Can There Be An Official List Of Reactionary Opinions?

[lines]

Many of us restricted to the opposing views section are here because we have an opinion that is considered reactionary.

I am requesting that the people in charge of this forum compile a list of viewpoints considered reactionary and post them somewhere as a sticky thread. That way there is clear knowledge about what opinions will result in people being exiled to the opposing views section.

Without clear rules about what is and is not reactionary it is hard to know if a viewpoint we have is going to be considered reactionary by forum moderators.

[Smyg]

It'd be nice.

[alegab]

I guess the "Admin Actions" threads exist for as reason as well as http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=boardorganisation#faq_restrictions

[NGNM85]

Just because a person, or an idea is Banned, or Restricted does not, by itself, make it/them Reactionary. Being a Reactionary makes you a Reactionary. The abuse of language that goes on here is appalling. Personally; I've always thought that anyone should be allowed to post, as long as they are able to conduct themselves in a reasonably civilized manner.

[Marcist]

Restricted, maybe because you posted something that breaks the forum rules?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

It would be useful if such points were stated so people avoid making posts containing reactionary character.

I guess they might be :

Racism
Anticommunism
Homophobia
Primitivism(Green Anarchism)
Capitalism
Conservatism

[eyeheartlenin]

If people are going to be punished for posting some opinion, or using some word in their posts, then, yeah, the powers that be should be requested to provide a list (or lists), to make things fairer. I have never thought self-censorship was an attractive option.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Anything a mod may disagree with on any given day....

[Nox]

Don't forget Zionism

Oh wait nvm, you said racism

[Invader Zim]

It would be impossible to make a definative list, because a lot of what people say is subject to context, nuance and interpretation.

[Charlie Watt]

So, what gets a person restricted is essentially down to the personal convictions of the moderator. That's fair.

[thefinalmarch]

Personally; I've always thought that anyone should be allowed to post, as long as they are able to conduct themselves in a reasonably civilized manner.
haha alright bro you can have the white nationalist trolls flooding in and "civilly" explaining to us how race is a real and important biological reality, and not a social construct -- or how those darned negroes have a "scientifically proven" genetic predisposition to criminality.

or maybe we could let the fash in and compare the pros and cons of fascism in a calm, rational, and civilised manner.

of course, these are extreme examples, but personally I'm fine with the present "ideological purity test", as you have previously described it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Personally; I've always thought that anyone should be allowed to post, as long as they are able to conduct themselves in a reasonably civilized manner.

I disagree. For example, when a restricted revolutionary socialist (e.g. RGacky3) makes a thread about some left-wing topic in Opposing Ideologies they almost always are derailed by right-wingers, which is annoying as hell.

There should be a restriction on right-wingers, but not on left-wingers.

[Zav]

It would be useful if such points were stated so people avoid making posts containing reactionary character.

I guess they might be :

Racism
Anticommunism
Homophobia
Primitivism(Green Anarchism)
Capitalism
Conservatism


Green Anarchism IS NOT Primitivism.

[NGNM85]

haha alright bro you can have the white nationalist trolls flooding in and "civilly" explaining to us how race is a real and important biological reality, and not a social construct -- or how those darned negroes have a "scientifically proven" genetic predisposition to criminality.

or maybe we could let the fash in and compare the pros and cons of fascism in a calm, rational, and civilised manner.

Yes; if they can conduct themselves in a civilized manner. I don't understand what you're so afraid of. It isn't as if these ideas are that pursuasive, or that there's any likelihood the forum will be beseiged by Young Republicans, or Neo-Nazis. (Especially polite and courteous ones.)


of course, these are extreme examples, but personally I'm fine with the present "ideological purity test", as you have previously described it.

It's totally bogus. First, on the macro scale, because, as an Anarchist, I find censorship philosophically objectionable. On the micro scale I object to some of the tenets of the official ideology which are irrational, and have little, or nothing at all, to do with Socialism.

[NGNM85]

I disagree. For example, when a restricted revolutionary socialist (e.g. RGacky3) makes a thread about some left-wing topic in Opposing Ideologies they almost always are derailed by right-wingers, which is annoying as hell.

This could be easily fixed by stepping up enforcement on conduct. If there's a thread devoted to discussing Focoism, or Dialectical Materialism and some mental midget pipes in with something insightful like "ZOMG! You crazy commies!!!', they can be escorted to the nearest rubber room, to play with the other defectives. However, if they actually have something insightful, and substantive to say; who gives a shit?


There should be a restriction on right-wingers, but not on left-wingers.

I think Restriction or Bans should be predicated on conduct, not ideology. However, to your point, not only can you be a Leftist and still be Restricted, but you can be a fairly 'orthodox' Socialist/Anarchist/etc. and still be Restricted, which says, to me, that something is quite wrong.

[Invader Zim]

So, what gets a person restricted is essentially down to the personal convictions of the moderator. That's fair.

That isn't what I said.

[Marxaveli]

It would be useful if such points were stated so people avoid making posts containing reactionary character.

I guess they might be :

Racism
Anticommunism
Homophobia
Primitivism(Green Anarchism)
Capitalism
Conservatism



Add Xenophobia and Nationalism to that list too.

[Desperado]

Add ... Nationalism to that list too.

Ambiguous.


Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations.

[Comrade Hill]

I got restricted for saying that uneducated people do not deserve to have a voice (I was trying to advocate for technocracy)

Of course, that was the wrong choice of words for a leftist like me, and I got restricted.

To me this is how it is:

Anything that smacks of elitism, is considered a restrictable offense.

[Thug Lessons]

It would be impossible to make a definative list, because a lot of what people say is subject to context, nuance and interpretation.
That's inherently problematic, because you run the risk of punishing people for their tone or choice of language rather than their beliefs or attitudes. It's especially risky when you're dealing with people who aren't speaking English as their first language or simply aren't good with words. Not that you wouldn't open the whole process up to rules-lawyering the other way around, but the point stands.

[Zav]

I got restricted for saying that uneducated people do not deserve to have a voice (I was trying to advocate for technocracy)

Of course, that was the wrong choice of words for a leftist like me, and I got restricted.

To me this is how it is:

Anything that smacks of elitism, is considered a restrictable offense.
That is so reactionary it makes Rand look like a liberal.

[Comrade Hill]

That is so reactionary it makes Rand look like a liberal.

This post is so childish and irrelevant that is goes outside the realm of politics in general. Not to mention there are many definitions for the word "liberal."

I guess, being a person that doesn't know how to read, you took extreme offense to that statement.

[RGacky3]

I got restricted for saying that uneducated people do not deserve to have a voice (I was trying to advocate for technocracy)


Who decides who is educated? You?


Of course, that was the wrong choice of words for a leftist like me, and I got restricted.

To me this is how it is:

Anything that smacks of elitism, is considered a restrictable offense.

Its not a wrong choice of words, its a wrong choice of ideas, your essencially saying you don't believe in democracy, which means you don't believe in socialism.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Green Anarchism IS NOT Primitivism.
Oh I see. But there is a group here called Antiprimitivsts which uses as an icon an X on a light green and black flag which I think it is the one representing,Green anarchism, isn't it? I am interested,in learning the differences between primitivism and green anarchism if any.

[Comrade Hill]

Who decides who is educated? You?


Yes, me of course, the self-centered fool. What I actually meant, was that I want to rule the world with my wooden stick.



Its not a wrong choice of words, its a wrong choice of ideas, your essencially saying you don't believe in democracy, which means you don't believe in socialism.

It was a wrong choice of words. What I implied is that I don't want uneducated people to have any kind of influence or power. I do, and I want to better their lives by providing for their needs and educating them. But I don't think they should be controlling parts of the economy and the government. I want decisions (in a socialist economy) to be made by people who have technical expertise, and scholarly experience. I don't see what's so irrational about that.

Socialism and democracy are not the same thing, democracy is a word used to describe how a government works, socialism is an economic system.

I think what you are talking about is Communism, not socialism. Communism is a classless, stateless society where decisions in the POLITICAL ECONOMY are made directly by the people. I support that....but I don't think it's possible to just "jump straight into it."

Your system of government does not have to be "democratic" in order to execute socialist ideas for the economy.

But I can see why would would want decisions to be made democratically, and I understand your Syndicalist point of view. I think what we can both agree on, is that capitalism is designed to be inherently democratic, regardless of what you do with it, and we should try our best to move away from old ideas and start implementing new ideas, whether it be through democratic decisions or decisions dictated by a vanguard party.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Who decides who is educated? You?



Its not a wrong choice of words, its a wrong choice of ideas, your essencially saying you don't believe in democracy, which means you don't believe in socialism.
I do not want to act lik Donovan's guard or something, but I think what he meant by uneducated people didn't refer to poor people who cannot get education for various reasons,but to those rightwinger idiots who try to interpret or change an event in such idiotic way, that makes them look uneducated. Adonis Georgiadis is a good example for this. He is an MP of the Greek conservative party, LAOS. He insisted on saying that as far as the dead people on the polytechnic uprising in Athens 1973 are concerned, he says that noone died there and theories about the dead in the uprising are propaganda lies of the left. While everyone in Greece here,without being necessarily leftists, they claim that there were dead people in the uprising,which is the truth.

[hatzel]

Oh I see. But there is a group here called Antiprimitivsts which uses as an icon an X on a light green and black flag which I think it is the one representing,Green anarchism, isn't it? I am interested,in learning the differences between primitivism and green anarchism if any.

Primitivism may be called kind of green anarchism, inasmuch as it is environmentalist (though I imagine it could technically be possible to be a non-environmentalist primitivism, if your advocacy of primitivism was not for some environmentalist purpose, though the effects would still be 'green,' so...whatever...), whereas green anarchism is simply the intersection of environmentalism and anarchism. That the State is inherently damaging to the environment and that environmentalists must therefore advocate anarchy. And that anarchists ought to actively push green causes, before and after the revolution. These arguments are tied in with anarchy.

In this respect it's similar to anarcha-feminism or anarcho-pacifism, for example.

It does, however, include various non-primitivist currents and philosophies within green anarchism, such as veganarchism, those influenced by deep ecology etc.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Yes, me of course, the self-centered fool. What I actually meant, was that I want to rule the world with my wooden stick.



It was a wrong choice of words. What I implied is that I don't want uneducated people to have any kind of influence or power. I do, and I want to better their lives by providing for their needs and educating them. But I don't think they should be controlling parts of the economy and the government. I want decisions (in a socialist economy) to be made by people who have technical expertise, and experience.

Socialism and democracy are not the same thing, democracy is a word used to describe how a government works, socialism is an economic system.

I think what you are talking about is Communism, not socialism. Communism is a classless, stateless society where decisions in the POLITICAL ECONOMY are made directly by the people. I support that....but I don't think it's possible to just "jump straight into it."

Your system of government does not have to be "democratic" in order to execute socialist ideas for the economy.
To be more exact, by the workers ;)
And of course,no one can get straightly into communism,neither by voting nor by revoluting.WATCH FUCKIN OUT.I never imply that people shouldn't revolute for a communist state. This should be their target,but what they will get is socialism. Take as an example Cuba,where thanks to Fidel and Che, the Cuban comrades managed to fight against the American Imperialism. The country today is even socialist, there is some but very small extent of unemployement,they allow businesses to be built, which I think is some form of capitalism BUT this DOES NOT make Cuba not be a socialist country. It is socialist, and has no relation to most of the countries which are dominated by the capital. Despite the small drawbacks Cuba has, people in there fight for it, so they can become communist.

[Manic Impressive]

here's an idea instead of arguing amongst yourselves why don't all the OI'ers get together and draw up an unofficial list of positions which you feel can get you restricted or banned. So that you can help out others who have been recently restricted and perhaps even realize the reasons for your own restrictions.

[Comrade Hill]

Restrictable offenses

-racism
-support of capitalism and it's class structure
-homophobia (and other phobias of "different" people in society)
-support of nationalism and imperialism
-support of elitism

I think that kind of sums it up. But really, someone could say things that are reactionary that don't necessarily boast of these qualities directly, they can say things that are reactionary under the surface.

[RGacky3]

Yes, me of course, the self-centered fool. What I actually meant, was that I want to rule the world with my wooden stick.


Ok your being sarcastic, but seriously, who?


It was a wrong choice of words. What I implied is that I don't want uneducated people to have any kind of influence or power. I do, and I want to better their lives by providing for their needs and educating them. But I don't think they should be controlling parts of the economy and the government. I want decisions (in a socialist economy) to be made by people who have technical expertise, and scholarly experience. I don't see what's so irrational about that.


Its irrational to say that a certain segmant of the population should not vote, you don't think people KNOW they arn't brain surgeons? And would choose people who ARE brain surgeons to do brain surgery? Get the point?


Socialism and democracy are not the same thing, democracy is a word used to describe how a government works, socialism is an economic system.


The 2 are intrinsically intertwined, socialism is economic democracy, in short, and for that to happen you need political democracy, economics and politics are intertwined.


Your system of government does not have to be "democratic" in order to execute socialist ideas for the economy.


It absolutely does, if the people cannot choose the rules they live under how is it possible that they could control the means of production? If some outside power can create all the rules.


I think what we can both agree on, is that capitalism is designed to be inherently democratic, regardless of what you do with it, and we should try our best to move away from old ideas and start implementing new ideas, whether it be through democratic decisions or decisions dictated by a vanguard party.

I don't think so at all, capitalism grew with democracy, but they are at odds, and always have been, and capitalism has always been fighting against any sort of real democracy. Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, in the sense that it concentrates decision making in the hands of a few capitalists.

Socialism is an old idea, so is democracy.

Socialism by any definition is an economic system, if its dictated by a vanguard party its not democratic.

[Comrade Hill]

Ok your being sarcastic, but seriously, who?


The workers!



Its irrational to say that a certain segmant of the population should not vote, you don't think people KNOW they arn't brain surgeons? And would choose people who ARE brain surgeons to do brain surgery? Get the point?


That's basically what I was saying....except for the part of them "not voting." I did not mean that.



The 2 are intrinsically intertwined, socialism is economic democracy, in short, and for that to happen you need political democracy, economics and politics are intertwined.


Where are you getting these strange definitions of socialism from? Socialism and the system of government are completely separate things.....I think you are referring to communism, which is a stateless, classless political economy.



It absolutely does, if the people cannot choose the rules they live under how is it possible that they could control the means of production? If some outside power can create all the rules.


So you'd rather have the workers exploit themselves instead of a state exploit them? If money is going to exist, there has to be some kind of centralization of power, and there has to be a state to enforce the rules of socialism. Profit produced for the state must be reinvested back into the economy for the workers. Having a weak state just paves the way for counter-revolution.

If you want the workers to control the means of production, who is going to pay them? Money still exists in a socialist economy, am I correct? Are the workers going to pay themselves?



I don't think so at all, capitalism grew with democracy, but they are at odds, and always have been, and capitalism has always been fighting against any sort of real democracy. Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, in the sense that it concentrates decision making in the hands of a few capitalists.


WHAT? How can you say such nonsense?

The time of most wealth creation and technological expansion was during the industrial revolution....remember sweatshops? Can you explain to me how this was "democratic?"



Socialism is an old idea, so is democracy.


Socialism isn't nearly as old as capitalism is.



Socialism by any definition is an economic system, if its dictated by a vanguard party its not democratic.

In order for it to be democratic, you would have to have the choice of voting for capitalists. Why would you want that?

[lines]

Does anyone know why primitivism is considered reactionary by forum moderators? I am not that familiar with primitivism though.

[RGacky3]

The workers!


so the workers vote on who is allowed to vote????


That's basically what I was saying....except for the part of them "not voting." I did not mean that.


ok then.


WHAT? How can you say such nonsense?

The time of most wealth creation and technological expansion was during the industrial revolution....remember sweatshops? Can you explain to me how this was "democratic?"


It was'nt ....


Socialism isn't nearly as old as capitalism is.


Socialist ideals go way way back.


In order for it to be democratic, you would have to have the choice of voting for capitalists. Why would you want that?

That does'nt make any sense, thats like saying "you can vote for kinds," socialism = workers control of poduction, which necessarily entails a democratic process.


So you'd rather have the workers exploit themselves instead of a state exploit them?

Exploit themselves? Do you rape yourself when yo masturbate? Do you know how stupid that sounds? You can't, by definition, exploit yourself.


If you want the workers to control the means of production, who is going to pay them? Money still exists in a socialist economy, am I correct? Are the workers going to pay themselves?


Why not?

[Rafiq]

FAQ anyone?

[norwegianwood90]

Add Xenophobia and Nationalism to that list too.

Add sexism to this list as well. (My apologies if another comrade has already posted this suggestion.)

[Zav]

Oh I see. But there is a group here called Antiprimitivsts which uses as an icon an X on a light green and black flag which I think it is the one representing,Green anarchism, isn't it? I am interested,in learning the differences between primitivism and green anarchism if any.
That flag is used by both Primitivists and Green Anarchists. A Primitivist believes that technology is the root of the world's problems. A Green Anarchist is an Anarchist who is also a radical environmentalist. Apart from the flag and Libertarianism they have nothing in common.

[Zav]

Does anyone know why primitivism is considered reactionary by forum moderators? I am not that familiar with primitivism though.
It's because the philosophy is terribly misunderstood and because Noxion is a technocrat.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Reformism
Social Democracy
Adhering to the line or ideas of capitalist parties


Social Democrats may not be wholly reactionary but they are in opposition to revolutionary lines of thought.

[thefinalmarch]

-support of nationalism
Users are not banned for this (although they should be imo). Case in point: Marxist-Leninists and their ideological offspring.

[Comrade Hill]

Users are not banned for this (although they should be imo). Case in point: Marxist-Leninists and their ideological offspring.

Thank goodness you aren't in charge.

Marxist-Leninists aren't nationalists.

[thefinalmarch]

Thank goodness you aren't in charge.

Marxist-Leninists aren't nationalists.
However they are by-and-large proponents of the crock of shit known as "national liberation".

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. Racism
2. Sexism
3. Homophobia
4. Asking for lists of reactionary positions


:lol:

[Alexander_the_Gangster]

This division into revolutionary and reactionary is one of the worst traits of communist propaganda. Very sad that there is any kind of censorship at all on this website.

[hatzel]

Marxist-Leninists aren't nationalists.

Not to kick up a fuss or anything but your current avatar depicts the tricolor associated with Pan-African nationalism and black liberation, shaped as the territory of the currently existing political entity, the United States (the lower states at least). This appears to be intended to link a given national identity, namely the Pan-African identity, with a certain political entity and territory, namely the United States. There appear to be nationalist undertones here, forwarding a certain national identity, and presumably linking this national identity with an extant or proposed political entity - the very definition of nationalism.

Whilst I'm not playing the "white nationalism and black nationalism are the same!" card (what with my not being of that opinion), it would be overly simplistic to claim that ML's don't adopt nationalist positions; as thefinalmarch pointed out, national liberation is often supported by ML's. The question would have to be approached in much more detail than a simple declaration that ML's aren't nationalists, as if you could speak absolutely for all ML's, some/many of whom support various nationalist currents in certain situations. Despite their claims to the contrary.

[Comrade Hill]

Not to kick up a fuss or anything but your current avatar depicts the tricolor associated with Pan-African nationalism and black liberation, shaped as the territory of the currently existing political entity, the United States (the lower states at least). This appears to be intended to link a given national identity, namely the Pan-African identity, with a certain political entity and territory, namely the United States. There appear to be nationalist undertones here, forwarding a certain national identity, and presumably linking this national identity with an extant or proposed political entity - the very definition of nationalism.

Whilst I'm not playing the "white nationalism and black nationalism are the same!" card (what with my not being of that opinion), it would be overly simplistic to claim that ML's don't adopt nationalist positions; as thefinalmarch pointed out, national liberation is often supported by ML's. The question would have to be approached in much more detail than a simple declaration that ML's aren't nationalists, as if you could speak absolutely for all ML's, some/many of whom support various nationalist currents in certain situations. Despite their claims to the contrary.

National liberation AND nationalism are NOT the same thing.

Even if whites were oppressed and they wanted to liberate themselves in a country, that does not make them nationalists.

Don't even attempt to "hint" at the fact that leninists might have nationalist ideas. We are anti-Revisionist.

[Black_Rose]

Regarding elitism as a "reactionary view", I know a Maoist who is probably an elitist, but I still admire him.

I wrote this about him:

Yes, Liu is quite aware that he is very intelligent and is often irreverent as he even got banished from the Roosevelt Institute blog (newdeal20.com) for insulting the intelligence of its female editor (Lynn Parramore), saying that her written work is at the level of cocktail party gossip in a private e-mail conversation.
Reading Liu’s work, he is not ardently interested in increasing the standard of living of working-class whites (and the ancestors of imported blacks and immigrant Hispanics and their descendants) who are dispossessed by neoliberalism; he is primarily interested in advancing the interests of Chinese peasants and urbanized factory workers, advocating a more Maoist economic policy. Liu does realize he shares a mutual enemy and similar grievances — the American plutocracy where the wealthy, the owners of capital, have a disproportionate amount of political influence, not only in domestic affairs but also influence foreign affairs and capital flows — with the American economic left (a relatively politically disenfranchised group, relative to the academic left that promotes only left social views). He argues that under dollar hegemony, imposed after the collapse of the British Empire after World War II and further solidified in the Bretton Woods II in 1971, China exchanges real wealth in the form of manufactured goods for US paper (dollars and Treasury securities) in order to buy commodities priced in dollars, namely oil. According to Liu, this arrangement deprives China of needed capital since it diverts it to the export sector instead of domestic consumption; furthermore, the fiat dollars earned from the trade surplus cannot be exchanged for yuan in the local economy since that would cause inflation by increasing the money supply without a corresponding increase in wealth and domestic economic activity (as the real wealth has been exported to the United States.) Concurrently, this arrangement is also inimical to the American worker because it ships jobs and production overseas.



Liu most certainly isn’t egalitarian or humble; I imagine his ideal career is where he has a prestigious meritocratic bureaucratic position and uses his authority to act benevolently on the behalf of Chinese peasants. He does not want the adulation of the masses that he serves as they lack the capacity to understand his work, but the respect and notability of his peers (and objective successful results). In this sense, Liu has a messiah complex.



I am not saying this to discredit him by detailing his putative motivations; his work should be judged by its merits alone.




Liu does not think highly of democracy:


One not-so-high-minded reason Lincoln and the Republicans gave for their opposition to the extension of slavery was that they wanted to preserve the new territories for white labor, not opposition to an immoral institution. They said clearly that they wanted the political support of white laborers who did not want competition from black slave labor. In practice, democracy often thrives on the lowest instincts of impassioned voters while ignoring the rights of the disfranchised. Representative democracy, as practiced in the United States, is an electoral power game in which the rich and the powerful have an overwhelming advantage over the weak and the poor, which is objectionable enough by itself, and it becomes absolutely repugnant when vaunted as a universal standard for a global holy war.
http://www.henryckliu.com/page115.html

Instead he advocates the Mass Line,


The mass movement as an instrument of political communication from above to below is peculiar to Chinese communist organization. This phenomenon is of utmost importance in understanding the nature and dynamics of the governance structure of the CCP. The theoretical foundation of mass movement as a means of mediation between the will of the leaders and the people pre-supposes that nothing is impossible for the masses, quantitatively understood as a collective subject, if their power is concentrated by a party of correct thought and action. This concept comes out of Mao's romantic yet well-placed faith in the great strength the masses are capable of developing in the interest of their own well-being. So the "will of the masses" has to be articulated by the masses and within the masses, which the CCP calls the "mass line".

Mao's mass-line theory requires that the leadership elite be close to the people, that it is continuously informed about the people's will and that it transforms this will into concrete actions by the masses. From the masses back to the masses. This means: take the scattered and unorganized ideas of the masses and, through study, turn them into focused and systemic programs, then go back to the masses and propagate and explain these ideals until the masses embrace them as their own.

Thus mass movements are initiated at the highest level, announced to party cadres at central and regional work conferences, subject to cadre criticism and modification, after which starts the first phase of mass movement. Mass organizations are held to provoke the "people's will", through readers' letters to newspapers and rallies at which these letters are read and debated. The results are then officially discussed by the staff of leading organs of the state and the party, after which the systematized "people's will" is clarified into acts of law or resolutions, and then the mass movement spreads to the whole nation.
http://www.henryckliu.com/page116.html


On the proletariat's knowledge of financial capitalism:

Socialism does not find the proletariat a fertile garden. Since it requires a certain degree of intellectual prowess to understand the system, members of the laboring class generally are too exhausted physically to devote much of their attention to the mechanics of finance. Yet the basic rule of finance capitalism is not too complicated or difficult to understand. It is to privatize profit and socialize risk. Structured finance is built on that principle, relying on the too big to fail syndrome. The biggest losers in the Enron bankruptcy are the employees who lost all their pension denominated in worthless Enron shares.
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2001/msg02012.html

=====

Would Henry (or some espousing similar views) be restricted here?

[thefinalmarch]

National liberation AND nationalism are NOT the same thing.
except historically all examples of "national liberation" have utilised nationalistic symbolism and rhetoric as an implicit means of support for the collaboration between classes of the given nation.

don't get me wrong, national liberation was largely a good thing in the context of "decolonisation" and the larger scheme of things, but it did involve class collaboration at the time, and it bears much less relevance to today's world. within that context, it was probably one of the last progressive incarnations of nationalism.

today there aren't any self-styled "national liberation" movements which aren't reactionary or are simply dead ends for the working class, which is why I consider it "a crock of shit".

[Yazman]

My list would be the following:

-Pro-market
-Racism
-Homophobia
-Sexism
-Primitivism
-Reformism

There's arguably other things that can be included, and I might be forgetting some important ones, but I think the above are the only really unambiguous ones.

[individualist communist]

Add Xenophobia and Nationalism to that list too.
And sexism.

[Black_Rose]

My list would be the following:

-Pro-market
-Racism
-Homophobia
-Sexism
-Primitivism
-Reformism

There's arguably other things that can be included, and I might be forgetting some important ones, but I think the above are the only really unambiguous ones.

How about a propensity to blame the economically disenfranchised personally for their problems (while also stating that capitalism provides one with the opportunity to succeed) instead of acknowledging the system injustices of capitalism.

[Comrade Hill]

except historically all examples of "national liberation" have utilised nationalistic symbolism and rhetoric as an implicit means of support for the collaboration between classes of the given nation.

don't get me wrong, national liberation was largely a good thing in the context of "decolonisation" and the larger scheme of things, but it did involve class collaboration at the time, and it bears much less relevance to today's world. within that context, it was probably one of the last progressive incarnations of nationalism.

today there aren't any self-styled "national liberation" movements which aren't reactionary or are simply dead ends for the working class, which is why I consider it "a crock of shit".

So then what do you not consider a "dead end?"

[thefinalmarch]

So then what do you not consider a "dead end?"
the immanent movement of the working class towards communism

[NGNM85]

My list would be the following:

-Pro-market
-

Many branches of Socialism are not categorically opposed to markets. I'm not.

[NGNM85]

And sexism.

Or 'sexism.'