreme, Reactionary nature of the Bush administration, and the Republican party, and to emphasize the (real) suppressed Libertarian tradition in Western thought. That’s not buying into what the Right is saying, that’s very much the opposite.

Anyhow, to get back to the point… Most of what is characterized as ‘Social conservatism’, isn’t, and is fundamentally antithetical to Leftism. That said, there may be good reason to form temporary alliances with less backward groups against the hard-line extremists.

[ed miliband]

There used to be Conservatives. There still are, I just can’t think of any. Chomsky’s more Conservative (Literally speaking.) than Rick Santorum, who would happily criminalize abortion, and homosexuality. It’s the same as the so-called ‘Libertarians’ Our political discourse is riddled with this kind of nonsense. See ‘Defense Dept.’, etc. I mean; they can call themselves ‘Conservatives’, or ‘Libertarians’, or fucking ‘’Marmots’, that doesn’t make it so.

Republicans tend to describe themselves as ‘Conservative’, but I’d be hard-pressed to think of one that actually fits the bill.


So basically... yr. argument is that anyone who wants to change anything cannot be conservative, but anybody who wants things to stay the same is a conservative. So santorum ain't a conservative because he wants to make abortion illegal... wut? this is the most ridiculous semantic argument i've ever encountered.

[NGNM85]

So basically... yr. argument is that anyone who wants to change anything cannot be conservative, but anybody who wants things to stay the same is a conservative.

Something clearly got lost in translation.


So santorum ain't a conservative because he wants to make abortion illegal... wut? this is the most ridiculous semantic argument i've ever encountered.

Criminalizing abortion, absolutely, is not Conservative, but that's only one of many reasons why Rick Santorum is not Conservative.

[ed miliband]

yea, i'm slightly drunk so maybe i'm just not reading you right... but you're argument makes no sense whatsoever. and i don't think that's because i don't have the intelligence to understand it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You’ve also accused me of being a ‘Liberal’, and, even, a ‘Racist’, apparently unaware, or indifferent to the fact that at least two of these are mutually exclusive.

you know comrade you have a real point there. how could a philosophy born of the need to separate white "citizens" from black human property and the reality and persistance of indians and other indigenous or aboriginal people be racist at all?

you really are making a compelling case comrade. thank you.

e: basically comrade you are a practice in how milquetoast social democracy "anarchism" is not a revolutionary postion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yea, i'm slightly drunk so maybe i'm just not reading you right... but you're argument makes no sense whatsoever. and i don't think that's because i don't have the intelligence to understand it.

not the case comrade. ngnm is real good at shitty us center-right political thought and thats it.

e: he's basically noam chomsky. oh shit ngnm is noam chomsky.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I am also anti-Bolshevik. I do not think 'socialism' should be an excuse for tyranny (banning opposition parties, putting down uprisings, etc.)

this is the best thing i read on revleft today

[NGNM85]

you know comrade you have a real point there. how could a philosophy born of the need to separate white "citizens" from black human property and the reality and persistance of indians and other indigenous or aboriginal people be racist at all?

This just Postmodernist horseshit.

This also doesn’t explain how one can be, simultaneously, a Liberal, and a Reactionary, mainly because that’s logically impossible.


you really are making a compelling case comrade. thank you.


e: basically comrade you are a practice in how milquetoast social democracy "anarchism" is not a revolutionary postion.

Again; there’s a large degree of subjectivity in value judgments. I could tell you what I think you should value, but given the ideological gulf between us, it’s virtually certain that there will never be a consensus on this.

There’s no reason for quotation marks. See; Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Murray Bookchin, or Chomsky. I’m right in line with the mainstream of Anarchist thought, although, not because I have any desire to be, it’s just more compelling than anything else.

I don’t describe myself as a revolutionary. I describe myself as an Anarchist, or a Libertarian Socialist. I don’t object to the label, but, rather, the crude and unsophisticated interpretation that people usually espouse, the kind that you espouse. Tactics are determined by circumstances. Sometimes violence is necessary, and justified. I just don’t think violence is the only solution, for every situation.

[hatzel]

ITT: words no longer have any meaning whatsoever...that's exactly what's happening...all just little word-games and no substance...

[Franz Fanonipants]

This just Postmodernist horseshit.

This also doesn’t explain how one can be, simultaneously, a Liberal, and a Reactionary, mainly because that’s logically impossible.

it might have been logically impossible if you lived in like just a few months of 1790 or some shit.

but i hate to break it to you comrade, better people and historians than you have tied the development of liberalism to the historical realities of imperialism and the creation of an internal proletariat.

read a book dummy.

[Rafiq]

He says that to draw attention to the fact that the coalition of groups and individuals who gather under the banner of ‘conservatism’, as a rule, are actually Radical.

You don't even know what it means to be a Radical. Radical derives from the French word Radica which means Root. Radicals are those who attack problems by their root. These are things Conservatives do not do.

A conservative is one who wishes to conserve the already existing state of things. Chomsky calls himself a conservative because he wants to conserve elements of Bourgeois dominance, like their fucking shit morals, their Liberty, all of their horse shit.

NGNM85 you;re the most pathetic Liberal I've ever came across. You literally wipe chomsky's ass.


Reactionary Statists,for the most part.

"statists"? :laugh:

Reactionary Statism, equals being Radical now? Give me a fucking break.


George Bush, for example, isn’t any kind of conservative, certainly not a compassionate one.

Sure, maybe if you have your head up your ass and oppose scientific understandings, in favor of your bullshit mumbo jumbo liberal bourgeois rationalism-idealism.

Seriously you're pathetic. I can't believe idiots like you exist.


That’s just true.

Of course it is, because Noam Fucking Chomsky said so.

Listen, NGNMotherucker85, I'm inclined as to what your understanding of conservatism is. Please enlighten us as to why you don't think George Bush is a conservative, or why the republican party is not. Let's hear it. Because I know exactly what you're going to say, however I can't reply to something you haven't said yet, so I'm asking you to just say it already so I can.

I'll tell you why Chomsky sais he's a conservative, he does it for the same reason the SWP denounced Communism.

The proletariat suffered a horrible defeat 1980's-1990's. At this point a lot of people thought class struggle was extinct. With this defeat, came the defeat of Chomsky's radical politics.

Chomsky now tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois class, calling himself things like a "Libertarian"(which is inappropriate and misleading for an American) or a "Conservative", or saying this like "Adam smith was an anti-capitalist".

He is a loser in the literal sense. He cannot argue with the Bourgeois academics, so instead he adopts their beliefs and puts his own Utopian Socialist spin on them.

Chomsky is weak hearted. He tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois classes in order to stay relevant (he gave up on the radical left, believing them to be extinct, due to his idealist ways).

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he became Radical once more on his deathbed. Why? Because things are turning around now, a new Radical Left is going to emerge, and Chomsky is going to support them. Typical opportunist scum.

A true communist stays loyal to the Red Star even during the times in which class struggle seems extinct.

Fascism is not as bad as Liberalism, for us now. At least Fascists openly tell us they are for bourgeois rule, for genocide and pillaging. The Liberalist scum do all of this with faux symbolic representations of the material conditions that they feed to the masses, Illusions which require the conditions of healthy capitalism. Our Job as communists is not to put our own spin on these illusions, but to destroy them completely. If this is something you cannot handle, stop pretending to represent the interests of the proletariat, as your'e just being a mere fucking embarrassment, like your master Chomsky.

[NGNM85]

You don't even know what it means to be a Radical.

Yes, I do.


Radical derives from the French word Radica which means Root.

Yes, I know.


Radicals are those who attack problems by their root. These are things Conservatives do not do.

Conservatives, by nature, typically, do not call for immediate, fundamental, systemic change. That is correct.


A conservative is one who wishes to conserve the already existing state of things.

In brief.


Chomsky calls himself a conservative because he wants to conserve elements of Bourgeois dominance, like their fucking shit morals, their Liberty, all of their horse shit.

Rhetoric aside, that’s largely untrue. Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist, an Anarchist, specifically, who advocates public ownership of the means of production, as well as dismantling the Nation-State and replacing it with some kind of Anarchosyndicalist Federation. I think I speak for all Anarchists, and sane people, when I say freedom is not horseshit. This garbage about ‘bourgeois morals’ is also nonsense.


NGNM85 you;re the most pathetic Liberal I've ever came across.

If you read the canon, you’ll see I’m an entirely consistent Anarchist.


You literally wipe chomsky's ass.

‘Literally’? Give me a break.


"statists"?

It’s a word. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.


Reactionary Statism, equals being Radical now? Give me a fucking break.

They are radically Right-wing. I meant it more in the sense of being ‘extreme’, but, while typically, historically used to connote specifically far-Left ideation, there is plenty of precedence for applying it to the far Right.



Sure, maybe if you have your head up your ass and oppose scientific understandings, in favor of your bullshit mumbo jumbo liberal bourgeois rationalism-idealism.

No, your ideology is not a science, not literally, anyhow.


Seriously you're pathetic. I can't believe idiots like you exist.

To my credit, if nothing else, I have refrained from sinking to this level.


Of course it is, because Noam Fucking Chomsky said so.

No, it’s true because it’s true. That’s a paraphrase of Trotsky, incidentally.


Listen, NGNMotherucker85,

Don’t do that.


I'm inclined as to what your understanding of conservatism is. Please enlighten us as to why you don't think George Bush is a conservative, or why the republican party is not. Let's hear it. Because I know exactly what you're going to say, however I can't reply to something you haven't said yet, so I'm asking you to just say it already so I can.

There simply any way, literally speaking, to characterize the Bush administration as ‘conservative’, especially not compassionate ones. There’s no other way to see it.


I'll tell you why Chomsky sais he's a conservative, he does it for the same reason the SWP denounced Communism.

The proletariat suffered a horrible defeat 1980's-1990's. At this point a lot of people thought class struggle was extinct. With this defeat, came the defeat of Chomsky's radical politics.

Chomsky now tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois class, calling himself things like a "Libertarian"(which is inappropriate and misleading for an American) or a "Conservative", or saying this like "Adam smith was an anti-capitalist".

That isn’t trying to find common ground with the elites. That’s exposing and reclaiming the suppressed Libertarian thread in Western thought.


He is a loser in the literal sense. He cannot argue with the Bourgeois academics, so instead he adopts their beliefs and puts his own Utopian Socialist spin on them.

Chomsky is weak hearted. He tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois classes in order to stay relevant (he gave up on the radical left, believing them to be extinct, due to his idealist ways).

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he became Radical once more on his deathbed. Why? Because things are turning around now, a new Radical Left is going to emerge, and Chomsky is going to support them. Typical opportunist scum.

A true communist stays loyal to the Red Star even during the times in which class struggle seems extinct.

‘Loyal to the Red Star’???

Nevertheless, your thesis is incorrect. Chomsky’s position has never changed.


Fascism is not as bad as Liberalism, for us now. At least Fascists openly tell us they are for bourgeois rule, for genocide and pillaging. The Liberalist scum do all of this with faux symbolic representations of the material conditions that they feed to the masses, Illusions which require the conditions of healthy capitalism. Our Job as communists is not to put our own spin on these illusions, but to destroy them completely. If this is something you cannot handle, stop pretending to represent the interests of the proletariat, as your'e just being a mere fucking embarrassment, like your master Chomsky.

I’ll agree that the few, small, openly Fascist, or Neo-Nazi political organizations, in the United States, don’t really represent any kind of serious threat, at present. However; the Reactionary Republican party carries substantially more weight and influence.

Chomsky has been one of the loudest voices exposing the lies and distortions foisted on the public, for decades.

No, no, no, no. Don’t dare accuse me of not caring about the working class. You’re the one who thinks their suffering is only valuable to the extent it’s politically useful. You’re the one that would subject them to incomprehensible suffering to impose your political objectives. That isn’t what it means to care about someone.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, no, no, no. Don’t dare accuse me of not caring about the working class. You’re the one who thinks their suffering is only valuable to the extent it’s politically useful. You’re the one that would subject them to incomprehensible suffering to impose your political objectives. That isn’t what it means to care about someone.

good lord, NGN you are unbelievable.

you are by far the most ridiculous poster in the history of revleft.

Chomsky's use of the word conservative is incredibly weak. He means it in the classical liberal sense; small government, civil liberties, etc. To even consider that remotely comparable to anarchism is absurd.

There are presumed ideals behind classical liberalism that are not at all comparable to anarchism or libertarianism (in the real sense).

Chomsky is clearly using to word to break political lexicon in the US and win ground with the bourgoise.

[ed miliband]

NGNM85 - you may very well care about the working class, but so what? I'm sure there are many capitalists who very honestly "care about the working class" (what use are they diseased and uneducated?), doesn't change the social relationship.

[RGacky3]

You don't even know what it means to be a Radical. Radical derives from the French word Radica which means Root. Radicals are those who attack problems by their root. These are things Conservatives do not do.


Who gives a shit, no one defines words by their root, they define them by the idea they are trying to convay.


Sure, maybe if you have your head up your ass and oppose scientific understandings, in favor of your bullshit mumbo jumbo liberal bourgeois rationalism-idealism.

NO ONE HERE is a political idealist, EVERYONE places material conditions way above personal principles.

btw, Marxism is full of rationalism, hell thats what mathematical models are. rational predicitons that can be proven empricially later.


sais he's a conservative, he does it for the same reason the SWP denounced Communism.

The proletariat suffered a horrible defeat 1980's-1990's. At this point a lot of people thought class struggle was extinct. With this defeat, came the defeat of Chomsky's radical politics.

Chomsky now tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois class, calling himself things like a "Libertarian"(which is inappropriate and misleading for an American) or a "Conservative", or saying this like "Adam smith was an anti-capitalist".

He calls himself a Libertarian to basically shit on so-called American libertarians, and use it to show the bastardidation of leftist terms by the right wing.

He did'nt say Adam smith was an anti-capitalist, he said that free-marketeers don't understand Adam Smith.

You obviously don't have the mental capacity to understand chomsky, which explains your naive understanding of everything else.


Chomsky is weak hearted. He tries to find common ground with the Bourgeois classes in order to stay relevant (he gave up on the radical left, believing them to be extinct, due to his idealist ways).

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if he became Radical once more on his deathbed. Why? Because things are turning around now, a new Radical Left is going to emerge, and Chomsky is going to support them. Typical opportunist scum.

A true communist stays loyal to the Red Star even during the times in which class struggle seems extinct.

Listen to that Moralist bullshit.

Chomsky was radical the whole time, Chomskies way of thinking is growing, what he's ALWAYS been for since the 1960s. Heres what is not turning around, the dying of Marxism-Leninism.


NGNM85 - you may very well care about the working class, but so what? I'm sure there are many capitalists who very honestly "care about the working class" (what use are they diseased and uneducated?), doesn't change the social relationship.

But that does'nt apply to angry teenage upper middle-class Marxism-Leninists that jack off to Red Alert?

[RadioRaheem84]

He calls himself a Libertarian to basically shit on so-called American libertarians, and use it to show the bastardidation of leftist terms by the right wing.


He did'nt say Adam smith was an anti-capitalist; he said that free-marketeers don't understand Adam Smith.

You obviously don't have the mental capacity to understand Chomsky, which explains your naive understanding of everything else.

Oh come off of it RGacky. Chomsky is not god and you and NGN treat him as if his shit is gospel.

No one needs a PhD from MIT to understand what Chomsky is doing, which is trying to mind fuck the rest of the public that questions our social order with irrelevant BS.

I love Chomsky but when he goes into drivel like some of the classical liberal thinkers were anti-capitalist or that what we have isn't remotely capitalist, but corporate mercantilism, I think this guy is an absolute idealist and his claims to anarchism are weak.



Who gives a shit, no one defines words by their root, they define them by the idea they are trying to convay.


Well why the hell would a conservative be in any which way a "radical"? That was Rafiq's point. That not even in the literal sense can right wing conservatives be radical or anything else but reactionary.



Chomsky was radical the whole time, Chomskies way of thinking is growing, what he's ALWAYS been for since the 1960s. Heres what is not turning around, the dying of Marxism-Leninism.


Chomsky was better in the 60s until the 80s when he wasn't trying to win some broad base appeal by literally playing a useless semantics game.

By real stretch of the word, liberals in the US aren't liberal per se. I mean do you see how useless that is? Communism has come to literally mean State control of production, as if the Postal Service is a "socialist" enterprise.

When Chomsky says that he is a real conservative, he is conflating the classical liberal definition of small government, civil liberties, etc. with anarchism and it’s rejection of the state.

So all in all he is a:

Libertarian
Libertarian Socialist
Conservative
Classical Liberal
Socialist
Anarchist


I mean how ridiculous is this? There are so many presumed ideas that separate much of those positions.

[RGacky3]

Oh come off of it RGacky. Chomsky is not god and you and NGN treat him as if his shit is gospel.


Do we? When was the last time we quoted him? Do we call ourselves Chomskyists? (like Leninists, or Maosits and so on), do we define our ideology or our world view based on his writings?


No one needs a PhD from MIT to understand what Chomsky is doing, which is trying to mind fuck the rest of the public that questions our social order with irrelevant BS.


Considering he's the most respected intellectual today and the most quoted after Jesus I would'nt say he's irrelevant.

Trying to mind fuck the rest of the public that questions our social order? Really??? I don't even know what that means?


I love Chomsky but when he goes into drivel like some of the classical liberal thinkers were anti-capitalist or that what we have isn't remotely capitalist, but corporate mercantilism, I think this guy is an absolute idealist and his claims to anarchism are weak.


Your missing the point, he's defining capitalism by the pro-capitalist terms and showing them to be wrong on their own terms, and some of the liberal thinkers WERE anti-capitalist based on what capitalism actually is today.

Thats what Marx did, he took classical economics and studied capitalism on THEIR terms, and proved their conclusions wrong.

Your totally missing the point of what Chomsky does.


Well why the hell would a conservative be in any which way a "radical"? That was Rafiq's point. That not even in the literal sense can right wing conservatives be radical or anything else but reactionary.


Because the origional conservative ideology that Chomsky is refering too would be considered radical by todays standards.

You MLs have such a small frame of thinking, you gotta sometimes think in context.


Chomsky was better in the 60s until the 80s when he wasn't trying to win some broad base appeal by literally playing a useless semantics game.


A: Your taking small slithers of what he says and discounting it.
B: YOur totally missing the point in what he's doing when he's using these terms.


By real stretch of the word, liberals in the US aren't liberal per se. I mean do you see how useless that is? Communism has come to literally mean State control of production, as if the Postal Service is a "socialist" enterprise.


And what? thats the point ...


Libertarian
Libertarian Socialist
Conservative
Classical Liberal
Socialist
Anarchist


I mean how ridiculous is this? There are so many presumed ideas that separate much of those positions.

Your taking all of these things out of context, and totally missing the point of what he's doing, he's point out hypocricy and flipping notions on their head.

Like when a libertarian says he wants more freedom which means giving corporations more power, one could say "thats not libertarian at all, because in the end you are restricting people and leading to corporate totalitarianism," i.e. taking THEIR presumtions and THEIR line of thinking and showing them wrong with their own logic.

It is'nt that hard.

[NGNM85]

NGNM85 - you may very well care about the working class, but so what? I'm sure there are many capitalists who very honestly "care about the working class" (what use are they diseased and uneducated?), doesn't change the social relationship.

Of course it doesn't, not by itself. Only our actions are going to change society. (Which, of course, are based on our beliefs, and personal motivations.) The problem, here, is inconsistency. Like I said; if someone values the suffering of the working class only to the extent that it is politically useful; they don't care about the working class, they probably hate the working class. If you care about someone, first; you don't intentionally harm them, second; you do everything you can to protect them from harm. That's the only consistent approach.

[NGNM85]

good lord, NGN you are unbelievable.

you are by far the most ridiculous poster in the history of revleft.

Chomsky's use of the word conservative is incredibly weak. He means it in the classical liberal sense; small government, civil liberties, etc. To even consider that remotely comparable to anarchism is absurd.

There are presumed ideals behind classical liberalism that are not at all comparable to anarchism or libertarianism (in the real sense).

Chomsky is clearly using to word to break political lexicon in the US and win ground with the bourgoise.

Nonsense. Again; he's doing it to highlight the suppressed Libertarian thread in Western thought, and to expose the extreme Reactionary elements in our political culture.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nonsense. Again; he's doing it to highlight the suppressed Libertarian thread in Western thought, and to expose the extreme Reactionary elements in our political culture.

bro basically you are playing dnd irl

[Franz Fanonipants]

Of course it doesn't, not by itself. Only our actions are going to change society. (Which, of course, are based on our beliefs, and personal motivations.) The problem, here, is inconsistency. Like I said; if someone values the suffering of the working class only to the extent that it is politically useful; they don't care about the working class, they probably hate the working class. If you care about someone, first; you don't intentionally harm them, second; you do everything you can to protect them from harm. That's the only consistent approach.

haha what how is saying "holy shit the working class is fucked under the democrats OR republicans fuck voting for either as long as capitalism persists" causing harm

fucking capitalism's continued persistance should be your only concern, ameliorating it or not is not the point.

e: insert the state where capitalism is for your ridiculous b.s. dnd ideology

[ed miliband]

Of course it doesn't, not by itself. Only our actions are going to change society. (Which, of course, are based on our beliefs, and personal motivations.) The problem, here, is inconsistency. Like I said; if someone values the suffering of the working class only to the extent that it is politically useful; they don't care about the working class, they probably hate the working class. If you care about someone, first; you don't intentionally harm them, second; you do everything you can to protect them from harm. That's the only consistent approach.

You're the one talking about the working class as if it's a mass that you are apart from.


And maybe you are...

[Ismail]

I don't get what's going on in this thread. It's basically gone from "is it possible to be a homophobe/sexist/racist yet still be a communist" (answer is basically no) to "NOAM CHOMSKY IS A CONSERVATIVE RADICAL" somehow.

[RadioRaheem84]

RGacky, I was attacking one of Chomsky's points which I vehemently disagree with not with everything Chomsky says or the man himself, which you oh so had to point to out is bigger than Jesus, forgive me.

His rhetoric about conservatives not being true conservatives because of the original definition is spurious. Trying to break the political lexicon by showing that cons aren't living up to the ideal is such a side show that it does nothing to make a case for anarchism.



Like when a libertarian says he wants more freedom which means giving corporations more power, one could say "thats not libertarian at all, because in the end you are restricting people and leading to corporate totalitarianism," i.e. taking THEIR presumtions and THEIR line of thinking and showing them wrong with their own logic.




OK, so exposing their rhetoric vs. their practice is somehow supposed to send a message to people?

It was easy to figure out the ideal/rhetoric vs. the practice of the fascists. That still does nothing to really tackle the fundamental question of capitalism.

Their presumptions are based on an entire philosophy, ideaology that is world's apart from yours or mine. It would take more than showing them how their line of thinking doesn't match up to your train of logic.

For instance, you think that telling them that they're for "corporate totalitarianism" (such an idiotic buzzword) not liberty is going to break their reasoning? You would have to go into why corporations are "totalitarian". You would end up just telling them about the contradictions of capitalism and such and getting into a theoretical/philosophical debate.

You're just taking Chomsky's rhetoric at face value.

[Klaatu]

I think many people that are labeled "conservative" are actually radical, (even fascist) because a true "conservative" dislikes social change. These people are actively trying to remove civil rights (the right to plan one's family, the right to love which ever sex you want to, the right to assemble into labor unions, etc)

Since they are trying to remove rights, they are not socially conservative. They want change.

That being said, I think there is a profound difference between conservative and radical right. Most Republicans running for president now are not conservative... they are radical fascists. They are against freedom, despite their endless rhetoric promoting it.

[Ismail]

I think many people that are labeled "conservative" are actually radical, (even fascist) because a true "conservative" dislikes social change. These people are actively trying to remove civil rights (the right to plan one's family, the right to love which ever sex you want to, the right to assemble into labor unions, etc)

Since they are trying to remove rights, they are not socially conservative. They want change.

That being said, I think there is a profound difference between conservative and radical right. Most Republicans running for president now are not conservative... they are radical fascists. They are against freedom, despite their endless rhetoric promoting it.
That's actually a dumber analysis than "Chomsky is a conservative."

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage or keeping abortion legalized are "conservative" positions considering that, well, gay marriage isn't legal everywhere (and only within the past few years has been legalized in certain states) and abortion is an issue which still sees various efforts each year to restrict it in various states. They aren't trying to remove rights since most states don't even recognize gay rights while others have active and strong movements to undermine abortion rights.

Not to mention that prohibiting abortion and gay marriage doesn't make you a fascist anyway. Engels talked about being lucky that he and Marx wouldn't live long enough to be "forced" to pay "physical tribute (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm)" to gay people while the early Soviet state saw abortion as an "evil" that would go away on its own under socialism, and its actual restriction in the 30's was based more on economic than moral reasons. Neither are fascist yet Engels' comments in particular are clearly quite homophobic and the restriction of abortion clearly had some negative results quite similar to those caused by the restriction of abortion under capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

How do the Chomskyites not understand that libertarians are "small government" and about "civil liberties" for entirely different reasons than a libertarian socialist would be?

Their support for corporations is also bound in that philosophy. If you're trying to prove that their practice and rhetoric doesn't match the ideal, then you're going to have a tough time convincing them because they've surely adapted their ideals to fit the reality. They consider corporations as insitutions revolving around limitless nature of liberty; free enterprise and what not.

Some are aren't even supportive of corporations like the anti-corporate libertarian loons.

For Chomsky to even conflate the two (anarchists and American libertarian "ideal") is ridiculous and a desperate attempt to win over a broad base.

[KR]

How do the Chomskyites not understand that libertarians are "small government" and about "civil liberties" for entirely different reasons than a libertarian socialist would be?

Their support for corporations is also bound in that philosophy. If you're trying to prove that their practice and rhetoric doesn't match the ideal, then you're going to have a tough time convincing them because they've surely adapted their ideals to fit the reality. They consider corporations as insitutions revolving around limitless nature of liberty; free enterprise and what not.

Some are aren't even supportive of corporations like the anti-corporate libertarian loons.

For Chomsky to even conflate the two (anarchists and American libertarian "ideal") is ridiculous and a desperate attempt to win over a broad base.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about genuine american individualist anarchism, which is socialistic, not Anarcho-capitalism.

[Klaatu]

That's actually a dumber analysis than "Chomsky is a conservative."

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage or keeping abortion legalized are "conservative" positions considering that, well, gay marriage isn't legal everywhere (and only within the past few years has been legalized in certain states) and abortion is an issue which still sees various efforts each year to restrict it in various states. They aren't trying to remove rights since most states don't even recognize gay rights while others have active and strong movements to undermine abortion rights.

Not to mention that prohibiting abortion and gay marriage doesn't make you a fascist anyway. Engels talked about being lucky that he and Marx wouldn't live long enough to be "forced" to pay "physical tribute (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm)" to gay people while the early Soviet state saw abortion as an "evil" that would go away on its own under socialism, and its actual restriction in the 30's was based more on economic than moral reasons. Neither are fascist yet Engels' comments in particular are clearly quite homophobic and the restriction of abortion clearly had some negative results quite similar to those caused by the restriction of abortion under capitalism.

You are speaking of individuals' opinions.

Under The Equal Protection Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) everyone has similar rights, in principle.

For example, if heterosexuals can marry, then so can homosexuals marry.

It boils down to this: either you believe in equal rights or you do not believe in equal rights.

I don't know whether equal rights is a conservative principle, a liberal principle, or what... but I do know that it is a fair and righteous principle.

[Ismail]

Except opposition to marriage rights (or equal rights for women, minority groups, homosexuals, etc. in general) has nothing in particular to do with fascism. Reactionary social policies come with fascism, but they aren't at all sufficient to make a movement or individual fascist.

Furthermore,

I don't know whether equal rights is a conservative principle, a liberal principle, or what... but I do know that it is a fair and righteous principle.Equal rights is a communist principle, because only socialism and communism can ensure true equality between humans.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about genuine american individualist anarchism, which is socialistic, not Anarcho-capitalism.


Never heard of genuine american anarchism. Do you mean rugged American individualism?

Chomsky though was trying to connect anarchism as being in the same tradition of classical liberalism. So in sense, Chomsky considers himself more of a "conservative" than the right wing GOP in the literal traditional sense.

I was trying to point out that the presumptions behind classical liberalism or American Libertarianism are different from anarchism, which I also do not believe that it comes from the classical liberal tradition.

[Klaatu]

Equal rights is a communist principle, because only socialism and communism can ensure true equality between humans.

BINGO.

We will write that into the New Constitution (it will be in the new "first amendment")

[Rafiq]

Furthermore,
Equal rights is a communist principle, because only socialism and communism can ensure true equality between humans.

Well.

Liberalism, as Marx pointed out, included equal rights as an improtant principle. He pointed out how under the Bourgeois Rule, all are equal before the law (or so they say) but the economic explosions create the real, actual existing inequality, which influences laws.

Now, Equal rights perhaps is a principle of the communist movement, but equal righst between who? Between races, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But not with the enemy class.

[RGacky3]

OK, so exposing their rhetoric vs. their practice is somehow supposed to send a message to people?


Well .... It obviously does.


For instance, you think that telling them that they're for "corporate totalitarianism" (such an idiotic buzzword) not liberty is going to break their reasoning? You would have to go into why corporations are "totalitarian". You would end up just telling them about the contradictions of capitalism and such and getting into a theoretical/philosophical debate.


Thats exactly what he does, (explain why corporations ARE totalitarian), and its not that hard to do.


His rhetoric about conservatives not being true conservatives because of the original definition is spurious. Trying to break the political lexicon by showing that cons aren't living up to the ideal is such a side show that it does nothing to make a case for anarchism.


Not when critiquing poeple that claim to be for the "good old days" and/or paleo-conservatism, the origional values and so on.

[Ismail]

Well.

Liberalism, as Marx pointed out, included equal rights as an improtant principle. He pointed out how under the Bourgeois Rule, all are equal before the law (or so they say) but the economic explosions create the real, actual existing inequality, which influences laws.

Now, Equal rights perhaps is a principle of the communist movement, but equal righst between who? Between races, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But not with the enemy class.That's correct. Lenin notably made this point in an article titled "A Liberal Professor on Equality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm)."

[RGacky3]

I was trying to point out that the presumptions behind classical liberalism or American Libertarianism are different from anarchism, which I also do not believe that it comes from the classical liberal tradition.

Classical liberalism and American libertarianism are not related at all. Marxism came from the classical liberal tradition, as did anarchism, they took the liberal tradition, radicalized it and brought it over to economics

[Ismail]

Classical liberalism and American libertarianism are not related at all. Marxism came from the classical liberal tradition, as did anarchism, they took the liberal tradition, radicalized it and brought it over to economicsThis is also correct.

Here's a good read that contains words on the divide between the traditions of Adam Smith (and various other early bourgeois writers) and Marx on one side, and neo-"liberal" and Austrian economics on the other: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/biology_economics.htm

[Rafiq]

Good link, Ismail. It's innacurate in some places but still a very good read

[Ocean Seal]

This is also correct.

Here's a good read that contains words on the divide between the traditions of Adam Smith (and various other early bourgeois writers) and Marx on one side, and neo-"liberal" and Austrian economics on the other: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/biology_economics.htm
The link is very good, but I think that it might be too forgiving to Adam Smith.

For example, it says that he had a disdain for the rich. And then references this quote.

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

This isn't really speaking on behalf of the poor, but it is rather an appeal for a governing body such that the poor don't rise up against the rich.

But yes the tradition of Mises is a horrible revision of Smith the equivalent of Eurocommunism.

[Ismail]

Good link, Ismail. It's innacurate in some places but still a very good readThe author is a "progressive" Democrat, albeit better read and much more sympathetic to Marxism than your usual "progressive" Democrat. He's still done things like back the imperialist war in Libya though.

His two-part article on fascism is also rather good (and displays a greater grasp on what fascism is than many RevLefters) although his non-Marxism shows through to a greater extent than the prior article:
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

[NGNM85]

You're the one talking about the working class as if it's a mass that you are apart from.


And maybe you are...

It didn't even occur to me that someone would interpret it as such. Incidentally; I'm a blue-collar Wage-Slave. I don't even have a place to live right now. However; my, or anyone else's, personal economic status is simply irrelevent Is is entirely possible to be poor, wealthy, or middle class, and still be an entirely consistent Socialist. It's just irrelevent. However; by definition, to be a consistent Socialist, among other things, one must be particularly concerned with the struggles of the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

Classical liberalism and American libertarianism are not related at all. Marxism came from the classical liberal tradition, as did anarchism, they took the liberal tradition, radicalized it and brought it over to economics

I wasn't saying they were related but that both have underlying presumptions that would be hard to even remotely associate with each other.

When Chomsky says he's more of a conservative than the more Austrian-aligned libertarians or reactionary Republicans, it takes the cake.

What does it matter that anarchism or marxism came out of a traditional classical liberal theory, I prefer to say that they were products of the enlightenment which produced two strains of thought; socialism and liberalism.

[RGacky3]

I wasn't saying they were related but that both have underlying presumptions that would be hard to even remotely associate with each other.


Marxism uses the same presumotions as the liberal economists, thats what is so great about his analysis. What is different I'd say is the process and outcomes, seeing as the liberal tradition was careful not to threaten the growing capitalist class and to defend it.


When Chomsky says he's more of a conservative than the more Austrian-aligned libertarians or reactionary Republicans, it takes the cake.


Based on their own definition of conservatism, i.e. the principles they claim to uphold, its showing their hypocracy.


What does it matter that anarchism or marxism came out of a traditional classical liberal theory, I prefer to say that they were products of the enlightenment which produced two strains of thought; socialism and liberalism.

Although liberalism came first, and socialism out of that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Marxism uses the same presumotions as the liberal economists,


He just happens to dismantle most of them if not all in his texts?



Based on their own definition of conservatism, i.e. the principles they claim to uphold, its showing their hypocracy.




To me that is like saying Buddha is more Christian than say Billy Graham because he practices the Golden Rule better. I just think that the Golden Rule means something completely different to Jesus than Buddha when you examine the presuppositions.

Just because Chomsky believes in small government, I don't think it's the same "small government" as conservatives believe.



Although liberalism came first, and socialism out of that.


I was under the impression that they emerged at the same time and ran parralell to each other. There were ideas shared but vastly different conclusions.

[RGacky3]

He just happens to dismantle most of them if not all in his texts?


No no no, he leaves the premises in, he just dimsantles what they claim follows.


To me that is like saying Buddha is more Christian than say Billy Graham because he practices the Golden Rule better. I just think that the Golden Rule means something completely different to Jesus than Buddha when you examine the presuppositions.

Just because Chomsky believes in small government, I don't think it's the same "small government" as conservatives believe.


No shit, thats what he's pointing out.


I was under the impression that they emerged at the same time and ran parralell to each other. There were ideas shared but vastly different conclusions.

Liberalism grew in the early 1700s, socialism, came later, in the early 1800s.

(obviously the principles of both socialism and liberalism have been around forever, but I'm talking about in their modern forms.)

[RadioRaheem84]

No no no, he leaves the premises in, he just dimsantles what they claim follows.


I don't belive that is right. if he dismantles what they claim follows then he is obviously coming from another direction entirely.



No shit, thats what he's pointing out.


But chomsky is saying cons do not believe in the small government of the conservative ideal. he many calling them hypocrites but chomsky is being intellectually dishonest by conflating his supposed anarchist beliefs with true conservative ideals.

i think that the two have vastly different presumptions. as my buddha/christ example explains, they both may say similar things but for totally different reasons.




Liberalism grew in the early 1700s, socialism, came later, in the early 1800s.

(obviously the principles of both socialism and liberalism have been around forever, but I'm talking about in their modern forms.)


I am willing to concede that they share a history and root origin in the enlightenment but as far being ideaological kin, i beg to differ.

again i see them as having differing outlooks to render them distinguishable and competing forces.

[RGacky3]

I don't belive that is right. if he dismantles what they claim follows then he is obviously coming from another direction entirely.


Have you read Kapital???

Are you just disagreeing just to dissagree?

Marx started out using the same assumptions, models and premises as the liberal economists (i.e. perfect competition, universality of commodity and so on), and showed their analysis to be flawed. What is obvious is that you hav'nt studied Marxist economics.


But chomsky is saying cons do not believe in the small government of the conservative ideal. he many calling them hypocrites but chomsky is being intellectually dishonest by conflating his supposed anarchist beliefs with true conservative ideals.


Your playing semantics games here, and again, totally missing the point, the fact is he IS more conservative than the conservatives (according to conservatives proported principles) dispite not holding a conservative ideology, what part of that is hard to get?


i think that the two have vastly different presumptions. as my buddha/christ example explains, they both may say similar things but for totally different reasons.


Of coarse ...


I am willing to concede that they share a history and root origin in the enlightenment but as far being ideaological kin, i beg to differ.

again i see them as having differing outlooks to render them distinguishable and competing forces.

Right now your just arguing for arguments sake.

Liberalism PRECEDES socialism, socialism has its roots in liberal ideology (considering the movements and writings its clear).

liberalism AS IS competes with socialism, in the same way social-democracy competes with revolutionary socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is obvious is that you hav'nt studied Marxist economics.



I am talking about what Marx believes not what he is critiquing.



Your playing semantics games here, and again, totally missing the point, the fact is he IS more conservative than the conservatives (according to conservatives proported principles) dispite not holding a conservative ideology, what part of that is hard to get?



OK, so it's like saying that a buddhist is more Christian according to Christians proported principles? Even though the buddhist holds an entirely different philosophy of life.

Again, Chomsky is just trying to find some common ground.



Liberalism PRECEDES socialism, socialism has its roots in liberal ideology (considering the movements and writings its clear).



Yes, I know liberalism came first, but I just do not see the connection quite like you do. I am saying that both had their origin in the Enlightenment. They grew out of the historical development of the time. I would never conflate the two though.

[RGacky3]

I am talking about what Marx believes not what he is critiquing.


Kapital was analysis of capitalism, and that analysis involved the same presumtions that liberal economists had, and the same overall models. I have no idea what Marx believed, but I'm willing to presume he believes what he wrote in Kapital.

Also I have no idea if the liberal economists believed their models were representative in the real world, i.e. I doubt any of them believed in perfectly competative markets.


OK, so it's like saying that a buddhist is more Christian according to Christians proported principles? Even though the buddhist holds an entirely different philosophy of life.

Meaning the Christian is a hypocrite.


Again, Chomsky is just trying to find some common ground.


Its obviously not working since the ruling class hates him so much ...


Yes, I know liberalism came first, but I just do not see the connection quite like you do. I am saying that both had their origin in the Enlightenment. They grew out of the historical development of the time. I would never conflate the two though.

The connection is clear, Karl Marx talked all the time about the dreams of the french revolution, and why he thinks they failed, Anarchists draw on the same concepts that the liberal thinkers drew on. Your position is simply historically innaccurate.

[RadioRaheem84]

i dont understand how early socialists talking about liberalism makes socialism and liberalism ideological kin? What I gathered from Engels when he wrote about the French Revolution is that it was flawed because the entire premise behind the movement was flawed to begin with, that it was clouded in bourgoise thought.

I don't understand how analyzing capitalism made Marx have to believe liberalism.

Marx took their presumptions and turned them on it's head. It doesn't mean he was adopting liberal presumptions for his own beliefs though. In fact why adopt them when he proved them to be flawed?

I was under the impression that he presumed liberalism only as a way to critique capitalism not as a way to formulate his own political/economic beliefs. Of course when you critique something you have to presume their general ideas, that doesn't mean that those presumptions form the basis of your own political philosophy.



Meaning the Christian is a hypocrite.

but the christian has his own reasons for doing what he or she is doing because they presume certain things about their own religion. Like I said before, both religions may hold a general golden rule but both go about it in entirely different ways because both hold totally polar presuppositions when it comes to that. So while the buddhist may smugly say he is more christian than christians, that is only because of a shallow view of some general concepts behind the christian religion.

I was never under the impression that the conservatives were hypocrites because they deviated from the ideal, but that they were adapting their ideology to fit the times. If I were an anarchist and looked at Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, I wouldn't call either a hypocrite just because they're notCliving up to ideal, and consider myself more conservative than them because anarchism believes in "small government".

I just do not get why Chomsky resorts to that. That is a childish liberal ploy. Liberals on talk radio in the States use those types of jabs. "Oh, these cons think they're so conservative but they're big government corporate welfare lovers, I'm more conservative than them because I would reduce government by gutting the military and corporate welfare".






Its obviously not working since the ruling class hates him so much ...

I wasn't implying that he was trying to win over ruling class elements but trying to find common ground with people new to politics. Trying to break down the political lexicon to people in order to show them that it's meaningless and win over some conservative leaning people.

[RGacky3]

i dont understand how early socialists talking about liberalism makes socialism and liberalism ideological kin? What I gathered from Engels when he wrote about the French Revolution is that it was flawed because the entire premise behind the movement was flawed to begin with, that it was clouded in bourgoise thought.

I don't understand how analyzing capitalism made Marx have to believe liberalism.


He thought it was falwed because it did not address the capitalist social relation.

Analyzing capitalism did'nt make Marx have to believe liberalism, but his economic analysis used the liberal capitalist premis, I don't give a shit what he believed or not.

i.e. his analysis eas essencially an extension of liberal economics but brining it to a different conclusion.


I just do not get why Chomsky resorts to that. That is a childish liberal ploy. Liberals on talk radio in the States use those types of jabs. "Oh, these cons think they're so conservative but they're big government corporate welfare lovers, I'm more conservative than them because I would reduce government by gutting the military and corporate welfare".


Whatever, your just attacking his tactics now, obviously his tactics work.


I was never under the impression that the conservatives were hypocrites because they deviated from the ideal, but that they were adapting their ideology to fit the times. If I were an anarchist and looked at Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, I wouldn't call either a hypocrite just because they're notCliving up to ideal, and consider myself more conservative than them because anarchism believes in "small government".


Its basically calling out the bullshit.

[RadioRaheem84]

Analyzing capitalism did'nt make Marx have to believe liberalism, but his economic analysis used the liberal capitalist premis, I don't give a shit what he believed or not.His economic analysis used the capitalist premise only in a matter to critique it. And not just in a way to improve upon it either but to render it completely flawed. So I do not see Marx's critique of capitalism as an extension of liberal thought. I do see his critique running parallel with it though. I just see a historical connection, a similar origin in the Enlightenment.


Whatever, your just attacking his tactics now, obviously his tactics work.I've been doing that from the start. It's childish and borderline dishonest. Conflating the two because there is some vague general connection of anarchism and conservatism due to belief in "small government" is spurious. He is clearly doing it to win some points with a more broad general audience.


Its basically calling out the bullshit. There is no bullshit to call out, really. They defend their positions quite consistently and do not need a smug liberal-ish intellectual calling them hypocrites because they do not adhere to the ideal principles of what a conservative is.

I think that is so spurious, it's only a ploy zealous liberal pundits use. The point is to critique the system that compels them to keep adapting their ideals to fit the bill. They can blather all they want about free markets, free people, it doesn't change the nature of the machine.

[MotherCossack]

Is it okay to be socially conservative?
i know i am nowt but a simple soul....
but it seems to me that this is a pretty basic question, and although it is certainly valid to read as much into it as any one of us is inclined or able, a much more direct and immediate response is, surely, of equal value...
loads of good points have been made...
i just wanted to add... that i believe that we all come with an inbuilt control board, operated by a whole heap of programnmed instincts that are designed to enable each of us to operate appropriately in our social setting. I mean arn't we just a bunch of clever dick apes living in a complicated, and not very pleasant, ape esville?
just cos it all got a bit unnecessary... it surely doesn't mean the fundementals are that different.
does that work.....?

[NGNM85]

haha what how is saying "holy shit the working class is fucked under the democrats OR republicans...

Incidentally; this is mostly accurate, in fact, I’ve said about as much, all along. I just said it better.


fuck voting for either as long as capitalism persists" causing harm


fucking capitalism's continued persistance should be your only concern, ameliorating it or not is not the point.

You, essentially, answered your own question. This is where you’re going off track, which I’ve been saying all along; If the circumstances of the working class are only meaningful to the extent that you can politically capitalize on it; you don’t give a crap about the working class. That isn’t what ‘caring’ means. If you remove this Libertarian, Humanistic core from socialism, which is the very heart of Socialism, you’re, essentially, left with Nihilism.


e: insert the state where capitalism is for your ridiculous b.s. dnd ideology

You have it backasswards.

[ed miliband]

advocating voting for a bourgeois party that might somehow ameliorate conditions of the working class is the opposite of the stance libertarian socialists/communists (anarchist-communists, council communists, autonomists, etc.) take, and has more in common with the politics of the Trotskyists and Stalinists I've encountered.

[RGacky3]

His economic analysis used the capitalist premise only in a matter to critique it. And not just in a way to improve upon it either but to render it completely flawed. So I do not see Marx's critique of capitalism as an extension of liberal thought. I do see his critique running parallel with it though. I just see a historical connection, a similar origin in the Enlightenment.


A: Have you read Kapital compared to the wealth of nations?

The tendancy for the rate of profit to fall was origionally adam smith, the LTOV was origionally ricardo.

Marx took these, expanded on them, took the premises, expanded on them, to show that unlike the liberal economist's conclusions, his conclusion was that capitalism is fundementally flawed.


I've been doing that from the start. It's childish and borderline dishonest. Conflating the two because there is some vague general connection of anarchism and conservatism due to belief in "small government" is spurious. He is clearly doing it to win some points with a more broad general audience.


He did'nt say there was a connection between anarchism and conservatism.

There are many atheists that are actually more christian acting than the catholics during the middle ages, THATS THE POINT.


They defend their positions quite consistently and do not need a smug liberal-ish intellectual calling them hypocrites because they do not adhere to the ideal principles of what a conservative is.


No ... THEY don't need it, but it does work to get people from believing them.


I think that is so spurious, it's only a ploy zealous liberal pundits use. The point is to critique the system that compels them to keep adapting their ideals to fit the bill. They can blather all they want about free markets, free people, it doesn't change the nature of the machine.

I'd say many many more people have been radicalized in the last 50 years by chomsky than by any leninist, its the numbers that count homeboy.

[Rafiq]

Gacky, that's a joke. Perhaps maybe for the USA, but more people, around the globe, have been radicalized into 'Leninism" than Chomsky, especially in the last 50 years. Chomsky is pretty irrelivent in regards to politics outside the U.S.A.

[RGacky3]

Gacky, that's a joke. Perhaps maybe for the USA, but more people, around the globe, have been radicalized into 'Leninism" than Chomsky, especially in the last 50 years. Chomsky is pretty irrelivent in regards to politics outside the U.S.A.


I live in Norway, the dude just gave a packed speach here a couple months ago. The dude gives speaches world wide, your full of shit.

[smk]

as always, trying to place an entire world view under one term like "socially conservative" isn't going to work and it's not very helpful. some socially conservative views are understandable, such as a criticism of an overly sexual culture, however, some are obviously not, such as belief in superiority of some races, to use an extreme example.

[smk]

Gacky, that's a joke. Perhaps maybe for the USA, but more people, around the globe, have been radicalized into 'Leninism" than Chomsky, especially in the last 50 years. Chomsky is pretty irrelivent in regards to politics outside the U.S.A.

i learned about chomsky from students when i was in a north Indian high school. I would guess that he is the most read international political commentator outside the US.

if you wanna talk about irrelevant.... lol.... leninism.

[smk]

advocating voting for a bourgeois party that might somehow ameliorate conditions of the working class is the opposite of the stance libertarian socialists/communists (anarchist-communists, council communists, autonomists, etc.) take, and has more in common with the politics of the Trotskyists and Stalinists I've encountered.

if you give a fuck about the condition of humanity in the short term, then you will set aside your boring "LOL REVOLUTION OR BUST, GAIZ!" attitude, and vote in elections where you can make a [small] difference.

I'm an anarchist, but I understand that the global proletarian revolution isn't coming in time for the 2012 election. Depending on the predicted outcome, I may just vote.

[Ostrinski]

as always, trying to place an entire world view under one term like "socially conservative" isn't going to work and it's not very helpful. some socially conservative views are understandable, such as a criticism of an overly sexual culture, however, some are obviously not, such as belief in superiority of some races, to use an extreme example.I mean, if you want to criticize an overly sexual culture, you don't have to do it from a conservative premise. We shouldn't be accepting that some conservative views are ok simply because of the fact that we may agree with the conclusion. We can come from different premises and come to the same conclusion. We don't oppose bigotry because it has conservative connotations, we oppose it, aside from moral reasons, because it divides the proletariat and compromises proletarian interests.

[smk]

I mean, if you want to criticize an overly sexual culture, you don't have to do it from a conservative premise. We shouldn't be accepting that some conservative views are ok simply because of the fact that we may agree with the conclusion. We can come from different premises and come to the same conclusion. We don't oppose bigotry because it has conservative connotations, we oppose it, aside from moral reasons, because it divides the proletariat and compromises proletarian interests.

Or rather, we dont have to assign some views a "conservative" label. Hence what I was trying to get at in the beginning. You are right in that it is best to completely disregard "conservative" or "progressive" labels and just just each situation individually.

[ed miliband]

if you give a fuck about the condition of humanity in the short term, then you will set aside your boring "LOL REVOLUTION OR BUST, GAIZ!" attitude, and vote in elections where you can make a [small] difference.

I'm an anarchist, but I understand that the global proletarian revolution isn't coming in time for the 2012 election. Depending on the predicted outcome, I may just vote.

This isn't an anarchist position though. As I said it has much more in common with the position taken by various Leninists I've met. In Britain nobody who associates with anarchism would advocate voting for the Labour Party (well to the left of the Democrats, at least in theory) because things might become 'a little bit better', and yet you'll meet countless Trots who'll more or less say that (although to be fair, in a manner more critical than you Chomskyite "anarchists").

And LOL - saying we shouldn't support bourgeois parties has NOTHING to do with believing proletarian revolution is around the corner.

[RGacky3]

This isn't an anarchist position though. As I said it has much more in common with the position taken by various Leninists I've met. In Britain nobody who associates with anarchism would advocate voting for the Labour Party (well to the left of the Democrats, at least in theory) because things might become 'a little bit better', and yet you'll meet countless Trots who'll more or less say that (although to be fair, in a manner more critical than you Chomskyite "anarchists").

And LOL - saying we shouldn't support bourgeois parties has NOTHING to do with believing proletarian revolution is around the corner.

Thats bullshit, Anarchism does'nt have a party line, not at all, some people might oppose voting, some people might support selective voting, its not a black and white issue.


And LOL - saying we shouldn't support bourgeois parties has NOTHING to do with believing proletarian revolution is around the corner.

Equating selective voting with support is bullshit, what if we had hitler running for election, I for one would do everything to keep him out of power, one of which might be a vote in the other way.

[ed miliband]

Thats bullshit, Anarchism does'nt have a party line, not at all, some people might oppose voting, some people might support selective voting, its not a black and white issue.



Equating selective voting with support is bullshit, what if we had hitler running for election, I for one would do everything to keep him out of power, one of which might be a vote in the other way.

So if I said, "anarchists believe in the working class seizing state control in order to create a classless society, and wish to see the state one day whither away...", you'd presumably have no opinion 'cos hey - "Anarchism does'nt have a party line", right??

Anarchism may not have a party line, but there is an historic anarchist tradition which has, more or less across the board (from individualists to communists) been opposed to parliamentarianism and reformism. This has set it apart from countless other socialist traditions and is, in my view, a defining element of anarchism. Now I'm going to take this historic tradition, which I think is quite clearly more relevant today than ever (I mean - you can't even pretend that a genuinely reformist party exists, along with the conditions that make reformism viable...), over yr. Chomsky shit.

and lol, bringing up Hitler. Ain't that Godwin's Law?

[RGacky3]

So if I said, "anarchists believe in the working class seizing state control in order to create a classless society, and wish to see the state one day whither away...", you'd presumably have no opinion 'cos hey - "Anarchism does'nt have a party line", right??


That would be true also, although its ususally not the case, members of the CNT-FAI joined the government and used a similar reasoning.


Anarchism may not have a party line, but there is an historic anarchist tradition which has, more or less across the board (from individualists to communists) been opposed to parliamentarianism and reformism. This has set it apart from countless other socialist traditions and is, in my view, a defining element of anarchism. Now I'm going to take this historic tradition, which I think is quite clearly more relevant today than ever (I mean - you can't even pretend that a genuinely reformist party exists, along with the conditions that make reformism viable...), over yr. Chomsky shit.


The main difference between reformism and revolutionaryism is the methodology, reformism thinks you don't NEED to change the system, revolutionaries think you do. Chomsky thinks you do, but that does not exclude supporting short term reforms at all.

Tons of Anarchists have supported short term solutions, i.e. Unions, policies and so on.

Also switch out Hitler, and replace with Thatcher then.

[ed miliband]

That would be true also, although its ususally not the case, members of the CNT-FAI joined the government and used a similar reasoning.

Shamefully...


Tons of Anarchists have supported short term solutions, i.e. Unions, policies and so on.

Also switch out Hitler, and replace with Thatcher then.

That gets the the crux of the matter - what difference would it have made whether Thatcher won in '79 or Callaghan? The Labour Party had already started initiating neoliberal reforms, and given that this was a global trend I doubt a Labour government would have been too different from a Conservative government.

[RGacky3]

That gets the the crux of the matter - what difference would it have made whether Thatcher won in '79 or Callaghan? The Labour Party had already started initiating neoliberal reforms, and given that this was a global trend I doubt a Labour government would have been too different from a Conservative government.

The difference would be the labour party (at that point) would have been a lot more succceptable to union pressure and public pressure.

[ed miliband]

The difference would be the labour party (at that point) would have been a lot more succceptable to union pressure and public pressure.

fucking hell... this is the same silly argument used by people who advocate working within the Labour Party today - "the union link is there, blah blah blah".

But one big problem: when Callaghan's government were bringing in the IMF and things like the Social Contract (involving pay freezes, etc.) they were ummm... backed by the trade union leaders, who worked to enforce these unpopular policies on workers. If Labour had won in 1979 they would have continued to do the same.

[Rafiq]

I live in Norway, the dude just gave a packed speach here a couple months ago. The dude gives speaches world wide, your full of shit.

You eurocentric douchebag, have you ever travelled outside Europe? Even in the west Leninism has influenced more people. Has there ever been any chomskyan terrorist groups? Chomskyan organizations? No. He's pretty fucking irrelivent outside the USA, even in norway he's irrelivent.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i learned about chomsky from students when i was in a north Indian high school. I would guess that he is the most read international political commentator outside the US.

if you wanna talk about irrelevant.... lol.... leninism.

haha comrade capitalism's pet "leftist" is obviously popular

[Franz Fanonipants]

You, essentially, answered your own question. This is where you’re going off track, which I’ve been saying all along; If the circumstances of the working class are only meaningful to the extent that you can politically capitalize on it; you don’t give a crap about the working class. That isn’t what ‘caring’ means. If you remove this Libertarian, Humanistic core from socialism, which is the very heart of Socialism, you’re, essentially, left with Nihilism.

you ridiculous scumbag

1. who the fuck are you to question my motives
2. i don't have some sort of abstract "pity" for the working class, as a member of it i recognize that voting period only legitimizes the mechanisms of oppression.

[Ismail]

People who say that you can "make a small difference" in participating in national bourgeois elections are people who either don't understand how a bourgeois state (and its institutions and representatives) work or who... well basically that's about it. The most "radical" attempt at doing this occurred in Chile and ended quite badly, and that was in a country exploited by imperialism and where there was a genuinely left-wing political force, not in an imperialist superpower where the two parties are reactionary and pledge themselves to the defense of capitalism.

As Hoxha noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm) in 1973 on the coup in Chile:

In Chile it was believed that the relatively old-established democratic traditions, parliament, the legal activity of political parties, the existence of a free press, etc., were an insurmountable obstacle to any reactionary force which might attempt to seize power by violence. The reality, however, proved the opposite. The coup d’état of the rightist forces proved that the bourgeoisie will tolerate certain freedoms just so long as its essential interests are not affected, but when it sees that these interests are threatened, it is no longer concerned about ethics....

All the programmatic documents which the Western revisionist parties have adopted since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, absolutize the “parliamentary road” of transition from capitalism to socialism, while the non-peaceful road is definitely excluded. In practice this has brought about that these parties have finally renounced the revolutionary struggle and strive for ordinary reforms of a narrow economic or administrative character. They have turned into bourgeois opposition parties and have offered to undertake the administration of the wealth of the bourgeoisie, just as the old social-democratic parties have done hitherto.

The Communist Party of Chile, which was one of the main forces of the Allende government, fervently adhered to the Khrushchevite theses of “peaceful transition”, both in theory and practice. Following instructions from Moscow, it claimed that the national bourgeoisie and imperialism had now been tamed, had become tolerant and reasonable, and that in the new class conditions, allegedly created by the present-day world development, they were no longer able to go over to counter-revolution.

However, as the case of Chile proved once again these and similar theories make the working masses irresolute and disorientated, weaken their revolutionary spirit, and keep them immobilized in the face of the threats of the bourgeoisie, paralyse their capacity and make it impossible for them to carry out decisive revolutionary actions against the counter-revolutionary plans and actions of the bourgeoisie....

History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.

In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie.

The Khrushchevite revisionists have deliberately created great confusion concerning Lenin’s very clear and precise theses on the participation of communists in the bourgeois parliament and on the seizure of state power from the bourgeoisie. It is known that Lenin did not deny the participation of the communists in the bourgeois parliament at certain moments. But he considered this participation only as at tribune to defend the interests of the working class, to expose the bourgeoisie and its state power, to force the bourgeoisie to take some measure in favour of the working people. At the same time, however, Lenin warned that, while fighting to make use of parliament in the interests of the working class, one should guard against the creation of parliamentary illusions, the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarianism.
“Participation in the bourgeois parliament,” said Lenin, “is necessary for the party of the revolutionary proletariat to enlighten the masses, enlightenment which is achieved through elections and the struggle of the parties in the parliament. But to limit the class struggle to the struggle within the parliament, or to consider this struggle as the ultimate, the decisive form, to which all other forms of struggle are subordinate, means in fact to go over to the side of the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat.” V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 30, pp. 304-305 (Alb. ed.).Criticizing the “parliamentary cretinism” of the representatives of the Second International, who turned their parties into electoral parties, Lenin clearly showed where parliamentarianism leads to in ideology, policy and practice. He stressed that,
“the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) cannot replace it through its gradual withering away, but as a general rule, only through violent revolution.” V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 25, p. 473 (Alb. ed.).He stressed that
“the need to systematically educate the masses with this idea, and precisely this idea of violent revolution, is the basis of the entire doctrine of Marx and Engels.” Ibidem.By still advocating the “parliamentary road”, the modern revisionists are simply blindly following the course of Kautsky and company. But the further they proceed on this course, the more they expose themselves and the more defeats they suffer. The whole history of the international communist and worker movement has proved that violent revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the universal law of proletarian revolution.
“The advance, that is, towards communism,” Lenin stressed, “runs through the dictatorship of the proletariat and it cannot follow any other course, because there is no other class and no other way to smash the resistance of the capitalist exploiters.” Ibidem, p. 548.In the stage off imperialism, both at its commencement and now, too, the danger of the establishment of a fascist military dictatorship whenever the capitalist monopolies think that their interests are threatened always exists. Moreover, it has been proved, especially from the end of the Second World War to this day, that American imperialism, British imperialism and others have gone to the assistance of the bourgeoisie of various countries to eliminate those governments or to suppress those revolutionary forces which, in one way or another, offer even the slightest threat to the foundations of the capitalist system.

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution.In his 1980 work Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism (p. 261) Hoxha also noted that, "Through the bourgeois and revisionist parties and its own state structures, the bourgeoisie has encouraged as never before the diversionist role of the trade-unions which are openly manipulated by them. As the facts show, trade-unions of this kind in many countries have become completely integrated into and become appendages of the economic and state organization of capitalism. The ever more open collaboration of the trade-union centres with the owning class, with finance capital and the bourgeois governments is a notorious fact. As it is now, the trade-union movement does not challenge capitalism, but works for it, tries to subjugate the proletariat and to restrict and undermine its struggle against capitalism. Some of them are more like big capitalist concerns than trade-union organizations."

[smk]

To use an extreme and hypothetical example, will the future be the same whether Ron Paul vs Obama is elected president in 2012?
I dont understand how you can possibly be living in reality and not understand that there are minor differences between what candidates will do. Sure, they will both serve the elites in 99% of their decisions, but I would think that Obama would be better for the millions receiving American foreign 'aid' (loose term, of course) around the world and the millions depending on some small level of governmental assistance in the US, whereas Ron Paul will probably be better for those people anywhere there is a US military presence.
Hypothetically, if the race was close between these two, you would have to be an idiot not to vote when there are real consequences to who is elected.

No serious radical would think that serious change can come from voting, in fact, it may even slightly delay change, but when the short-term stakes are high, the benefits outweigh the costs.

[ed miliband]

To use an extreme and hypothetical example, will the future be the same whether Ron Paul vs Obama is elected president in 2012?
I dont understand how you can possibly be living in reality and not understand that there are minor differences between what candidates will do. Sure, they will both serve the elites in 99% of their decisions, but I would think that Obama would be better for the millions receiving American foreign 'aid' (loose term, of course) around the world and the millions depending on some small level of governmental assistance in the US, whereas Ron Paul will probably be better for those people anywhere there is a US military presence.
Hypothetically, if the race was close between these two, you would have to be an idiot not to vote when there are real consequences to who is elected.

No serious radical would think that serious change can come from voting, in fact, it may even slightly delay change, but when the short-term stakes are high, the benefits outweigh the costs.

You can't talk about "reality" and then offer up such a ridiculous hypothetical.

[Ismail]

There are three big problems with voting in such a hypothetical situation:
1. I've already noted in another thread that the Obama Administration has been less kind to leftists than the Bush Administration. This is because capitalism requires such activity to undermine the potential of revolutionary groups. Voting for Obama or Paul will change none of that.
2. By telling people to vote you are essentially organizing an organization around the goal of getting out the vote and, in the end, apologizing for a section of the bourgeoisie rather than showing people the futility of engaging in bourgeois democracy on a national level.
3. The Obama Administration, as well as both parties, are pursuing austerity measures and all that they entail, from growing impoverishment to a weaker education system to attempts at making scapegoats from China to immigrants to "socialists" and so on.

Ron Paul is a bourgeois candidate. There's really no qualitative difference between him and Obama. Encouraging people to vote for either opens the road to promoting class collaboration.

[NGNM85]

You can't talk about "reality" and then offer up such a ridiculous hypothetical.

The only thing ridiculous about it is the idea that Ron Paul would ever be a serious presidential candidate. However; nowhere did SMK suggest otherwise.

[ed miliband]

The only thing ridiculous about it is the idea that Ron Paul would ever be a serious presidential candidate. However; nowhere did SMK suggest otherwise.

And no candidate with politics like Paul's would ever be a serious presidential candidate.

[NGNM85]

And no candidate with politics like Paul's would ever be a serious presidential candidate.

It's highly unlikely. He's technically a Republican, and he votes with them a lot, but he breaks ranks on too many fundamental issues. However; I will say that he gets disproportionately less media coverage than other candidates, who are less popular.

[smk]

...2. By telling people to vote you are essentially organizing an organization around the goal of getting out the vote and, in the end, apologizing for a section of the bourgeoisie rather than showing people the futility of engaging in bourgeois democracy on a national level....
...There's really no qualitative difference between him and Obama...

:lol:
The rest of your post didn't really contradict mine as I tried to highlight the fact that they will generally follow whatever corporate interests tell them to. In fact, the differences will probably be almost imperceptible at any one moment.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that idea though, as you clearly imagine we live in a world where the differences between individuals do not exist and where there aren't different sections of the elite different parties cater to.
But on point 2, what makes you think that doing both is not possible? By your logic, it would be best for the world to be a hell hole, for only then will people see that representative democracy doesnt work.

in addition, the question of whether or not Paul specifically will be elected is a nonissue, as I was using an extreme example to make a point. Use the example of McCain vs Obama in 08, if you prefer, but the differences aren't as extreme.

[NGNM85]

you ridiculous scumbag

You just get more delightful by the second. (I’m being sarcastic, if you can’t tell.)


1. who the fuck are you to question my motives


Certainly you aren’t suggesting that you are above reproach? Also; your motives might be better conveyed if you were to actually say anything serious, and, while you’re at it you might try to speak in complete sentences, and use proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar. All I have to judge is what you post. You said ameliorating the suffering inflicted upon the working class, by this economic system is, by itself, insufficient to motivate you to action. (Which you reiterated, in this post.) That’s saying you really don’t care about the working class. I don’t presume to tell you what you should care about,(At least, for the time being.) although I certainly have an opinion on the subject, but, that being the case, it does beg the question as to what it is that attracts you to Socialism.


[2. i don't have some sort of abstract "pity" for the working class,…

You say that as if having sympathy for the working class isn’t enough, by itself, (Although, admittedly, you’ve been entirely consistent on this.) or that it’s a sign of weakness or something. Like I said, before; without the humanistic core of Socialism, you’re, essentially, left with Nihilism.


[…as a member of it i recognize that voting period only legitimizes the mechanisms of oppression.

It does, if that’s all you do. Incidentally; I specifically argued against this, and so did Chomsky. Depending on the circumstances, it can also ameliorate the suffering of the working class. I care about that, and not simply because I happen to be working class.

[Ismail]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that idea though, as you clearly imagine we live in a world where the differences between individuals do not exist and where there aren't different sections of the elite different parties cater to.Actually I do recognize that we live in a world where there are "different sections of the elite different parties cater to." That's why I don't vote in bourgeois elections, and that's why organizations shouldn't call on proletarians to unite and vote for a bourgeois candidate because the other candidate is supposedly "worse" in some way.

It's like how in the 1984 US election Reagan called for the "communist threat" in Nicaragua to be handled via support to the Contras to overthrow the FSLN, whereas Mondale criticized the Contras for carrying out massacres and instead proposed impoverishing the Nicaraguan populace into being anti-FSLN through sanctions.

[smk]

Actually I do recognize that we live in a world where there are "different sections of the elite different parties cater to." That's why I don't vote in bourgeois elections, and that's why organizations shouldn't call on proletarians to unite and vote for a bourgeois candidate because the other candidate is supposedly "worse" in some way.

It's like how in the 1984 US election Reagan called for the "communist threat" in Nicaragua to be handled via support to the Contras to overthrow the FSLN, whereas Mondale criticized the Contras for carrying out massacres and instead proposed impoverishing the Nicaraguan populace into being anti-FSLN through sanctions.

Ya, that's one example of where it wouldn't matter who you voted for, but let's look at a more recent example. In the 2004 elections, healthcare reform was basically not talked about. In 2008, what changed? Both of the major Democrat candidates moved closer to what the public happened to want. This was because the Democratic Party was serving corporations like GM in this case who complained that it cost $1000 more in the US to produce a car than in Canada because of our ridiculous healthcare system. Needless to say, the Republican party was busy serving other elite interests. It is in this case, where both sides were serving different groups of elites, that the Democratic party's agenda happened to be better for the country. And this is a trend throughout the recent past. No one is really serving the people, but the Democratic party's bosses' orders sometimes overlap with the interests of Americans. Once again, this doesn't happen too often.

But yes, in general, you will see situations like the one you described above, where the Democrats and Republicans don't stray far from the "Business Party's" official line.
I hope I'm making myself clear. I have no illusions that bourgeois parties are at all good for the people, but I see that for now, they are here to stay. So when my vote matters, I would rather vote for the group who's interests sometimes happen to overlap with the general population's, along with enlightening others on the futility of seeking real change through the electoral process, rather than do absolutely nothing.

[Revolution starts with U]

You just get more delightful by the second. (I’m being sarcastic, if you can’t tell.)




. I don’t presume to tell you what you should care about,(At least, for the time being.) although I certainly have an opinion on the subject, but, that being the case, it does beg the question as to what it is that attracts you to Socialism.





His daddy's a Republican :lol:

[Ismail]

Ya, that's one example of where it wouldn't matter who you voted for, but let's look at a more recent example. In the 2004 elections, healthcare reform was basically not talked about. In 2008, what changed? Both of the major Democrat candidates moved closer to what the public happened to want.And the Democrats put forward "reform" which benefited companies and which was carried out within the framework of the capitalist economy. You might have recalled that actual leftists were opposed to this "reform."

[smk]

And the Democrats put forward "reform" which benefited companies and which was carried out within the framework of the capitalist economy. You might have recalled that actual leftists were opposed to this "reform."

I recall being an "actual leftist" during this time and hoping for more, but only being given this modest "reform". Obviously, that something's better than the nothing which would have come from the Republicans. What was passed is slightly better than what was present before, so it is welcome in my book. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I would fight for more. If you can't get it all, it's best to get some. ya?

[RGacky3]

You eurocentric douchebag, have you ever travelled outside Europe? Even in the west Leninism has influenced more people. Has there ever been any chomskyan terrorist groups? Chomskyan organizations? No. He's pretty fucking irrelivent outside the USA, even in norway he's irrelivent.

So how am I a curocentric douchebag?

Anyway I've lived in Latin America, and traveled quite a bit.

And no there has'nt been any CHOMSKYAN terrorist groups, or CHOMSKYAN organizations, because us rational socialists don't worship leaders and name our tendancies or groups after them, becuase we are rational socialists. Unlike your someguyist bullshit.

Relevant? He's the most quoted intellectual IN THE WORLD, dumbass. I did'nt see harveys book held up in the UN, I've never seen harvey give sold out speaches all over the world, I've never seen his books nearly as widespread.

But I love harvey, but saying he's anywhere as influencial as chomsky is just rediculous.


fucking hell... this is the same silly argument used by people who advocate working within the Labour Party today - "the union link is there, blah blah blah".

But one big problem: when Callaghan's government were bringing in the IMF and things like the Social Contract (involving pay freezes, etc.) they were ummm... backed by the trade union leaders, who worked to enforce these unpopular policies on workers. If Labour had won in 1979 they would have continued to do the same.

Well then thats a debate to be had.

[ed miliband]

Well then thats a debate to be had.

http://libcom.org/library/labouring-vain
http://libcom.org/library/bollocks-clause-four-1996-subversion
http://libcom.org/library/labour-party-dockers-1945-1951-solidarity
http://libcom.org/library/winter-discontent-introduction

Is voting for Labour still an act of making things 'slightly better'?

[Rafiq]

1. There are barely any "rational socialists".

2. He's not the most quoted intellectual ever.

3. I don't care about harvey. I don't have a fetish for academic reformists.

4. He's at the UN because they welcome his works as fellow-bourgeois criticisms.

[RGacky3]

1. There are plenty
2. He's high up there, close to jesus.
3. Of coarse you don't
4. He wa'nst at the US dumb ass, I'm refering to Hugo Chavez talking about his book at the UN.

[RadioRaheem84]

Relevant? He's the most quoted intellectual IN THE WORLD, dumbass. I did'nt see harveys book held up in the UN, I've never seen harvey give sold out speaches all over the world, I've never seen his books nearly as widespread.

But I love harvey, but saying he's anywhere as influencial as chomsky is just rediculous.We're talking about theory, not wanting to show just how hypocritical the US government can be.

How can you not think that Chomsky is anything but intro material?

[smk]

We're talking about theory, not wanting to know just how hypocritical the US government can be.

How can you not think that Chomsky is anything but intro material?

Chomsky has produced plenty of theoretical material, most famously on the propaganda system. Actually, Manufacturing Consent is his most famous work. In addition, he weaves theory into every one of his political books, but it's grounded in reality, rather than being totally abstract like a lot of theorists.

[RGacky3]

We're talking about theory, not wanting to show just how hypocritical the US government can be.

How can you not think that Chomsky is anything but intro material?

YOUR talking about theory, I'm talking about influence and relevance.

Your trying to appeal to some transandental value system here, which is totally idealistic.

[Franz Fanonipants]

His daddy's a Republican :lol:

my daddy is a dead mexican drug addict a-moulderin in his grave but you know

e: i'm p. sure he was a m-l too but its been a while since he was alive

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically all this goes to underline that "humanist socialists" are the worst reactionary scum because they spend their time whole-heartedly believing in capitalist "hope" and declaiming fundamentalism while voting for presidential candidates who do nothing to curb the influence of capitalists, fundamentalists, or anything else.

good job guys

e: anti-humanism forever

[RadioRaheem84]

Chomsky has produced plenty of theoretical material, most famously on the propaganda system. Actually, Manufacturing Consent is his most famous work. In addition, he weaves theory into every one of his political books, but it's grounded in reality, rather than being totally abstract like a lot of theorists.

Chomsky's work on the media is stellar, but his bread and butter is showing how hypocritical the US is when it comes to foreign policy. His books are little more than really good progressive The Nation type articles.

Look, I am sorry that I offended your hero but the point I am trying to make is that what does his contemporary work do to understand capitalism other than seeing how hypocritical the system is? How can a leftist really learn anything from Chomsky beyond that?

[smk]

basically all this goes to underline that "humanist socialists" are the worst reactionary scum because they spend their time whole-heartedly believing in capitalist "hope" and declaiming fundamentalism while voting for presidential candidates who do nothing to curb the influence of capitalists, fundamentalists, or anything else.

good job guys

e: anti-humanism forever

I don't think you've been reading very carefully at all. In nearly all my posts in this thread, I have said that there is no "hope" that you should have in this system to make any real change.

[smk]

Chomsky's work on the media is stellar, but his bread and butter is showing how hypocritical the US is when it comes to foreign policy. His books are little more than really good progressive The Nation type articles.

Look, I am sorry that I offended your hero but the point I am trying to make is that what does his contemporary work do to understand capitalism other than seeing how hypocritical the system is? How can a leftist really learn anything from Chomsky beyond that?


Have you ever read "understanding power"? I think the total explains its contents as being mote than just looking at hypocrisy. For example, he explains how taxes, elections, deindustrialization, and neocolonialism come from the nature of the capitalist system. I think you are just a bit unfamiliar with his work.