Sport as an "opposing ideology" [Archive]

ed miliband

7th June 2012, 22:32

uh you should read one one of the "wisest and most insightive" left-wing thinkers of the last century, clr james, had to say about sport:

James was unusual among Marxists in that he attributed a positive value to the working class's passionate interest in 'organised sports and games'. Unlike his comrades, rather than seeing workers as deflected from politics by sport, or believing that workers needed "raising" up to some cultural level set down by the bourgeois radical intelligentsia or avant-garde, James recalled the "ne'er do well" sporting aristocrats of his youth, and refused to accept this one-sided evaluation. James differed from both Lukács "who saw the works of high bourgeois culture, up to the watershed of 1848, as bourgeois society's legacy to the working class" and currents such as the Frankfurt School, "which saw that legacy more in the modernist revolt against classical bourgeois culture", as Goldner succinctly sums it up.

For James, not only was sport not a diversion from revolutionary politics but it contained within itself, "a new, higher rationality for the organization of society that superseded the capitalist antagonism between work and leisure," says Goldner.

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-08-07-seymour-en.html

Zav

7th June 2012, 23:00

I agree that modern competitive sporting events reinforce Capitalism, but they have very old origins and are thus not a manifestation of Capitalism.

Revolution starts with U

7th June 2012, 23:17

Zav

7th June 2012, 23:47

How do they reinforce capitalism? I don't profit from my opponent when I make a jump shot over him. I don't hire my opponent to lose to me. Capitalism isn't bad because "competition." Capitalism is bad because of inefficiency and exploitation.
Competition in sport reinforces the idea that there must be competition everywhere. There are indeed positive kinds of competition, such as trying to better oneself, but the point of most sports is to defeat the opposing teams.

fabian

7th June 2012, 23:53

ut they have very old origins
Actually, they do not, Ljubodrag notices that very nicely.

Sport is the heir of medieval chivalric games and ancient agon as much as capitalism is the heir of medieval feudalism and ancient slavery- each manifesting the rulling class values.

Agon was primarily a religious festival, manifesting the values of "the otherwordly good" as opposed to seeking the betterment of the system of this world. That's why the only people who revolted against/ objected to slavery were the anti-traditional religion people of the age- manual labor slaves who didn't have the time to think about religion and stoics who were philosophers, but both opposing the "traditional superstitions".

Chivarlic games, unlike sports- did not have competition as a center. They were primarily the demonstration of aristocratic etiquette, with many detailed planned dances, marching and parading of mounted knights, boasting with insignias and genealogies, and the turnament was only a part of the entire thing which was basically a manifestation of the rulling class values of aristocracy, hierarchy and tradition, so it is not suprissing that people who lead insurrections in that time (like English Dissidents, Hussites and Muntzerites) were members of non-traditional faiths whose churches were organised democratically and oppossed to the "vanities of aristocracy".

Likewise sport is a manifestion of capitalist principles: the "grow or die" imperative is enshrined in the olympic motto "Citius, Altius, Fortius"; ruthless competition in not only violent sports, but also in the "family watching" ones, like soccer in Europe, is ever present- where players break each others legs, jaws and heads in duels, even tought is 'not' a fighting sport; total discrimination is evident with both gender segregation and the amazonization of women; sexism is indoctrinated from early age where coaches talk to young boys after not yielding desired results and call them girls in order to humiliate them; mentioning early are- even besides child labor laws, children are abused from ages of 4,5 or 6 years and made to practice and train many hours a day; also the modern dehumanising / ecodical treat of capitalism is seen in sports; and that's only the stuff intristical in sport itself, whereas if you would talk about professional sport in particular- you could add also the economic aspects of capitalism- selling and buying of labor, comercialization and consumerism, etc.

The history of sports is important to know. The most important thing there is that it's genesis coincides with the labor fight for the 8 hour work day, and the first modern stadiums and sport leagues are created in that time. The philosopher of modern Olympism, Pierre de Coubertin, said himself that sport is necessary "in order to colonize the leisure time of the laboring classes", so as we wouldn't think too much about the immorality and the illegitimacy of the present hierarchical and social darwinist system, and that so we wouldn't, god forbid, rise up to liberate ourselves.

Anyways, read the texsts, even if there are stuff in them you don't agree with, read trought them, there's a bunch of great food for thought and inspirational insights in there.

Found also two videos with subs:

IozOwziqL64

J50ksUPB3BI

ВАЛТЕР

8th June 2012, 00:01

I box. I love doing it. I love the training, the sparring, the running, the matches. I love all of it. The only time I feel truly free is when I am in the ring fighting. Fuck you if you want to take something I love doing away from me.

Competitive sports are here to stay and I don't want to ever see them go. They bring people together. People enjoy playing the sports and people enjoy watching them. Nobody is forcing people to play these sports, nor is anyone forcing you to watch them. Live and let live. My participation in a sport has zero effect on you or anyone else that has no interest in participating. I will train and I will compete and millions of others will do the same. because I love doing it. No other reason.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 00:58

The history of sports is important to know. The most important thing there is that it's genesis coincides with the labor fight for the 8 hour work day, and the first modern stadiums and sport leagues are created in that time. The philosopher of modern Olympism, Pierre de Coubertin, said himself that sport is necessary "in order to colonize the leisure time of the laboring classes", so as we wouldn't think too much about the immorality and the illegitimacy of the present hierarchical and social darwinist system, and that so we wouldn't, god forbid, rise up to liberate ourselves.

Yeah, I still don't know how much stock I put in that considering how openly political and radical Ultras tend to be. I think it's overly simplistic and kind of dumb to say "oh sports are an opposing ideology because they're competitive. In fact that seems to be an extremely weak statement. Someone could just as easily say team sports are a perfect example of mutual aid in practice, with the team that is best coordinated and works best with each other often beating teams with a couple of star players.

Jimmie Higgins

8th June 2012, 01:20

Modern sports developed in capitalism but they do not specifically enforce capitalist ideology. Interpersonal competition is not market competition.

Could one argue that specific modern sports have been shaped in form by the profit system - yes, of course. But that doesn't mean all team sports are inherently capitalistic, or the implied argument: workers enjoy playing sports, hence the market must be natural and enjoyable.

Ideology is grafted onto sports for the most part. The nationalism especially with the team franchises cooperating with the military and the tacked on patriotism and flag-waving. Racial and sexual segregation are obviously not inherent in sports but a result of other things in society. Pundits and Politicians make sports analogies about elections, the economy, and war - but sports can also be used for other analogies and so again, this relation is after-the-fact.

Likewise sport is a manifestion of capitalist principles: the "grow or die" imperative is enshrined in the olympic motto "Citius, Altius, Fortius"; ruthless competition in not only violent sports, but also in the "family watching" ones, like soccer in Europe, is ever present- where players break each others legs, jaws and heads in duels, even tought is 'not' a fighting sport; total discrimination is evident with both gender segregation and the amazonization of women; sexism is indoctrinated from early age where coaches talk to young boys after not yielding desired results and call them girls in order to humiliate them; mentioning early are- even besides child labor laws, children are abused from ages of 4,5 or 6 years and made to practice and train many hours a day; also the modern dehumanising / ecodical treat of capitalism is seen in sports; and that's only the stuff intristical in sport itself, whereas if you would talk about professional sport in particular- you could add also the economic aspects of capitalism- selling and buying of labor, comercialization and consumerism, etc.

You are conflating many things here to try and stretch logic to meet your conclusion.

Are you arguing that sports as organized competition are capitalistic or are you arguing that the sports industry is capitalistic..? one isn't inherently, the other is.

Sports doesn't create sexism or child labor, these things are reflected in sport just like it's reflected in many aspects of culture.

Capitalist ideology is reflected in almost everything in capitalist society from movies to religion and art and sports. The forms may change without capitalism and the content almost certainty would be different; but people will still want to play and still group up for games of all kinds and people will still listen to and create music and want entertainment in socialism.

The history of sports is important to know. The most important thing there is that it's genesis coincides with the labor fight for the 8 hour work day, and the first modern stadiums and sport leagues are created in that time. The philosopher of modern Olympism, Pierre de Coubertin, said himself that sport is necessary "in order to colonize the leisure time of the laboring classes", so as we wouldn't think too much about the immorality and the illegitimacy of the present hierarchical and social darwinist system, and that so we wouldn't, god forbid, rise up to liberate ourselves. Yeah I think sports occupied more of Muhammad Ali's life than it does for armature players or fanatical watchers of sports. So this "plot" of entertaining people into submission, if it was true, wouldn't be very effective.

hatzel

8th June 2012, 10:32

Many people here see markets themselves as "opposed" of leftism, being that they're competative

Oh, that's why we don't like markets? That's the reason? Because they're competitive? Okay, thanks a bunch, chummmmm...

...p :)

EDIT: oh yeah and after you've finished reading basic leftist theory, so that you know what 'we' don't 'like' and why, you can read Soccer vs. the state by Gabriel Kuhn. For example.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

8th June 2012, 11:03

I see sport and the 'business' of sport as two seperate things. Human beings can be competative in a fun and invigorating way without making it into a franchise and squeezing as much money out of it was they can, I think.
Now, I admit I'm not the least bit sporty and I used to hold unfair prejudices against anyone who is (thinking they were luddites or inherently 'jocky' assholes) but I know people who love football and other sports; they enjoy participating in it and watching them and it does not automatically reflect on their character in a negative way (they enjoy the competition and spectacle but that doesn't mean they support rightist ideas of 'only the strongest survive' and think market forces are the natural order of things).
If that make sense?

wsg1991

8th June 2012, 11:33

sexual segregation ? sorry i don't get this part .

Women and men cannot participate in the same category duo to physiological reasons : ( men has higher Androgen hormones productions )

Kids could do that though

it takes a high school student to know that

fabian

8th June 2012, 12:35

I box. I love doing it. I love the training, the sparring, the running, the matches. I love all of it. The only time I feel truly free is when I am in the ring fighting. Fuck you if you want to take something I love doing away from me.
Fuck you for thinking that "I like it" is an argument that that something is legitimate.

. I think it's overly simplistic and kind of dumb to say "oh sports are an opposing ideology because they're competitive. In fact that seems to be an extremely weak statement.
Tell that to the people who restricted me and labeled me "reactionary" because I'm a socialist (against private property, employment, rent, usury) who favours markets, and markets are "competative" boo- hoo.

---

Anyways, as I said, if you're interested, go trough the texts:

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/category/2-articles-in-english/

ВАЛТЕР

8th June 2012, 12:51

I'm really glad that very few people like you exist. That way none of your crap ideas will ever come to fruition. This way we just kind of scoff at your positions and go on about our day. People like sports, and if you don't then don't participate in them. Simple as that. Take your utopian "logic" and shove it right up your ass.

Oh by the way I'm gonna go to the gym and today is sparring day. Meaning I will competitively punch other people in their face and body.

Then, as an extra "fuck you" to your utopian horseshit. I'm going to go out tonight and have a beer or two because my friend is celebrating his birthday.

fabian

8th June 2012, 13:02

I'm really glad that very few people like you exist. That way none of your crap ideas will ever come to fruition.
Appeal to majority? Fallacy.

People like sports, and if you don't then don't participate in them. Simple as that
People like employment, if you don't then don't participate in it. Simple as that.
Be consistent.

Meaning I will competitively punch other people in their face and body.
Wow, you are going to do something which if done on the streat would get in jail, and you're happy about being violent and hurting people, what an achievement for you, bravo.

Then, as an extra "fuck you" to your utopian horseshit. I'm going to go out tonight and have a beer or two because my friend is celebrating his birthday.
What arguments, what erudition, what rational discourse. Oh wait, you actually don't have anything smart to say, and you're just trolling in order to get rep points from those who agree with you.

ВАЛТЕР

8th June 2012, 13:34

Appeal to majority? Fallacy.

Of course I appeal tot he majority, that is why I am a communist. We as communists appeal to the majority over the minority. The majority of the people are exploited and oppressed by the minority.

People like employment, if you don't then don't participate in it. Simple as that.
Be consistent.Learn about wage slavery and what it is and how it functions.

Wow, you are going to do something which if done on the streat would get in jail, and you're happy about being violent and hurting people, what an achievement for you, bravo.It is a sport. There is mutual agreement, and it is regulated to prevent serious injury. Any party can decide to stop the contest at any given time. Stop comparing it to street violence because it is not. I don't like hurting people,. I like out-boxing them. If you knew anything about boxing you would know it is more comparable to ballet than a street fight. The amount of thinking required to outsmart and out maneuver your opponent is something that takes years to develop. If someone gets hurt, then so be it. Everyone knows the risks. I've had broken noses, cut eyes, and injured hands, did these injuries hurt? Yes, did I for even a second ponder about quitting? Absolutely not. Everyone has an activity they love to do. Boxing is what makes me feel free. It is my only escape from the shitty world I live in.

What arguments, what erudition, what rational discourse. Oh wait, you actually don't have anything smart to say, and you're just trolling in order to get rep points from those who agree with you.Blah blah blah. Your positions are laughable.

Sports are something that you will never in your life understand because you don't want to understand, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Ned Kelly

8th June 2012, 13:52

Sport is Sport. It involves competition. Sport is healthy. Get over it.

wsg1991

8th June 2012, 13:56

I'm really glad that very few people like you exist.

i think a communist is not allowed to say that , for obvious reasons

ВАЛТЕР

8th June 2012, 13:58

i think a communist is not allowed to say that , for obvious reasons

What reason?

Oh well, let me rephrase myself.

I am very glad that very few people have that opinion.

fabian

8th June 2012, 14:28

Of course I appeal tot he majority, that is why I am a communist.
Appeal to majority should lead you to embrace capitalism, being that most people are content with it, and don't want to change it.

Your positions are laughable.
Another great argument. You've totally convinced me.

Learn about wage slavery and what it is and how it functions.
It's consentual just like sports, pornography, alcoholism, drug use, etc. Therefore, according to you people here- there's nothing wrong with it.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 15:54

It's consentual just like sports, pornography, alcoholism, drug use, etc. Therefore, according to you people here- there's nothing wrong with it.

Alcoholism is sort of a disease actually.

And wage slavery isn't something you can just not do unless you're gonna live on the fringes of society. Like you'd have to seriously go out of your way to try to live without a job.

fabian

8th June 2012, 16:08

Alcoholism is sort of a disease actually.
As much as any other substance dependance. But as long as drinking alcohol and shooting dope (and anything else) is "voluntary" and "consentual" - it's not wrong, and people should be "free" to do it.

And wage slavery isn't something you can just not do unless you're gonna live on the fringes of society
Aha, if you could "not do it" and not live on the fringes of society, then capitalism would be ok?

Like you'd have to seriously go out of your way to try to live without a job.
You could be self-sufficiant, or live in a self-sufficiant commune, or be self-employed, or be a member of a worker coop- no employer-employee relation in any of these, and it doent mean being "on the fringes of society".

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 16:19

Aha, if you could "not do it" and not live on the fringes of society, then capitalism would be ok?

Nope. Because even then you're jumping through some pretty extreme hoops just to maybe not have to work for a wage.

You could be self-sufficiant, or live in a self-sufficiant commune, or be self-employed, or be a member of a worker coop- no employer-employee relation in any of these, and it doent mean being "on the fringes of society".

If one were a slave in Greece, chances are they had options as well when it came to getting out of slavery. However that doesn't really change the fact that the ancient Greeks' society was p. much reliant on slavery -- just like being able to join a commune or work self-employed doesn't change the fact that the exploitation of labor is what modern society is based on.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 16:21

As much as any other substance dependance.

Yup

But as long as drinking alcohol and shooting dope (and anything else) is "voluntary" and "consentual" - it's not wrong, and people should be "free" to do it

yup, because prohibition doesn't work and makes it more difficult for people to deal with substance abuse.

fabian

8th June 2012, 16:25

Because even then you're jumping through some pretty extreme hoops just to maybe not have to work for a wage.
But if wage slavery is "voluntary" and "consentual", then, of course, it is ok?

If one were a slave in Greece, chances are they had options as well when it came to getting out of slavery. However that doesn't really change the fact that the ancient Greeks' society was p. much reliant on slavery -- just like being able to join a commune or work self-employed doesn't change the fact that the exploitation of labor is what modern society is based on.
But if people are "voluntary" and "consentual" slaves or wage slaves- then theres nothing wrong with a society being based on slavery of wage slavery.

yup, because prohibition doesn't work
So you wouldn't prohibit capitalism?

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 16:29

But if wage slavery is "voluntary" and "consentual", then, of course, it is ok?

It literally can't be, so no.

So you wouldn't prohibit capitalism?

Prohibition doesn't have anything to do with capitalism or economic systems. Prohibition is the banning of controlled substances.

What a bizarre question to ask based on that statement.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 16:31

But if people are "voluntary" and "consentual" slaves or wage slaves- then theres nothing wrong with a society being based on slavery of wage slavery

They are neither, though.

fabian

8th June 2012, 16:41

It literally can't be, so no.
So, slavery to heroin can be "voluntary" but slavery to a person can't? Why?

Prohibition is the banning of controlled substances.
Prohibition is prohibiting something. It can be a substance, but it can something else, like pornography, gambling, books, political parties, economic relations.

hatzel

8th June 2012, 16:43

Quick question: why does every thread involving fabian have to end up as some silly discussion of a) puritanical opposition of anything and everything; and/or b) voluntarism-based arguments in support of capitalism?

Oh here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4_UNHTXgE) an idea...

fabian

8th June 2012, 16:45

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 16:53

So, slavery to heroin can be "voluntary" but slavery to a person can't? Why?

"Slavery to heroin" and actual slavery aren't close to the same thing though. One is addiction, a medical condition. You can't force someone to accept treatment unless they are clearly endangering others -- e.g. they are devastatingly contagious.

Prohibition is prohibiting something. It can be a substance, but it can something else, like pornography, gambling, books, political parties, economic relations.lol okay i am for prohibiting capitalism but not controlled substances. I mean you're just muddying the waters here but why not I'll play along.

Because I'm a rationalist, and you're incosistant

No one is inconsistent here, though (except Zav)

fabian

8th June 2012, 17:04

Slavery to heroin" and actual slavery aren't close to the same thing though.
slave n. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence; someone entirely dominated by some influence or person, having no freedom of action.

No one is inconsistent here, though
"i am for prohibiting capitalism but not controlled substances."
You are for allowing some voluntary practices, because they're "volutary" and "consentual", but you are for prohibiting some practices ever if they're "voluntary" and "consentual". That called inconsistency.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 18:05

slave n. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence; someone entirely dominated by some influence or person, having no freedom of action.

Except that is not the formal definition. When one says "Slavery" they are referring to a system of one person being in bonded servitude to another. Figuratively one can be a slave to a drug or something, sure, but actual systems of slavery and "slavery" to drugs are entirely different things.

Oh and by the way, you pretty much just picked the second definition off of dictionary.com, completely ignoring the first one which explicitly state it was a system of bonded servitude between people.

"i am for prohibiting capitalism but not controlled substances."
You are for allowing some voluntary practices, because they're "volutary" and "consentual", but you are for prohibiting some practices ever if they're "voluntary" and "consentual". That called inconsistency.Capitalism and controlled substances are very different, though. That is not inconsistent. I also never said I'm for anything that is "voluntary" and "consensual". You took what I was saying in the context of a discussion on pornography and sort of just acted like it was my entire world view.

So yeah, like I said, I'm against the prohibition of drugs because it simply doesn't work. It makes addiction more dangerous and places a massive stigma on people who suffer from addiction. It causes massive harm even when compared to the drugs themselves. Further, taking a drug is entirely a matter of bodily autonomy -- the person taking the drug is only administering the drug to themselves. They are not inflicting the drug onto anyone else. Slavery, capitalism, etc. etc. are entirely different in that they are about people subjugating other people, exploiting them for their time and labor and denying them to fruits of that time and labor.

It is literally apples and oranges.

fabian

8th June 2012, 18:22

When one says "Slavery" they are referring to a system of one person being in bonded servitude to another. Figuratively one can be a slave to a drug or something, sure, but actual systems of slavery and "slavery" to drugs are entirely different things.
Definition of "lack of freedom" being a genus proximum.

Capitalism and controlled substances are very different, though.
Grandmothers and ostriches are very different too, but when calling them bipedall, you're correct in regards to both. Capitalism and drugs are also very different, but by saying they are (/can be) voluntary, you're correct in regards to both.

urther, taking a drug is entirely a matter of bodily autonomy
So is working for someone.

If a drug dealer is not a poisoner because drug use is voluntary, capitalist is not a thief if employment is voluntary. If drugs should not be prohibited, neither should be capitalism.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 18:35

Definition of "lack of freedom" being a genus proximum.

I don't believe someone who is smokes marijuana lacks "freedom". I think you are doing more to restrict agency by prohibiting drugs.

Capitalism and drugs are also very different, but by saying they are (/can be) voluntary, you're correct in regards to both.Capitalism can not be voluntary, though -- it is, like all class society, based on force and coercion. But you're right that drug use might not always be voluntary -- once someone is addicted, it's a compulsion. However, criminalizing drugs does not help the addicted. It affects people afflicted with addiction negatively, makes it harder for them to get help, makes it difficult for them to even seek help, and, now, gives the state a reason to militarize its police force, which harms everyone.

So is working for someone.I think I explained several times now that people work for employers under capitalism because they will be impoverished otherwise.

If a drug dealer is not a poisoner because drug use is voluntary, capitalist is not a thief if employment is voluntary. If drugs should not be prohibited, neither should be capitalism.Employment is not voluntary. It is necessary unless one can make money to live off of the property they own. On the other hand, people can go their entire lives without even knowing a drug dealer when they see one. And further, as I said before, my problem with prohibition isn't that drug use is voluntary -- it is that prohibition has been nothing but a failure when it comes to stopping drug use and even more of a failure when it comes to helping people who are addicted. It makes life with addiction worse. It makes addiction deadlier. It gives the state an excuse to militarize their police, to harass people (and especially people of color), and is simply an all around failure in every single aspect.

Conscript

8th June 2012, 18:46

Why are we equating drug use and wage labor? Nobody is socially conditioned from birth to say drugs = means to livelihood, and nobody uses drugs to have access to society's wealth, labor on the other hand...

Drugs are a niche, labor as a commodity is not. People live on the selling of the latter, because modern society needs our system of socialized production. Thus it is no more a 'choice' than living as a human is.

The same can't be said of drugs. Also, this logic can be extended to whole number of use values, like TV and video games.

fabian

8th June 2012, 19:25

I think I explained several times now that people work for employers under capitalism because they will be impoverished otherwise.
Which makes working for someone convenient, not wrong.

I know a bunch of people, especially studend (both current and finished) of colledge of philosophy, that like working for someone, and support capitalism.

To illustrate, in a post-revolution non-capitalist society, drugs would be allowed, if you have the say, and in order to be consistent, it must also be allowed for people to work for someone else if they want to.

#FF0000

8th June 2012, 19:31

Which makes working for someone convenient, not wrong.

It's not only convenient, though. For billions, it is literally the only option.

To illustrate, in a post-revolution non-capitalist society, drugs would be allowed, if you have the say, and in order to be consistent, it must also be allowed for people to work for someone else if they want to.

Saying "yo I will bake you a cake if you clean my gutters for me" is the same as the employee-boss relationship under capitalism, though.

fabian

8th June 2012, 19:36

It's not only convenient, though. For billions, it is literally the only option.
It's not. You can always be self-sufficient, join a commune, be self-employed, work in a coop, or go illegalist.

Saying "yo I will bake you a cake if you clean my gutters for me"
How bout saying "I'll bake and clean for you if you pay me that-and-that"?

Revolution starts with U

8th June 2012, 20:06

Because I'm a rationalist, and you're incosistant, so me pointing that out to you is a natural consequence of our debating, until you change either your arguments or your views, or we stop talking to each other.

This is a sure sign of a person not interested at all in seeking truth, sure that beforehand they already have it.

You can always be self-sufficient,
All hunting land is already owned, and I would need a hunting license. So no, cannot be self-sufficient legally.

join a commune,
I'm still forced into joining it by the capitalist system. The only difference being that now I have to live like a hippie... which isn't my bag man.

be self-employed,
Self-employed people still work for others.

work in a coop,
Still forced into it by the capitalist system

or go illegalist.

Yup, could do that. But it would, of course, be illegal...

l'EnfermÃ©

8th June 2012, 20:43

Sports are a manifestation of capitalism? How can you even write that with a straight face? What about the various Panhellenic Sports Festivals of Ancient Greece(Olympic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games), Isthmian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmian_Games), Nemean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemean_Games), and Pythian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythian_Games)games) and the Panethenaic games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panathenaic_Games) in Athens? What about the various sports of Ancient Persia, Egypt and the sports of the various Native Americans in the American continents? Do these not only predate capitalism, but also feudalism?

homegrown terror

8th June 2012, 20:52

How do they reinforce capitalism? I don't profit from my opponent when I make a jump shot over him. I don't hire my opponent to lose to me. Capitalism isn't bad because "competition." Capitalism is bad because of inefficiency and exploitation.

particularly in the area of high school sport, they are used as a primer course to indoctrinate youth into the cult of obedience. "school spirit" and "team rivals" are a starter course for nationalism and origin based supremacy, as well as a focal point for "popularity," teaching teenagers that accomplishment and contribution don't matter unless they're with the "in crowd" which is usually the crowd most likely to come out in support of their school, an analog for the state and the corporations to which, as adults, they will apply these same feelings.

fabian

8th June 2012, 20:57

Sports are a manifestation of capitalism? How can you even write that with a straight face?
I'd say the question is how can you start being a wiseass without even reading what someone wrote, not to start about have you read trought the links that the mentioned someone (in this case me) posted.

What about the various Panhellenic Sports Festivals of Ancient Greece(Olympic, Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian games) and the Panethenaic games in Athens?
You didn't even have to read the link to get this, just my writing here- agon is not sports, agon was to slavery what chivarlic games were for feudalism and what sport is for capitalism. You can read Ljubodrag's elaboration in the essay Modern and ancient Olympism (http://www.scribd.com/doc/238001/Modern-and-ancient-olympism); if you don't want to read all of it, you can go directly to the chapter called Modern and ancient "Sport" on page 21 and read that.

---

Ljubograd Simonovic, who has as a young man twice received the title of the best basketball player of Europe, and played for Yugoslavia in the Olympics, and being that he aslo has Magister degree in law and a Doctorate in philosophy, that is- he's a well educated and well established philosopher, we could say he has a pretty much unique position and an intimate understanding of sport.

He has a lot to say about it in his books Rebellion of Robots, Sport-Capitalism-Destruction (translated into english with a title of Professionalism or Socialism), Philosophical Aspects of the Modern Olympism, The Olympic Deceit of The Divine Baron Pierre de Coubertin, and A New World is Possible.

I have already posted a link to some of the essays from these books that have been translated in english, here it is again:

LINK (http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/category/2-articles-in-english/)

And I have also posted to 2 videos of Ljubodrag talking which have english subtitles HERE (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2460149&postcount=6).

Jimmie Higgins

8th June 2012, 23:38

People like employment, if you don't then don't participate in it. Simple as that.
Be consistent.People enjoy sports for the activity itself. No telemarketer likes his job because he enjoys the activity of picking up a phone. People say they like their work, but they mean they don't mind it given that they have to make a wage... if people just enjoyed the work, then why don't we see weekend grocery bagging leagues or people who like to work on cars which they then give away once they've fixed them up.

It's consentual just like sports, pornography, alcoholism, drug use, etc. Therefore, according to you people here- there's nothing wrong with it.Nothing wrong with a consensual act or behavior, but there is something wrong with a system of compulsion which is what capitalism is.

But if wage slavery is "voluntary" and "consentual", then, of course, it is ok?If we are talking abstractions, sure. But if wage-slavery was voluntary, then capitalism as a system couldn't exist. This is why when we look at capitalism as it developed in history, not in the minds of philosophy sophomores, there were all sorts of laws and social measures taken to produce a working class population and to ensure that they needed to keep working. So first was the enclosure of common lands, then vagrancy laws, laws with labor being the punishment, immigration schemes, company towns, conscripted ship labor, etc.

So, slavery to heroin can be "voluntary" but slavery to a person can't? Why?Because an addict who decides that they don't like this arrangement can seek treatment without his dealer having politicians change the laws so that the poor white farmers hired by the dealer to hunt down the ex-drug addict without interference.

Tim Cornelis

8th June 2012, 23:49

When I lose in sports, I am annoyed.
When I lose in the market economy, I'm reduced to poverty.

Competition in sports does not risk your livelihood, competition in the economy does. We oppose markets not because of competition an sich/per se/in itself. One of the reasons I oppose competitive markets is because it makes profits take precedence over human needs. This is not the case with sports.

You can't seriously compare the two.

fabian

10th June 2012, 10:39

One of the reasons I oppose competitive markets is because it makes profits take precedence over human needs.
Market functions on supply and demand. Demand. Which means you cant sell something if people don't need/want it. Market is a mechanism of freely distributing commodities produced for use (of someone who buys it).

You can't seriously compare the two.
Read something, don't just blabber.

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/category/2-articles-in-english/

Omsk

10th June 2012, 10:48

Duci went a little crazy, don't you know that?

Jimmie Higgins

10th June 2012, 11:29

Read something, don't just blabber.

Like this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vOpPG9nHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Sports-United-States/dp/1595581006)
Or this...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a-8b-w2nL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Sports-Resistance-United-States/dp/1931859205/ref=pd_sim_b_1/179-8270372-0080346)
Or this:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41j3hOvoLeL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/The-John-Carlos-Story-Changed/dp/1608461270/ref=pd_sim_b_2/179-8270372-0080346)
Or watch a video like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4170596434502568399

RedCloud

10th June 2012, 11:37

I agree that modern competitive sporting events reinforce Capitalism, but they have very old origins and are thus not a manifestation of Capitalism.

What Zav said.

Playing sports does not necessarily mean you are endorsing or backing capitalism.

Organizations such as the NFL, NHL, Nascar, and so many others are. They all have sponsors (that no one really pays attention to) that they pay to advertise on people's gear and with their teams and stuff... But that does not mean that all sports are necessarily a "manifestation of capitalism", as not all sports are attached to such capitalist sports organizations.

fabian

10th June 2012, 12:39

Duci went a little crazy, don't you know that?
Duci is pretty much the greatest leftist philosopher of our time, epitome of rationality and consistency, of breadth and depth of leftist (liberty oriented) philosophical thought.

Like this:
Rebellion of Robots, Sport-Capitalism-Destruction (translated into english with a title of Professionalism or Socialism), Philosophical Aspects of the Modern Olympism, The Olympic Deceit of The Divine Baron Pierre de Coubertin, and A New World is Possible.

Found a interview with Ljubodrag in english:

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/healthy-lifestyle-professional-sport-from-behind-the-scenes/

Also a movie "Olympic flame"

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/olympic-flame/

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th June 2012, 15:20

Market functions on supply and demand. Demand. Which means you cant sell something if people don't need/want it. Market is a mechanism of freely distributing commodities produced for use (of someone who buys it).

"Demand" can be artificially created. Nobody wants seven different brands of toaster with exactly the same features, but because toaster-makers have to compete in a market, you end up with this wasteful duplication of effort which no benefit to the consumer, but plenty of benefit to the toaster-makers because they can hire marketing departments to baffle people with bullshit.

Another example, people in general may demand foods with more gustatory value than nutritional value (i.e. junk foods and snacks), but they did this well before mass industrialised agriculture enabled international conglomerates to produce mountains of branded crap at low cost.

Further, the corporations themselves can lobby the government for subsidies, which reduces their operating costs and allows them to sell more product. In such a scenario, are people really "demanding" more unhealthy snack food, or are they simply buying it because it's cheaper/more available and quicker due to their overworked lifestyles?

You seem to forget that there are many factors other than "supply & demand" which have an effect on markets.

fabian

10th June 2012, 17:20

You're describing capitalism, not markets. Markets can be not only non-capitalist, but anti-capitalist. Anyways, that's not the topic, sport is.

Omsk

10th June 2012, 17:31

Duci is pretty much the greatest leftist philosopher of our time, epitome of rationality and consistency, of breadth and depth of leftist (liberty oriented) philosophical thought.

Nah he spends his time dealing with zeitgeist and things like that, and is in a world of conspiracy theories.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th June 2012, 17:41

You're describing capitalism, not markets. Markets can be not only non-capitalist, but anti-capitalist.

What's to stop companies from having marketing departments and doing all the things I described?

Anyways, that's not the topic, sport is.

Don't try to change away from a subject that you brought up and don't have the intellectual fortitude to face up to.

It makes you look like a evasive shit.

fabian

10th June 2012, 18:41

What's to stop companies from having marketing departments and doing all the things I described?
Socialist law. By the state or (in an anarchy) community.

Don't try to change away from a subject
If you want to aske me something, spam is not the only option, there exists a thing called "private message". Which will be answered only if it contains an apology for rudeness.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th June 2012, 18:51

Socialist law. By the state or (in an anarchy) community.

If certain practices give an advantage in a market, then they will occur in that market regardless of what the law is, or what community standards are. Because the companies that abide by the law will fall by the wayside while those who are good at hiding their lawbreaking will go on to be successful.

If you want to aske me something, spam is not the only option, there exists a thing called "private message".

It wasn't spam. Subjects within a thread do drift onto related topics, and that is allowed on this forum as far as I can tell.

Which will be answered only if it contains an apology for rudeness.

Firstly, "rudeness" is not an excuse for not answering a valid question. Doing that makes you guilty of engaging in the style over substance fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy).

Secondly, I will not be apologising for my use of language. If the use of one expletive gives you the vapours then I seriously wonder how you manage to get through a single day without falling on the fainting couch.

fabian

10th June 2012, 19:01

Nah he spends his time dealing with zeitgeist and things like that, and is in a world of conspiracy theories.
A really nice essay "Zeitgeist Fascism" by him on the pitfalls in the fundaments of the Zeitgeist movement ideas- technological utopianism instead of humanism/humanitarianism, techocracy instead of democracy and similar. I doubt you even read it. Never mind, as I said- the topic is sports.

MGP

10th June 2012, 21:55

Competition in sports isn't something exclusive to it. It's just usual human behavior, under certain circumstances, that is reflected in many other places beside sport. While competition is in some cases needles and even counter-productive to communist goals, it isn't something that is by its definition wrong or harmful to working class people.

Revolution starts with U

10th June 2012, 23:48

What about hackey sack? Is that a sport, or a game and/or what's the difference?

Ok, if we can play hackey sack... what about red dot? Or Predator? One involves hitting people with the sack for breaking the rules (sounds about like you Fabian). The other involves trying to get 3 kicks and on the 3rd kick you try to slap the sack at someone, if it hits them they're out (or catch it, you're out).

Can we play those, or will you beat us with sticks for it?

fabian

17th June 2012, 16:51

While competition is in some cases needles and even counter-productive to communist goals, it isn't something that is by its definition wrong or harmful to working class people.
It's bad in some cases, but not in others. That's called "inconsistency", look it up.

Jimmie Higgins

18th June 2012, 13:22

It's bad in some cases, but not in others. That's called "inconsistency", look it up.Or it's called "context", look it up. You know, for example, like how someone can say "that's a bad motorcycle you have" or "These old breaks in your motorcycle are bad".

Hit The North

18th June 2012, 13:39

Sport is a seriously civilised invention and will be developed to the full under socialism. Sport allows a relatively safe and peaceful arena for human beings to assert themselves, to be aggressive against others, to develop their physical and mental skills in a form of combat. Sport therefore allows us to exercise our animal instincts in a way that is not harmful for society. In fact, because we will be doing away with the anarchy of competition in the economic sphere, sport will become even more important under socialism.

What we'd expect to see under socialism is the disappearance of sport as a commodified spectator activity and towards it being a more open and equally distributed opportunity among the population than it is under capitalism.

fabian

18th June 2012, 14:10

Hit The North

18th June 2012, 14:24

^^^ But, of course, sport and its arenas existed in ancient Greece and Rome and neither of these two civilizations were capitalist.

So sporting endeavor between humans pre-exists the capitalist mode of production but is then, like everything else, shaped decisively by capital.

And, as we know, money is the religion of capitalism, not sport.

Jimmie Higgins

18th June 2012, 14:33

"The modern stadium appeared along with the modern industrial proletariat, at the time when workers managed to obtain the eight-hour working day – when the bourgeoisie endeavoured to “colonize the leisure time” of workers and thus prevent their political organization and integrate them into the ruling order. Stadiums are not designed for “cultural education” of the oppressed, but for their “pacification” (depolitization) and idiocy. “Sport is the cheapest spiritual food for the (working) masses that keeps them under control.” – this is the most accurate sociological (political) definition of sport reached, after the First World War and the then revolutionary movements in Europe, by the “father” of modern Olympism Pierre de Coubertin. Sport is becoming a way of destroying the class consciousness and shifting the fight from the political to the sports arena. Stadiums are not the temples of culture but bonfires for burning out the discontent of the oppressed. This is what determines their appearance: stadiums are modern concentration camps for people deprived of their civil and human rights. Everywhere in the capitalist world, where people are becoming increasingly poor, and fewer and fewer people are becoming rich, we have the same picture: wire fences, special police forces, trained dogs… A match is an occasion for giving vent for a man increasingly deprived of his rights, and it does not reflect human “evil” but suffering and despair. Sports spectacles are a way of turning the critical and change-oriented potentials of the people deprived of their rights into aggression directed towards the so called “opponents”, who belong to the same class of the oppressed, and a way of provoking a war between them.This is the basis on which supporting groups are formed: instead of turning their discontent towards the ruling order, young people turn it towards other supporting groups, who are also the victims of an inhuman order."

Sport is the religion of capitalism:

http://theageofnepotism.com/2010/07/sport-as-the-religion-of-capitalism-an-interview-with-ljubodrag-simonovic/

:rolleyes: Elitists have complained about everything from the music hall to sports to television for most of the modern era. While liberal elitists complain that these things degrade the moral character of the working class, Leftist elitists often claim these things cause people to identify with the rich (Oh, those millionaire actors as heroes!) or passifly the masses. Guess what, class struggle ebbs and flows independently of the existence of mass popular entertainment.

Oh and football ultras organized to fight the police during the Egyptian protests. Oh and when things radicalize in general society, it's often reflected in popular sports such as challenges to racism in the US, challenges to sexual segregation in sports during the feminist movement, etc.

Socialism = Down with capitalism, up with revolution from below - control of production and our own lives and more free-time, to do what we will, all around. That means people can use their own free-time to play video games, sport, music, do drugs or masturbate for all I care.

fabian

18th June 2012, 15:11

But, of course, sport and its arenas existed in ancient Greece and Rome
It didn't. Agon is to slavery as chivalric games are to feudalism as sport is to capitalism, a manifestation of the mindset of the rulling class. Read chapter called Modern and ancient "Sport" starting on page 21 of the essay Modern and ancient Olympism (http://www.scribd.com/doc/238001/Modern-and-ancient-olympism).

Guess what, class struggle ebbs and flows independently of the existence of mass popular entertainment.
Yeah, that's why we have overthrown capitalism. Oh, no, sorry.
Yeah, that's why class consciousness is so high we're gonna overthrow capitalism very soon. Oh, sorry, that's not true either.
Yeah, that's why the bulk of working classes are supportive of the leftism. Oh, that neither. Well, bummer.

Hit The North

18th June 2012, 15:39

It didn't. Agon is to slavery as chivalric games are to feudalism as sport is to capitalism, a manifestation of the mindset of the rulling class. Read chapter called Modern and ancient "Sport" starting on page 21 of the essay Modern and ancient Olympism (http://www.scribd.com/doc/238001/Modern-and-ancient-olympism).

I only have time to skim, but it seems to me that 'agon', 'chivalric games' and 'sport' refer to the same generic competitive leisure activities but attenuated by the relations of production in which they take place. So no one's denied that 'sport' is shaped by capitalism, the beef is with your contention that 'competitive leisure activities' are intrinsically capitalist. You don't actually seem too concerned with the institutional forms sport takes, you just want to present it as ideology ("the mindset of the ruling class", as you put it) and you boil the essentails of that ideology down to some abstract notion of "competetiveness" which becomes the symbol, the proxy, for capitalist domination.

Others have argued with you from two positions. Firstly that competition does not necessarily lead to or is the result of class domination. Secondly that you ignore the context in which these relations are played out and that context is class struggle - not merely class domination, but also sometimes it is class resistance.

You seem reluctant to embrace this appeal for subtlety in your thinking, comrade.

fabian

18th June 2012, 16:45

If you don't get to know (read about) something before talking about it, that talk is just blabber and bullshit. And if you're not intrested enogh in the topic to read something about it, go be a wiseass about something else.

Read that chapter I mentioned, and you could read the interview I posted a link to in the #63 msg, too, to get a more general perspective.

#FF0000

18th June 2012, 17:10

Yeah, that's why we have overthrown capitalism. Oh, no, sorry.
Yeah, that's why class consciousness is so high we're gonna overthrow capitalism very soon. Oh, sorry, that's not true either.
Yeah, that's why the bulk of working classes are supportive of the leftism. Oh, that neither. Well, bummer.

and thats because sports lol.

the biggest roadblock to this dumb baby theory is that you have a bunch of ultras that are hella left-wing and radical.

And even if you are right, what, uh, are you supposed to do about that? Tell people not to watch sports?

fabian

18th June 2012, 19:28

and thats because sports
"mass popular entertainment." Of which sports is a big part.

the biggest roadblock to this dumb baby theory is that you have a bunch of ultras that are hella left-wing and radical.
And they do what? Watch soccer? Wow. What revolutionary success. Fight with other fans? That too.

what, uh, are you supposed to do about that? Tell people not to watch sports?
Educate people (by example and word). Firstly about values (like justice, solidarity, being humane); secondly about why capitalism is evil (wage slavery, hiercarchy, predatory behaviour) and what's the alternative; thirdly- about the mechanisms of dividing, pacification, and idiotization of masses (like nationalisms, anti-work mentality, sports, promisquity, drugs); and fourthly- about ways of moving towards freedom.

#FF0000

18th June 2012, 21:28

"mass popular entertainment." Of which sports is a big part.

I don't think one can make a very strong case for mass popular entertainment = lack of class consciousness or whatever.

And they do what? Watch soccer? Wow. What revolutionary success. Fight with other fans? That too.

Watch soccer, fight other fans, and get involved with political causes.

the alternative; thirdly- about the mechanisms of dividing, pacification, and idiotization of masses (like nationalisms, anti-work mentality, sports, promisquity, drugs)

I'm all about the anti-work mentality, though. Sports ain't got nothing on the protestant work ethic when it comes to pacifying the masses, dogg.

fabian

19th June 2012, 12:55

I'm all about the anti-work mentality, though.
No surprise, along with your support for sports, and I'm pretty sure other capitalist mechanisms of idiotization of working people (like drugs, alcohol, promisquity etc). Your a leftist only by name, and in your illusions, because you have a capitalist mindset.

Anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons why so many workers support and tolerate capitalism. When you approach such workers they're like "Abolish capitalism? Why? I'm gonna save up, start my own business and be a capitalist myself". Kids are raised by workers into capitalist mentality- "Learn baby, so you can finish a colledge and you don't have to work and toil like us". People need to get in their thick skulls that the only way to live and not work is to live off someone else's work, and that parasitism is bad.

Igor

19th June 2012, 13:03

and I'm pretty sure other capitalist mechanisms of idiotization of working people (like drugs, alcohol, promisquity etc)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/customavatars/avatar62934_2.gif

Anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons why so many workers support and tolerate capitalism. When you approach such workers they're like "Abolish capitalism? Why? I'm gonna save up, start my own business and be a capitalist myself".

I'd hate to pander to the whole mythos around "self-made men" and "job creators" but still, I don't think starting a business is the first thing people who generally dislike work usually do. And if you think so, I think your idea of what starting a business from the scratch involves is kind of blurry.

fabian

19th June 2012, 13:15

It was just an example, the point is that anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons of workers support and tolerance of capitalism because of the illusion that they, or their children will be capitalist and thus not have to work (so much).

BTW, Star Trek, with a small detail in the show- of black people in space ships and thus (as recognized by Luther King) spreading the idea of racial equality (along with the shows all present attacks on any discrimination, slavery and war) has done so much more then all the "leftist" ultras around, who, if they have done anything, have alienated sport watching people from the left because of their hooliganism (similarly as the propaganda of the deed has done earlier), as oppossed to educating people and moving them towards the leftist values.

Jimmie Higgins

19th June 2012, 14:20

BTW, Star Trek, with a small detail in the show- of black people in space ships and thus (as recognized by Luther King) spreading the idea of racial equality (along with the shows all present attacks on any discrimination, slavery and war) has done so much more then all the "leftist" ultras around, who, if they have done anything, have alienated sport watching people from the left because of their hooliganism (similarly as the propaganda of the deed has done earlier), as oppossed to educating people and moving them towards the leftist values.

I'm sure someone else could easily argue that sci-fi and fan culture are essentially the same as football fandom. All that time devoted to studying the plots and dressing up like members of a fantasy utopia instead of using that energy to build a real one! Bah - people teach themselves Klingon, but not about the workings of capital!

You are confusing your personal cultural preferences for political stances.

It was just an example, the point is that anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons of workers support and tolerance of capitalism because of the illusion that they, or their children will be capitalist and thus not have to work (so much).People don't like working as a wage-worker because they are alienated from their efforts. People will spend lots of time and effort on their personal hobbies such as community sports or dressing as a TV alien for Comic-Con because that labor is unalienated and fulfilling.

Hit The North

19th June 2012, 14:54

You are confusing your personal cultural preferences for political stances.

He certainly is! With the Spock persona and hatred of sports, I have a feeling that fabian has been on the wrong side of some jock-bullying.

He also ignores the positive aspects of sport - it promotes hard work, self-discipline, team-working, solidarity and equality alongside its more negative outcomes. In short, like many things in capitalist society it is contradictory.

No surprise, along with your support for sports, and I'm pretty sure other capitalist mechanisms of idiotization of working people (like drugs, alcohol, promisquity etc). Your a leftist only by name, and in your illusions, because you have a capitalist mindset.

My goodness. Are you 'straightedge'? You certainly appear quite prudish. If your revolution entails the abolition of pleasurable distraction, I want no part of it.

Anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons why so many workers support and tolerate capitalism.

If workers are anti-work it is because work under capitalism is dehumanising. And it is capitalists and dictators who push the 'dignity' of wage-labour, not revolutionaries.

When you approach such workers they're like "Abolish capitalism? Why? I'm gonna save up, start my own business and be a capitalist myself".

I'd like to see your research in this area. But I get the impression that when "such workers" are approached by you, they think, "OMG who is this earnest and pretentious treckie geek?" But really I think it is unlikley that you ever approach "such workers" such is your lack of undersatnding of them.

Kids are raised by workers into capitalist mentality- "Learn baby, so you can finish a colledge and you don't have to work and toil like us".

So now education is bad and part of the "capitalist mindset"?

I'm getting a good picture of your future utopia: one where we are denied an education, forced to work, tied into strict sexual morality and denounced for drinking and smoking drugs to briefly escape the hell you have created for us!

You might think you're a revolutionary, but you sound like the perfect Nineteenth Century bourgeois.

Revolution starts with U

19th June 2012, 17:11

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th June 2012, 19:48

BTW, Star Trek, with a small detail in the show- of black people in space ships and thus (as recognized by Luther King) spreading the idea of racial equality (along with the shows all present attacks on any discrimination, slavery and war)

No. This is what I would call a textbook example of "idealism" right here, comrades. That the original Star Trek series was able to portray black people as members of the bridge crew of a starship was because the material conditions of the 1960s made it possible, not the other way around.

has done so much more then all the "leftist" ultras around, who, if they have done anything, have alienated sport watching people from the left because of their hooliganism (similarly as the propaganda of the deed has done earlier), as oppossed to educating people and moving them towards the leftist values.

What about those kids who had no interest in science fiction at all, but who have an interest in football and get exposure to leftism through the ultras? Had things been your way, they would never have discovered anything.

fabian

19th June 2012, 22:14

All that time devoted to studying the plots and dressing up like members of a fantasy utopia
Those guys are idiots, yes, just as the football fan idiots with their teams and players and jerseys. And betting yeah. And emotinal outbrakes. And hooliganism (the last three are not a part of trekkie behaviour).

You are confusing your personal cultural preferences for political stances.
You are in delusion that you can accept capitalist lifestyle and mindset and be an anti-capitalist.

Are you 'straightedge'? You certainly appear quite prudish.
Yes I am. Yes I am.

If your revolution entails the abolition of pleasurable distraction, I want no part of it.
Any revolution that doesn't will not succed. People consumed by socially degenerate behaviour cannot change anything, let alone participate in a revolution.

A bunch of Esers and the early bolshevik were streightedge ascetics who lifted weights and practiced shooting along with agitating (inspired by Rakhmetov from "What is to be done"). Before them, the majority of communards were ascetics, as recorded by Louise Michel about the occasion when they rejected prostitutes applying to be medics, because they were "impure", and Louise herself being a vegetarian ultra-ascetic. Anarchists in Spain, too. You think alcohol and drugs are banned in Zapatista territory only because of economic resons? One of the few things I agree with Marx is his characterisation of people who practice socially degerate behavior as not only of no use, but as an impeditent to the revolution.

Besides disciplied life as a norm being necessary for carying out a successfull revolution, such lifestyle must continue afterwards, otherwise everything will erode and collapse by decadence.

I'd like to see your research in this area.
Personal research. I agitate when I have the chance. I have worked in more then 40 (mostly blue collar) jobs since beggining to work, and I have talked to bunch of people in all of them about capitalism and wage-slavery and similar topics, and also talked to a lot of people when hanging out somewhere and political subjects are touched upon. The view I mentioned in not at all uncommon.

So now education is bad
Wow, this isn't even a straw-man, this is a straw-giant. But if you consider spreading anti-work mentality among the youth education, then yes, "education" is bad.

No. This is what I would call a textbook example of "idealism" right here, comrades.
Which is a good thing.

That the original Star Trek series was able to portray black people as members of the bridge crew of a starship was because the material conditions of the 1960s made it possible, not the other way around.
Yes, the other way around. Materialistic historical and social determinism is a dogma, and a dangerous one. False communists, who are in reality state capitalist, destroyed the two communist societies that emerged in Europe- in Ukraine and in Spain, because of their belief in idiotic ideas. Just another proof that irrationalism is dangerous to people's lives, not just their minds.

Had things been your way, they would never have discovered anything.
Because football is the only way to descover anything. Stop blabbering.

...

The point is- you can't just blabber about some "socialism" and "communism" and how "fascist are bad", and "we should legalize drugs (and murder \m/)", that's all just plain pointless. We have to life values in order to spread them, and when they are spread - we have to be prepared to revolt against evil, not be idiots brain-washed by capitalist entertainment (being fans of something), getting drunk, shooting dope and asking for treatment of hepatitis alphabet.

As Nechaev said: There exists only one pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one satisfaction - the success of the Revolution

revolt

19th June 2012, 22:25

how are sports a manifestation of capitalism?

fabian

19th June 2012, 22:29

how are sports a manifestation of capitalism?
You have a lot on that topic here:

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/category/2-articles-in-english/

To get a general idea, read this interview:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://theageofnepotism.com/2010/07/sport-as-the-religion-of-capitalism-an-interview-with-ljubodrag-simonovic/

Jimmie Higgins

20th June 2012, 04:29

He also ignores the positive aspects of sport - it promotes hard work, self-discipline, team-working, solidarity and equality alongside its more negative outcomes. In short, like many things in capitalist society it is contradictory.

Comrade shoots... and scores!

Of course it is correct to argue that organized sports as we know them have been shaped by class society from slave societies to today. Most contemporary versions of sports come from industrial society; there are also class divisions in sports, racism, sexism etc.

Nothing that develops in capitalism is truly autonomous from the social context of the system and so capitalist ruling ideology or forms of organizing or whatnot are generally present.

But it is not necessarily so - the thing that fabian can't show (because it's not true) is how organized play is inherently reactionary. So instead we get a lot of circumstantial evidence. He cites Holliganism, but this phenomenon isn't the same level in all places - in fact it doesn't really exist to a meaningful level in the US. US "hooliganism" organizes just organizes itself around street-gang turf or other pastimes like motorcycle biking or car culture (side-shows, cruses etc). Is riding a motorcycle an opposing ideology?

But again the negative aspects of sports in capitalism are the result not of sports but of being in this system where the "ruling ideas are the ideas of our rulers". Sports didn't create racial or gender segregation, these things existed already and so were REFLECTED in the way modern sports developed. But the thing is, another aspect of the system is also present in sports: class struggle. People fought back against restricted access for the porr, racial segregation and even gender segregation in sports at different points - even successfully defeating official racial segregation in sports for example.

So it's not inherent - sports can be liberated when workers liberate themselves - the same with all entertainment and passtimes and, of course, the way industrial production itself is organized and accomplished.

If your revolution entails the abolition of pleasurable distraction, I want no part of it.I agree.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th June 2012, 06:01

Which is a good thing.

No it isn't, because ideas do not exist except as abstractions. They are generated by humans who form part of a comprehensible material universe.

Yes, the other way around. Materialistic historical and social determinism is a dogma, and a dangerous one. False communists, who are in reality state capitalist, destroyed the two communist societies that emerged in Europe- in Ukraine and in Spain, because of their belief in idiotic ideas.

So it had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet ruling classes had no interest in establishing a communist society?

Just another proof that irrationalism is dangerous to people's lives, not just their minds.

No, it shows the importance of smashing the class system.

Because football is the only way to descover anything. Stop blabbering.

I never said that. For someone who purports to value logic, you seem to be all too ready to strawman my argument. That's your response to my pointing out a potential positive in an interest in sport?

...

The point is- you can't just blabber about some "socialism" and "communism" and how "fascist are bad", and "we should legalize drugs (and murder \m/)", that's all just plain pointless.

I'm pretty sure the people advocating the legalisation of murder, if there have been any, are either being sarcastic or trolling.

There are good arguments for legalising drugs. Think of the black market as being the apotheosis of the free market - there are no regulations, to the point where even murder is useful as a tool of business.

We have to life values in order to spread them, and when they are spread - we have to be prepared to revolt against evil, not be idiots brain-washed by capitalist entertainment (being fans of something), getting drunk, shooting dope and asking for treatment of hepatitis alphabet.

And I don't lecture others on how to run their lives. If they want help, then they should get it. The best way to make sure that people avoid self-destructive behaviour is to make sure they have the opportunity to lead fulfilling lives. This means, in short, empowering people as opposed to patronising them.

As Nechaev said: There exists only one pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one satisfaction - the success of the Revolution

I don't want to be a slave to anyone or anything, least of all to "the Revolution".

fabian

20th June 2012, 09:49

So it had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet ruling classes had no interest in establishing a communist society?
They wantet to establish communism, but they were deluded by the mentioned dogma into thinking it must be done by firstly instituting state capitalism. Its because they were believers, and not thinkers.

I never said that.
You mention logic but you don't see what logically follows from your own words.
"have an interest in football and get exposure to leftism through the ultras? Had things been your way, they would never have discovered anything."
So if there were no football he would "never have discovered anything"- which mean you pressupose that the only way to discover anything is through football.

I'm pretty sure the people advocating the legalisation of murder, if there have been any, are either being sarcastic or trolling.
It was a reference to the song "legalize drugs and murder" (electric wizard; that's why the "\m/") and also a hint to the meaninglessness of argument for legalizing drugs, a bulk of which can be applied to argue for decriminalization/legalization of murder.

And I don't lecture others on how to run their lives
Yes you do. Opposition to capitalism is in itself paternalism. By talking against capitalism we all talk about ethics (well except marxist dogmatics like "nihilist communists" who are plain worse-that-calvinist determinists), the difference between me and the likes of you being that you have accepted capitalist decadent lifestyle and mindset and think there is some magical line separating politics and economy from "personal ethics". Ethics is ethics. Capitalism is bad, and shooting dope is also bad; saying one is bad, and the other is "just a choice someone makes in their life" is called making exuses for your inconsistent thinking and living.

I don't want to be a slave to anyone or anything
Then why are a slave to emotions? To lazyness? To superstitions (like marxist dogma)? To capitalist values (of moral decadence)? Freedom is to control yourself by the power of will and to accept opinions by truely reasoning, because to be ruled by lowly impulses and deception of oppressors is also slavery.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st June 2012, 03:38

They wantet to establish communism, but they were deluded by the mentioned dogma into thinking it must be done by firstly instituting state capitalism. Its because they were believers, and not thinkers.

State capitalism isn't a necessary part of materialism. I'm a materialist, and I'm against it.

You mention logic but you don't see what logically follows from your own words.
"have an interest in football and get exposure to leftism through the ultras? Had things been your way, they would never have discovered anything."
So if there were no football he would "never have discovered anything"- which mean you pressupose that the only way to discover anything is through football.

OK, so this hypothetical person may have discovered political activism through other means. But why close off that opportunity?

It was a reference to the song "legalize drugs and murder" (electric wizard; that's why the "\m/") and also a hint to the meaninglessness of argument for legalizing drugs, a bulk of which can be applied to argue for decriminalization/legalization of murder.

The consequences of smoking a joint and stabbing someone to death are vastly different. Are you really this dense?

Yes you do. Opposition to capitalism is in itself paternalism. By talking against capitalism we all talk about ethics (well except marxist dogmatics like "nihilist communists" who are plain worse-that-calvinist determinists), the difference between me and the likes of you being that you have accepted capitalist decadent lifestyle and mindset and think there is some magical line separating politics and economy from "personal ethics". Ethics is ethics.

Yes, and my political ethics include a respect for the autonomy of others. Somebody sitting at home smoking a joint is neither hurting me nor limiting my autonomy. Somebody stabbing me on the other hand is both hurting me and infringing on my autonomy, since I don't want to be violently murdered.

Capitalism is bad, and shooting dope is also bad; saying one is bad, and the other is "just a choice someone makes in their life" is called making exuses for your inconsistent thinking and living.

When I smoke a joint, the only person I'm hurting is myself. I'm fine with that. Since I'm not hurting anyone else, or otherwise interfering with their autonomy, I don't see the problem.

Capitalism, on the other hand, hurts billions of people daily, and limits the autonomy of even those among the ruling classes.

Then why are a slave to emotions?

You mean to say that because I like good emotions over bad? That's not being a slave, that's being in control.

To lazyness?

I don't follow.

To superstitions (like marxist dogma)?

Materialism isn't just for Marxists you know.

To capitalist values (of moral decadence)?

Pleasures and emotion pre-date capitalism.

Freedom is to control yourself by the power of will and to accept opinions by truely reasoning, because to be ruled by lowly impulses and deception of oppressors is also slavery.

Those "lowly impulses" are part of our common evolutionary heritage. Trying to stamp them out the way you seem to recommend will almost certainly end in tears, to say the least.

fabian

21st June 2012, 11:18

State capitalism isn't a necessary part of materialism. I'm a materialist, and I'm against it.
It is a part of marxism. Communist manifesto advocates banking, communications, transportation, factories and land in ownership of the "State" (with capital s) and that's called state capitalism.

But why close off that opportunity?
Because it's a capitalist tool. It's like trying to spread leftism on nationalist rallies and meetings. Both are something like trying to spread chastity through porn.

The consequences of smoking a joint and stabbing someone to death are vastly different.
Getting drunk correlates with violence, as does drug use.

Yes, and my political ethics include a respect for the autonomy of others.
Which means either 1. if you don't approve of people using their autonomy for selling themselves into (wage) slavery- you are incosistent; or 2. if you approve of people using their autonomy for sellin themselves into (wage) slavery- you're not a leftist.

The principle of "having the freedom to relinquish you freedom" is not a leftist one, it's an idiotic one.

When I smoke a joint, the only person I'm hurting is myself. I'm fine with that.
I'm not fine with that. I don't want drunk and druged people eg. driving cars or operating dangerous machinery around me. Or being around my children with their lack of inhibitions for sexuality, bullying and violence.

leasures and emotion pre-date capitalism.
Decadence has always been the lifestyle of the rulling/ opressive/ parasitic class, and they have always used it to subdue the oppressed toiling people. Maybe you've heard of the term "panem et circenses".

Revolution starts with U

21st June 2012, 11:26

In response to

leasures and emotion pre-date capitalism.
Fabian says:

Decadence has always been the lifestyle of the rulling/ opressive/ parasitic class, and they have always used it to subdue the oppressed toiling people. Maybe you've heard of the term "panem et circenses".

So what ruling class was it that oppressed those leisurely and decadent hunter gatherers?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st June 2012, 13:09

It is a part of marxism. Communist manifesto advocates banking, communications, transportation, factories and land in ownership of the "State" (with capital s) and that's called state capitalism.

I believe it was the dictatorship of the proletariat, actually. There is contention among Marxists as to what that amounts to. As someone who recognises the benefits to myself and to others of an egalitarian society, I'd say that given what history in the past century or so has taught us, if there is to be a dictatorship of the proletariat it must be a dictatorship of the proletariat as a class, not any specific individual or organisation.

Because it's a capitalist tool. It's like trying to spread leftism on nationalist rallies and meetings. Both are something like trying to spread chastity through porn.

So what's the plan? Tell everyone that football sucks? Good luck, you'll need it! Even without capitalism, people will still play it.

Getting drunk correlates with violence, as does drug use.

First, establish that such a correlation actually exists. Secondly, you'll need to establish drink/drugs as a primary causative factor. For example, I'd love to see you try and prove that cannabis smoking leads to violence.

Which means either 1. if you don't approve of people using their autonomy for selling themselves into (wage) slavery- you are incosistent; or 2. if you approve of people using their autonomy for sellin themselves into (wage) slavery- you're not a leftist.

People don't choose to go into wage slavery. It's that or destitution for the vast majority of folks. We've been over this before.

The principle of "having the freedom to relinquish you freedom" is not a leftist one, it's an idiotic one.

Which is why market socialism is a crock of shit, right?

I'm not fine with that. I don't want drunk and druged people eg. driving cars or operating dangerous machinery around me.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be penalties for driving or operating machinery while drunk or high, or that such behaviour shouldn't be subject to social disapproval. But what if you're not driving or operating heavy machinery?

Or being around my children with their lack of inhibitions for sexuality, bullying and violence.

"Reefer Madness" is laughed at for a good reason, you know. Frankly, I'm disgusted that you have such a low opinion of people who drink or take drugs. They're not all alcoholics or strung-out wrecks, and if we had a saner policy on drugs it would be a lot easier to help people and educate them so they can stay out of trouble even if they do use drugs.

Decadence has always been the lifestyle of the rulling/ opressive/ parasitic class, and they have always used it to subdue the oppressed toiling people. Maybe you've heard of the term "panem et circenses".

If I can't dance, it ain't my revolution.

So what ruling class was it that oppressed those leisurely and decadent hunter gatherers?

I bet those lazy fuckers played sports and games as well! :lol:

Jimmie Higgins

21st June 2012, 13:41

Because it's a capitalist tool. It's like trying to spread leftism on nationalist rallies and meetings. Both are something like trying to spread chastity through porn.Factories and bridges are capitalist tools - they aren't inherently exploitative though, they can be liberated. When people liberate the means of production they will also liberate the means of cultural production and make mass entertainment and sports their own.

Which means either 1. if you don't approve of people using their autonomy for selling themselves into (wage) slavery- you are incosistent; or 2. if you approve of people using their autonomy for sellin themselves into (wage) slavery- you're not a leftist.:rolleyes: If wage-labor was just an autonomous choice, then there'd be no problem. The problem is it's a system of exploitation. This is why it's not analogous to someone choosing to do drugs or becoming dependant on a substance even; it's not the same a people choosing to be part of a weekend football team; it's not anlogous to someone with a sexual fetish choosing to be a "slave" and clean the house of their mistress in some sex-game. Now if we had a society based on leather-clad domestic slaves, then it'd not be an "autonomous choice".

The principle of "having the freedom to relinquish you freedom" is not a leftist one, it's an idiotic one.But "freedom to adhere to my moral standards and tastes" is a leftist principle - and not idiotic?

I'm not fine with that. I don't want drunk and druged people eg. driving cars or operating dangerous machinery around me. Or being around my children with their lack of inhibitions for sexuality, bullying and violence. You might as well argue for the abolition of cars because they are sometimes used dangerously: I don't want people speeding when I'm on the road with my family!

No amount of prohibition is going to stop many people from indulging and a few of them over-doing it. Even in US prisons you can get drugs and cell-made alcohol, so it's just something people are going to have to deal with. I think it will be a lot easier to deal with when people have more fulfilling lives and aren't stressed, demoralized, and alienated all the time: slamming down drinks all at once on Friday nights to make the most of their 2-day break from labor.

So given that many people enjoy drinking and doing recreational drugs, there are much better ways to mitigate some of the ill-effects. If drunk-driving is an issue, why not have recreational facilities, bars, concert venues, etc located in the center of population hubs so that people can easily walk... or have public transportation?

Even with the massive police force of the US and alcohol driving check-points, there's no real decline in drunk-driving in the US. In part this is because of suburbanization and that entertainment centers and bars are generally far away from neighborhoods and there's little public transportation in places like California. So if we're talking about prohibition in a post-capitalist society, really we'd have to have a police force at least as big as they have now to try and patrol everyone.

I think it makes much more sense to just bring issues out into the open, if people do drugs, it's better that it's not treated as criminal so if someone does do something addictive and they get hooked, or they do heroin and overdose, they can go to the hospital or get treatment with no jail time and no social stigma.

Decadence has always been the lifestyle of the rulling/ opressive/ parasitic class, and they have always used it to subdue the oppressed toiling people. Maybe you've heard of the term "panem et circenses".So rulers engage in decadent activities to subdue the oppressed? Or were they just the rulers and so they got to enjoy the spoils and leisure provided by the wealth created in that society. Why wouldn't a working class that becomes a ruling class also want to enjoy (and by extension since workers are so numerous and don't need to exploit other groups in society, everyone else) the surplus that their society has created? I think people would want to enjoy all kinds of recreational activities from sports to creative art to even intoxicating substances for parties.

fabian

21st June 2012, 14:21

So what's the plan? Tell everyone that football sucks? Good luck, you'll need it!
Actually, the only luck I need is in meeting rational people that will listen to argument, and have the will power to dedicate themselves to the goal. My puny personal agitation has yielded 7 comrades that are, like me, finding Rakhmetov, Nechaev and the Esers as an inspiration, and a dozen more they brought to the cause of the leftist strougle. 20 of us are worth more to the revolution then 1000 of worthles promiscuous drunkards and junkies that babble about the revolution online and are not ready to stop living by capitalist dictates, let alone make any of the sacrifices needed for a revolution to happen or succeed.

First, establish that such a correlation actually exists.
If you really are such an ignoramus to think there is no correlation between alcohol and drug abuse and violence, then seek help from your friend Google, a lot of studies are available..

For example, I'd love to see you try and prove that cannabis smoking leads to violence.
Yeah? How bout violent deaths (deaths by "accidents").
about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash
In 2008 alone, 2,538 people died
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8412891.stm
So, ~60 people per yer die because of stoned driving in Britain alone. Which would make it more then 1000 per year in the US. And that's only from stoned driving, more deaths from stoned people managing other machinery. And that's only deaths, many more people are crippled and severly hurt as a consequence of some idiot being stoned.

People don't choose to go into wage slavery.
A lot of people does. As opposed to you online-bad-assess I have been agitating for years among workers and I know that a buch of people like and want capitalism. The likes of you cling onto to the decadent capitalist lifestyle, but a bunch of people who aren't societally worthless momma's boys, who work hard to make a living, they cling on the capitalist anti-work mindset of thinking they will sometimes become capitalists and not have to work so hard, or at least their children will do that. Even after the basics are explained to them- wage slavery, suprlus value, exploatation, stealing, oppression, they still say they want capitalism. So yes, a buch of working class does want wage slavery. (Just like a bunch of people (as evident here, even if they consider themselves "leftist") want and like lifestyles that are just tools of the oppressing parasites to keep them subdued.)

Which is why market socialism
The only real form of socialism, and thus the only solution, yes.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be penalties for driving or operating machinery while drunk or high
And pentalties are gonna resurrect your dead kid when he gets run over on the sidewalk by a drunk driver? Or regrow someone's severed hand when some pothead presses a button a few moments too soon?

But what if you're not driving or operating heavy machinery?
You can be perfectly able to get stoned if it's forbidden. Being a rationalist and thus not wanting things that are impossible, I don't have a desire of drug and alcohol abuse to magically disappear, but I want it (enforceably) prohibited, and with people fearing to be caught drunk or drugged or carrying a substance in public, that kind of practices would be confined to some hardly-accessed illegal hideouts and thus those practices happening in public, at homes and workplaces would be greatly reduced, and most importantly- the consequences of those practices would be confined to those want to get drunk and drugged (who demostrate their desire by their effort to find an gain access to an illegal hideout where they can get drunk and drugged).

Frankly, I'm disgusted that you have such a low opinion of people who drink or take drugs.
I am disgusted that people have such a low opinion of themselves to get drunk or take drugs.

If I can't dance, it ain't my revolution.
That's why every attempt of revolution failed. Because the decadent idiots prevailed over disciplined and dedicated revolutionaries.

Igor

21st June 2012, 15:06

you sound like a fun guy

fabian

21st June 2012, 16:31

:D Actually, I can be considerred as such even by the people I don't like. I do hang out with my friends in parks, street corners, cafees and clubs, I go on metal gigs and dnb and goa raves, I watch movies and series, play video games, I like all sorts of humor- but that's not my life, neither is that + work. Having some fun doesn't stop me from not drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking, eating unhealthy foods and being promiscous (this is something of a minimum of a disciplined life); doesn't stop me from reading about political and economical systems and theories; from meditating and training regularly, and learning krav maga, shooting, and about improvised weapons and IEDs, where weapons can be found in my vicinity and about urban guerilla warfare and assassinations, or stop me from leading a diligent leftist working life, working (mostly blue collar) jobs so I can survive, always explaining to my colleagues about why is capitalism theft and oppression, explaining to them how there are alternatives even now (like modragon corporation), talking to them about slow-downs and work-by-rule, etc, etc, etc.

The point is, fun is okay, but like a pinch of spice in life, not as the main course. To quote a medieveal theologian- recreation is evil when it becomes occupation, ie. begins taking your time and energy that should have been employed for better, constructive purposes.

Jimmie Higgins

21st June 2012, 16:40

Yeah? How bout violent deaths (deaths by "accidents").
about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash
In 2008 alone, 2,538 people died
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8412891.stm
So, ~60 people per yer die because of stoned driving in Britain alone. Which would make it more then 1000 per year in the US. And that's only from stoned driving, more deaths from stoned people managing other machinery. And that's only deaths, many more people are crippled and severly hurt as a consequence of some idiot being stoned.
Will Mobile phones and being tired also be forbidden? Supposedly they cause as many accidents as alcohol and many more than 2.5%.

Car radios? Noisy kids in the back seat?

Or should we make our lives less hectic so people don't have to rush to work all at the same time? Should we provide transportation so that people don't even need to have their own car all the time but can just get one for long trips when they want?

fabian

21st June 2012, 17:19

Supposedly they cause as many accidents as alcohol and many more than 2.5%.
According to you?

Those externalities you mentioned are totally different subjects, including this questions I have fallen into answering, but I dont want to steer the topic away from it's purpose any further.

Igor

21st June 2012, 17:56

Having some fun doesn't stop me from not drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking, eating unhealthy foods and being promiscous (this is something of a minimum of a disciplined life);

See, this is the point. Not the fact that you don't drink, do drugs or whatever, which is most of the time a positive thing. But the fact that you consider people who enjoy having active sex life with more than one person or being "promiscous" not having a disciplined life tells more than enough. You being straight edge and having whatever sexual life you like is ok, the fact that you're so fucking judgemental about all that doesn't really make you an enjoyable human being. All that shit you consider to be "stupifying" and not part of "disciplined life" just happen to be things many people actually honestly enjoy without the system forcing them into it or their animal compulsions forcing them to it. And all you are is an arrogant little shit if you can't wrap your head around that, your personal preferences don't put you above anyone else in any conceivable manner.

fabian

21st June 2012, 18:13

All that shit you consider to be "stupifying" and not part of "disciplined life" just happen to be things many people actually honestly enjoy without the system forcing them into it
No one is forcing people to work for capitalists, and as I said- a bunch of people like capitalism. And yet you're anti-capitalist. Appeal to majority is not a measure of correctness, it's a fallacy. Just be consistent with your desire for a better, just system, and apply that desire for something better and more virtous to your life.

your personal preferences don't put you above anyone else in any conceivable manner.
Yes, they do, just like me being a socialist does put me above someone who is capitalist (crony, market or state capitalist). My "preferences" are soundly argumented, whereas such idiotic behaviours you're advocating are not even argumentable.

Revolution starts with U

21st June 2012, 21:26

Fabian is a pseudo master of rhetoric tho. Let's forget that his "arguments" are NOT "sound." He SAID they were, and that's good enough! :lol:

For example " be around my children with their lack of sexual inhibitions, bullying, and violence." As if this is the outcome of use of any drug. Fuckin coffee drinkers always punching everybody...

Sometimes I feel like one day we'll find Fabian in a sleazy motel with his secret male hooker lover doing meth. Not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld anyone? lol), just I get this feeling he's a huge hypocrite... (especially because in one of his first posts he said that he enjoys to drink wine with dinner)

Revolution starts with U

21st June 2012, 21:29

He's right about one things. For hte last year I've been unemployed, stuck at my house, battling it out on the internet, and not involved in any kind of labor struggle. It sucks and it's going to have to change! Thanks for the encouragement comrade :lol:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st June 2012, 22:22

Actually, the only luck I need is in meeting rational people that will listen to argument, and have the will power to dedicate themselves to the goal. My puny personal agitation has yielded 7 comrades that are, like me, finding Rakhmetov, Nechaev and the Esers as an inspiration, and a dozen more they brought to the cause of the leftist strougle. 20 of us are worth more to the revolution then 1000 of worthles promiscuous drunkards and junkies that babble about the revolution online and are not ready to stop living by capitalist dictates, let alone make any of the sacrifices needed for a revolution to happen or succeed.

You have yet to establish that any such "sacrifices" are actually necessary.

If you really are such an ignoramus to think there is no correlation between alcohol and drug abuse and violence, then seek help from your friend Google, a lot of studies are available..

You made the claim, therefore you need to do the citations. I'm waiting.

Yeah? How bout violent deaths (deaths by "accidents").
about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash
In 2008 alone, 2,538 people died
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8412891.stm
So, ~60 people per yer die because of stoned driving in Britain alone. Which would make it more then 1000 per year in the US. And that's only from stoned driving, more deaths from stoned people managing other machinery.

Only 60-1000 people a year? I reckon we'd be able to save more lives than that simply through decriminalisation, which would reduce deaths by taking the market away from criminal gangs. The fact drugs are illegal now only makes the managing of their social consequences harder. Can you not see that driving shit like that undreground, where nobody can really see it or regulate it, is precisely the opposite of sensible public health policy?

And that's only deaths, many more people are crippled and severly hurt as a consequence of some idiot being stoned.

What's your point? People are reckless and irresponsible sometimes. The best way to deal with that is to have the education and social systems in place so that people have the opportunity to make the best decisions for themselves. Micro-managing peoples' lives is a road to misery for all.

A lot of people does. As opposed to you online-bad-assess I have been agitating for years among workers and I know that a buch of people like and want capitalism. The likes of you cling onto to the decadent capitalist lifestyle, but a bunch of people who aren't societally worthless momma's boys, who work hard to make a living, they cling on the capitalist anti-work mindset of thinking they will sometimes become capitalists and not have to work so hard, or at least their children will do that. Even after the basics are explained to them- wage slavery, suprlus value, exploatation, stealing, oppression, they still say they want capitalism. So yes, a buch of working class does want wage slavery. (Just like a bunch of people (as evident here, even if they consider themselves "leftist") want and like lifestyles that are just tools of the oppressing parasites to keep them subdued.)

Slaves born into slavery often can't imagine living under anything else. That's not a choice by any stretch of the imagination. I think you'll find that as this crappy economic situation drags on, more and more working people will become increasingly disenchanted with capitalism.

The only real form of socialism, and thus the only solution, yes.

Markets are based on competition. I thought you were against that?

And pentalties are gonna resurrect your dead kid when he gets run over on the sidewalk by a drunk driver? Or regrow someone's severed hand when some pothead presses a button a few moments too soon?

You miss the point, I see. Saving life and limb is what the medics do. The penalties are society's method of officially showing disapproval for an offense, and should ideally be designed so as rehabilitate the offender's behaviour to prevent a recurrence.

You can be perfectly able to get stoned if it's forbidden. Being a rationalist and thus not wanting things that are impossible, I don't have a desire of drug and alcohol abuse to magically disappear, but I want it (enforceably) prohibited, and with people fearing to be caught drunk or drugged or carrying a substance in public, that kind of practices would be confined to some hardly-accessed illegal hideouts and thus those practices happening in public, at homes and workplaces would be greatly reduced, and most importantly- the consequences of those practices would be confined to those want to get drunk and drugged (who demostrate their desire by their effort to find an gain access to an illegal hideout where they can get drunk and drugged).

The current War on Drugs and its associated legislation are already intended to achieve your stated aims, but it's been a failure for decades. Just look at Mexico.

Time for a change, I say.

I am disgusted that people have such a low opinion of themselves to get drunk or take drugs.

Since you don't know the reasons why everyone who gets drunk or take drugs does so, I hardly think you can make such a hasty generalisation.

That's why every attempt of revolution failed. Because the decadent idiots prevailed over disciplined and dedicated revolutionaries.

Oh, get off it. The Bolsheviks loved that "party discipline" bullshit, which is the same crap you've been spewing but wrapped in different language.

Hit The North

21st June 2012, 22:41

No one is forcing people to work for capitalists,

Capitalist are - the whole economic system is based on compulsion, you stupid ignorant idiot.

Actually, I can be considerred as such even by the people I don't like. I do hang out with my friends in parks, street corners, cafees and clubs, I go on metal gigs and dnb and goa raves, I watch movies and series, play video games

All of which are as much a part of capitalism and are used as forms of mass distractions. You condemn sport and then admit you play video games! That makes you a fucking hypocrite.

Come the revolution, I want you on my list, you sanctimonious prick. :glare:

Revolution starts with U

21st June 2012, 23:05

Ya, and he goes to metal shows which, idk if you've ever been... but they're not exactly a bastion of leftism...

Revolution starts with U

21st June 2012, 23:14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Legislation against drugs first appeared in post-revolutionary Russia, in Article 104-d of the 1922 Penal Code of the RSFSR[1], criminalising drug production, trafficking, and possession with intent to traffic. The 1924 Soviet Constitution expanded this legislation to cover the whole Soviet Union[2]. The 1926 Penal Code of the RSFSR suggested imprisonment or corrective labour for between one and three years as punishment for these offences, depending on the scale of the offence committed. It is noteworthy that drug possession without intention to traffic and the personal use of drugs warranted no penalties at this time.
Drug regulation remained largely untouched in the Soviet Union until 1974, when the Supreme Soviet issued a Decree entitled 'On Reinforcement of the Fight Against Drug Addiction'. This Decree was reproduced in Article 224 of the Penal Codes of all the Republics of the USSR, and not only increased the penalties for the offences mentioned above to between ten to fifteen years' imprisonment, but for the first time criminalised possession of drugs without intent to traffic, bringing a penalty of up to three years in prison. Additional offences of 'seducing another person to narcotic drugs', punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, and the theft of narcotics, punishable by between five to fifteen years' imprisonment, were also created. The term 'narcotics' used here referred to all drugs listed by UN Conventions, not just opiates.
A further decree issued in 1987 made a conviction for the above offences within a year of an earlier conviction for the same violation of the law liable to punishment of up to two years' imprisonment or corrective labor. Sergei Lebedev, the Chairman of the Association of Independent Advocates in Leningrad at the time, argued that the steady escalation of criminal penalties for drug use was "indicative of the Soviet authorities’ resignation to their complete inability to solve drug problems in a constructive and humane way"[3].

Prinskaj

22nd June 2012, 00:59

No one is forcing people to work for capitalists, and as I said- a bunch of people like capitalism.
Participation in capitalism is compulsive, under the penalty of death. whether this capitalism is state-controlled, market-based or "socialist" (As you advocate), the penalty is the same: Death. It doesn't matter if this is a result of being denied the means to sustain your livelihood or if you are executed, the result remains the same.

Yes, they do, just like me being a socialist does put me above someone who is capitalist (crony, market or state capitalist). My "preferences" are soundly argumented, whereas such idiotic behaviours you're advocating are not even argumentable.
Could you please be a bit more elitist? Just a little?
If you honestly believe that you are better than anybody else, then I am glad to tell you that: No, you are not..
Also, stop saying that other members of this board and their respective responses are "inconsistent". When you consider yourself a "Market Socialist", which is on par with calling oneself a Marxist-Bakuninst or a Trotsky-Stalinist, it makes not sense. (Like that time you called yourself "rational")

Jimmie Higgins

22nd June 2012, 01:27

Supposedly they [cell-phones] cause as many accidents as alcohol and many more than 2.5%.

According to you?

No, don't be an ass:

28 percent of accidents involve talking, texting on cellphones

By Ashley Halsey III
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Twenty-eight percent of traffic accidents occur when people talk on cellphones or send text messages while driving, according to a study released Tuesday by the National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/Pages/Home.aspx).

The vast majority of those crashes, 1.4 million annually, are caused by cellphone conversations, and 200,000 are blamed on text messaging, according to the report from the council, a nonprofit group recognized by congressional charter as a leader on safety.

Not that facts or reason has anything to do with your moralistic arguments.

fabian

22nd June 2012, 12:06

Only 60-1000 people a year?
"Only"? Really? What a nice stalinist indiffrence to people dying.

What's your point? People are reckless and irresponsible sometimes.
The point is people are drunk and drugged sometimes. That's something that's totally unnecessary in people's lives and can be abandoned with no negative effects, on the contrary. You cannot compare alcohol and drugs with being tired or reckless or with crying babies, that's called false analogy, we don't need alcohol and drugs, whereas we need work and rest and babies.

Slaves born into slavery often can't imagine living under anything else.
And I and a bunch of other anti-capitalist were born into a classless society. Bollocks. That marxist idiocy about people being determined by their social surroundings is wrong and I and every other anti-capitalist are proof of that.

Markets are based on competition.
Actually, they are not, they are based much more on cooperation and integration. Eg. cellphone network providers are all integrated, a cellphone provider cannot try and compete with other sell phone providers, if people who use his phones cannot call their friends who use other providers, no one would by his products. Likewise, if I cant connect with my friends by using some internet provider, I'm not going to use that provider, but some other that is integrated with other providers.
Also, market is a mechanism of distributing goods for use, because it is based on supply and demand. The problem is that many people here are adherents of marxists dogmas and have no idea what markets are (mistaking crony capitalism for "markets") or what socialism is (mistaking state capitalism for "socialism").

should ideally be designed so as rehabilitate the offender's behaviour to prevent a recurrence.
Actually, prevention of consequences is the ideal.

The current War on Drugs and its associated legislation are already intended to achieve your stated aims, but it's been a failure for decades.
They are not. Bourgeois "war on drugs" is intended to put drug trade profits in the hands of the state, and to spread drugs among the working class, and it's working great.

The Bolsheviks loved that "party discipline"
Acutally for a short time only. Prohibition was canceled in 1925. Hoxha wrote extensivly about degeneration among the soviet youth and how Komsomol has gone decatent long ago.

Capitalist are - the whole economic system is based on compulsion
Not working for capitalist "being hard" and "impractical" is not compulsion- there is no force. Is someone forcing you to work? You can call the cops, that's illegal even in a capitalist society.

You condemn sport and then admit you play video games
Yes, and? I've been a football (/soccer) fan (/hooligan) for three years, and the difference is more then great. I spend no money on games, there are not emotinal outbrakes, not pressure to use alcohol or/and drugs, or go into fights, and it takes less of my time. Not even close to being similar.

Not that facts or reason has anything to do with your moralistic arguments.
You think that an analogy that is similar to my argument in one detail is a counter-argument, whereas it's a false analogy, because it assumes that as someone can easily not drink and do drugs, someone can just as easily dispose of a baby of cell-phone, that is, you imply that alcohol and drugs are as necessary as cell-phones and babies.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd June 2012, 12:52

You think that an analogy that is similar to my argument in one detail is a counter-argument, whereas it's a false analogy, because it assumes that as someone can easily not drink and do drugs, someone can just as easily dispose of a baby of cell-phone, that is, you imply that alcohol and drugs are as necessary as cell-phones and babies.

No you said that drug use causes accidents and I said cell phones supposedly cause just as many. You said I was making it up but then I cited evidence from a similar article to the one I originally read. Now you are diverting because I knocked the legs out from that argument for prohibition to prevent accidents.

fabian

22nd June 2012, 14:24

You said I was making it up
Do not lie.

Now you are diverting
Explaining how arugmentation works is diverting? Yeah right.

I knocked the legs out from that argument for prohibition to prevent accidents.
You haven't even addressed the argument, just the statistic and not directly, so it is you who diverted. That drugs should be banned in order to prevent "accidents" still holds.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd June 2012, 14:33

"Only"? Really? What a nice stalinist indiffrence to people dying.

Not as bad as your indifference to all the people who die because of the War on Drugs, that you don't seem to give a shit about.

The point is people are drunk and drugged sometimes. That's something that's totally unnecessary in people's lives and can be abandoned with no negative effects, on the contrary. You cannot compare alcohol and drugs with being tired or reckless or with crying babies, that's called false analogy, we don't need alcohol and drugs, whereas we need work and rest and babies.

And regardless of what the law says, people will take drugs and we have to deal with that. Which would be easier if drugs were decriminalised.

And I and a bunch of other anti-capitalist were born into a classless society. Bollocks. That marxist idiocy about people being determined by their social surroundings is wrong and I and every other anti-capitalist are proof of that.

I said often, not always. If the only options one is presented with are A) selling one's labour or B) a marginal existence at the fringes of society, is it really any wonder most people just go with the flow?

Actually, they are not, they are based much more on cooperation and integration. Eg. cellphone network providers are all integrated, a cellphone provider cannot try and compete with other sell phone providers, if people who use his phones cannot call their friends who use other providers, no one would by his products. Likewise, if I cant connect with my friends by using some internet provider, I'm not going to use that provider, but some other that is integrated with other providers.
Also, market is a mechanism of distributing goods for use, because it is based on supply and demand. The problem is that many people here are adherents of marxists dogmas and have no idea what markets are (mistaking crony capitalism for "markets") or what socialism is (mistaking state capitalism for "socialism").

Well since you propose markets, I'm assuming that money is involved, correct? Remind me again what makes you anti-capitalist?

Actually, prevention of consequences is the ideal.

There's only so much "prevention" that one can do before it starts getting restrictive.

They are not. Bourgeois "war on drugs" is intended to put drug trade profits in the hands of the state, and to spread drugs among the working class, and it's working great.

It's the drug gangs that are making the money. Are you saying that they are part of the state?

Acutally for a short time only. Prohibition was canceled in 1925. Hoxha wrote extensivly about degeneration among the soviet youth and how Komsomol has gone decatent long ago.

Just because they canceled prohibition doesn't mean they didn't try and make up for it in other ways.

Not working for capitalist "being hard" and "impractical" is not compulsion- there is no force. Is someone forcing you to work? You can call the cops, that's illegal even in a capitalist society.

The threat of being kicked out of one's home if one cannot pay the rent isn't a situation where someone is being compelled by circumstances outside their control? News to me.

You think that an analogy that is similar to my argument in one detail is a counter-argument, whereas it's a false analogy, because it assumes that as someone can easily not drink and do drugs, someone can just as easily dispose of a baby of cell-phone, that is, you imply that alcohol and drugs are as necessary as cell-phones and babies.

We managed as a society before cellphones came along, they aren't strictly necessary either. But it would be just as dumb to ban cellphones because some idiots use them while driving, as it would be to ban drink and drugs because the occasional idiot consumes them before driving.

fabian

22nd June 2012, 16:44

Not as bad as your indifference to all the people who die because of the War on Drugs, that you don't seem to give a shit about.
I don't give a shit about people who want to do drugs, because it's pretty much like comitting suicide, but I do give a shit about people that are killed or maimed because idiots around them get drunk or do drugs.

And regardless of what the law says, people will take drugs and we have to deal with that
I'm totally for dealing with it. By force.

If the only options one is presented with are A) selling one's labour or B) a marginal existence at the fringes of society, is it really any wonder most people just go with the flow?
That's not being forced, that's "making it difficult".

There's only so much "prevention" that one can do before it starts getting restrictive.
Its suppossed to be restrictive. Idiotic behavior that kills and harms people around the idiot practicing it should be restricted. Severly.

It's the drug gangs that are making the money. Are you saying that they are part of the state?
Gang bosses work for or with the state. I know that from personal experience here in my country, and I'm sure it's the same everywhere. I'm pretty sure eg. that the Taliban were attacked by US more because of their breakdown of poppy growing then the oil.

The threat of being kicked out of one's home if one cannot pay the rent isn't a situation where someone is being compelled by circumstances outside their control? News to me.
You can join a coop, a comune, go illegalist, go freegan, become self-sufficient, join or start a self-sufficient commune. So, no, people are not forced.

But it would be just as dumb to ban cellphones because some idiots use them while driving, as it would be to ban drink and drugs because the occasional idiot consumes them before driving.
If you really think that cell phones, instruments of communication, and alcohol and drugs, instruments of poisoning oneself and altering one's state of mind are the same thing; and if you really think that for an instrument of communication that is deeply integrated in the functioning of the society to be baned is of the same value and can be of the same manner as banning mind-altering poisons that not only have no costructive societal purpose, but are correlates of hundreds of thousands of death, injuries and all kinds of violence every year, then you are a plain brainless idiot.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd June 2012, 21:12

I don't give a shit about people who want to do drugs, because it's pretty much like comitting suicide, but I do give a shit about people that are killed or maimed because idiots around them get drunk or do drugs.

You have the temerity to call me callous, then you say shit like this. Drug users are fellow human beings as well and are just as deserving of your consideration. Doing drugs isn't like committing suicide for fuck's sake, even heroin addicts can live to a ripe old age. If people were able to acquire properly measured quantities of their drugs in a standardised potency and without being cut with nasty additives, then there would be fewer deaths from unintentional overdoses and other complications, and non-drug users also benefit from having from having lesser workload on the hospital emergency rooms.

I'm totally for dealing with it. By force.

We're already using force, it ain't fucking working, in fact it's killing people and making things worse. Mexico.

That's not being forced, that's "making it difficult".

Oh, so the capitalists aren't oppressing us, they're just "making it difficult" for us? Your anti-capitalist credentials wane by the moment.

Its suppossed to be restrictive. Idiotic behavior that kills and harms people around the idiot practicing it should be restricted. Severly.

Most people who use drugs don't then immediately go on to drive or operate heavy machinery, much like most people who use mobile devices.

Gang bosses work for or with the state. I know that from personal experience here in my country, and I'm sure it's the same everywhere. I'm pretty sure eg. that the Taliban were attacked by US more because of their breakdown of poppy growing then the oil.

I'm gonna have to ask you to back that shit up.

You can join a coop, a comune, go illegalist, go freegan, become self-sufficient, join or start a self-sufficient commune. So, no, people are not forced.

Can you do that if you're pregnant? If you have to look after kids? If you need kidney dialysis? What if the nearest commune won't accept you? What if the options you present mean moving away from friends & family? You fail to realise that a lot of people have obligations and responsibilities that they cannot simply walk away from without negative consequences.

Lastly, what the are the options for someone who wants to effectively challenge capitalism, rather than enter into the leftist equivalent of hermitage? None of the shit you mentioned is a genuine threat to capitalism, now or in the future.

If you really think that cell phones, instruments of communication, and alcohol and drugs, instruments of poisoning oneself and altering one's state of mind are the same thing; and if you really think that for an instrument of communication that is deeply integrated in the functioning of the society to be baned is of the same value and can be of the same manner as banning mind-altering poisons that not only have no costructive societal purpose, but are correlates of hundreds of thousands of death, injuries and all kinds of violence every year, then you are a plain brainless idiot.

The fact of the matter is that we no more "need" mobile devices than we need drugs. My point was that it's a ludicrous idea to ban either of them because some people are unwise enough to use them while or shortly before driving.

Entertainment isn't a worthwhile social purpose? Smoking cannabis certainly didn't prevent Carl Sagan from saying many worthwhile things.

P.S. Where are the citations I asked for?

fabian

23rd June 2012, 12:57

Drug users are fellow human beings as well and are just as deserving of your consideration.
They may formally be human beings, but even if we disregard the fact that they are on the lower intellectual level then animals while drunk or drugged, just by the fact that they are exposing people around them to danger by doing something needless and unhealthy because "they like it" - they cannot be called fellows.

We're already using force, it ain't fucking working, in fact it's killing people and making things worse.
War on drugs doesn't exist. Only war for drugs.

Most people who use drugs don't then immediately go on to drive or operate heavy machinery
As I said, drugs should be stamped out, junkies can perfectly continue using drugs in hardly-accessed illegal hideout, so we can be shure they wont go on to drive or operate heavy machinery. It's so obviously nonsensical to put trust in some drunkard's or junkies' "good judgement" to not do something dangerous while not in control of himself.

much like most people who use mobile devices.
As I said- false analogy.

'm gonna have to ask you to back that shit up.
Food for thought: National Geographic's Afghan Heroin: The Lost War.

Can you do that if you're pregnant? If you have to look after kids? If you need kidney dialysis? What if the nearest commune won't accept you? What if the options you present mean moving away from friends & family?
Do you want some cheeze with that whine?

You fail to realise that a lot of people
You fail to realise that you use a word for something that it doesn't mean.
force, verb (used with object)
- to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something
- to drive or propel against resistance
- to bring about or effect by force.
- to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
- to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person
To make something difficult in not to force.

The fact of the matter is that we no more "need" mobile devices than we need drugs.
Instrument of communication is the same as instrument of disabling one's mind? If you continue trolling in such idiotic manner, you can continue talking to my ignore list.

Prinskaj

23rd June 2012, 14:26

Do you want some cheeze with that whine?

War on drugs doesn't exist. Only war for drugs.

If you continue trolling in such idiotic manner, you can continue talking to my ignore list.
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
Stop trying to reconfigure the sentence, insult the other person or accusing people of "trolling" in a desperate attempt to win a discussion. Opposing views are great, but don't be an asshole!
People here are trying to have a real discussion, but you ruin this by selectively picking who and what you answer.

Hit The North

23rd June 2012, 14:49

They may formally be human beings, but even if we disregard the fact that they are on the lower intellectual level then animals while drunk or drugged, just by the fact that they are exposing people around them to danger by doing something needless and unhealthy because "they like it" - they cannot be called fellows.

Apart from the fact that a lot of great literature and a lot of great music has been made under the influence of drink and drugs, your attempt to dehumanise people is despicable and emotionally fascistic.

Revolution starts with U

23rd June 2012, 15:07

No try about it. He literally dehumanized addicts... right after accusing someone of Stalinism. :rolleyes:

roy

23rd June 2012, 15:20

^he also said he doesn't give a shit about people who commit suicide. that one's a gem folks.

anyways this thread is best enjoyed whilst intoxicated

PARTY HARD!!! ****<(^_^ <) <( ^_^ )> (> ^_^)>****

fabian

23rd June 2012, 19:23

http://sansscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/spam.jpg

Spam is not healthy. Go organic veggy.

#FF0000

23rd June 2012, 20:56

No surprise, along with your support for sports, and I'm pretty sure other capitalist mechanisms of idiotization of working people (like drugs, alcohol, promisquity etc). Your a leftist only by name, and in your illusions, because you have a capitalist mindset.

i really want to hear how promiscuity is keeping capitalism chuggin' along moreso than like, i dont know, gender roles or patriarchy or something. that will be a laugh riot!

Anti-work mentality is one of the main reasons why so many workers support and tolerate capitalism. When you approach such workers they're like "Abolish capitalism? Why? I'm gonna save up, start my own business and be a capitalist myself". Kids are raised by workers into capitalist mentality- "Learn baby, so you can finish a colledge and you don't have to work and toil like us". People need to get in their thick skulls that the only way to live and not work is to live off someone else's work, and that parasitism is bad.hahaha no its not dummy. people hate immigrants because they are 'lazy'. people hate people on welfare or unemployment because they are 'lazy'. people hate protesters because they are 'lazy'. people hate students because they are 'lazy'. people hate this entire generation for being 'lazy'. people hate black people (oh, not all black people of course not there are the good ones of course of course) because they are 'lazy'.

"lazy" is the worst thing a person can be in america.

meanwhile the boss is, by some Horatio Alger sorcery, the paragon of hard-work and dedication. And the Lord loves a workin' man, you know.

As for schools, that all depends. If you go to a school in a broke-ass neighborhood, then you're basically in a day-care with metal detectors and security guards, and they're just drilling you with rote memorization at best while trying to ship as many of these kids off into the military or a trade school before dumping them in the slums after graduation. If you're going to a nicer school, then yeah you might have a curriculum more geared towards "actualization" or something (but only if that shit is private or something), but otherwise you're still getting rote memorization and lots of lessons on how regimented "THE REAL WORLD" is with homework and deadlines.

I mean at best they're polishing you to be a middle-management schlub.

#FF0000

23rd June 2012, 21:06

i'm curious what other media "dumbs down the workers" too.

Also, fabian, your self-destruction in this thread is marvelous i really thought i should tell you

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd June 2012, 22:27

They may formally be human beings, but even if we disregard the fact that they are on the lower intellectual level then animals while drunk or drugged,

No. Just no. Again with the sweeping generalisations about an entire category of people who come from all kinds of backgrounds. Stop it!

just by the fact that they are exposing people around them to danger by doing something needless and unhealthy because "they like it" - they cannot be called fellows.

Face up to the fact that your fellow humans are imperfect and will do things you personally do not approve of, but in themselves do not hurt you or get in your way.

War on drugs doesn't exist. Only war for drugs.

So I hallucinated all those reports I saw of drugs being seized and destroyed by the authorities? Did I also hallucinate the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs)?

As I said, drugs should be stamped out, junkies can perfectly continue using drugs in hardly-accessed illegal hideout, so we can be shure they wont go on to drive or operate heavy machinery.

Not all drugs users are junkies, and if you really want to make sure, wouldn't it be a better idea to mandate integrated sobriety testing machines into private motor vehicles?

It's so obviously nonsensical to put trust in some drunkard's or junkies' "good judgement" to not do something dangerous while not in control of himself.

Or we could do things like improve public transport so that people who have been out on a night of revelry can get home without having to worry about steering themselves into a tree or another person. Another idea is to educate people so that they can arrange the circumstances of their leisure time beforehand so that they do not need to resort to driving themselves. Nobody needs to drive home intoxicated from a house party/sleepover combo!

Changing habits and circumstances does work, and it's far more pleasant than having your door kicked in and guns shoved in your face by some irate pig during one of their "no-knock" fuck-you-citizen-you-don't-need-to-see-our-warrant armed raids.

As I said- false analogy.

Nope. Using mobile devices while driving is distracting, like being intoxicated. Neither mobile device use nor intoxicants are fundamentally necessary. That's the bloody point behind the analogy.

Food for thought: National Geographic's Afghan Heroin: The Lost War.

Quote the relevant parts.

Do you want some cheeze with that whine?

I mention real issues that people face every day, and your reaction is to dismiss it with this shit? Do you mind if I call you fucking callous? Because that's what it is to dismiss the concerns of the ill, the dependent and the vulnerable.

You fail to realise that you use a word for something that it doesn't mean.
force, verb (used with object)
- to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something
- to drive or propel against resistance
- to bring about or effect by force.
- to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
- to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person
To make something difficult in not to force.

If I have a partner who is heavily pregnant, I would be forced in such circumstances to take the best-paying job I could get (ha!) if I wanted what was best for the baby-to-be. I would not have any of the options you recommended. That is compulsion, because my ethics permit no other acceptable course.

Instrument of communication is the same as instrument of disabling one's mind? If you continue trolling in such idiotic manner, you can continue talking to my ignore list.

It has the same effect as far as safe driving is concerned - both of them are distracting, which is the point you are trying to avoid.

Spam is not healthy. Go organic veggy.

Then why do you do it, instead of responding to their reasonable criticisms?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd June 2012, 22:39

Text driving "worse than drink" - BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7621644.stm)

Relevant:

Previous studies had found reactions were 21% slower among those who had taken cannabis and 12% slower among those who had drunk to the legal limit.

The texters also drifted out of lanes more and had poorer steering control.

The overall driving performance was poor among those tested by the Transport Research Laboratory, which also carried out the previous studies, the RAC Foundation said.

Steering control among drivers in the text test was 91% worse, compared with 35% worse for those under the influence of cannabis.

Revolution starts with U

24th June 2012, 00:51

Okay so 4/20 about 5 years ago my buddies and I had a bongfest. 5 people, 5 packed full bongs of reasonably good herb. So you hit, and when you pass you're getting passed to. About an hour later I drove home... I don't think I need to say I was pretty high... But I was aware I was super high so I took backroads and drove slow and cautiously.

Moral of the story; I wouldn't mind a "smoking and driving" law against doing so. But I couldn't have done that if we were dropping shots of whiskey or something :lol:

Teacher

24th June 2012, 01:00

Why do stupid threads like this get by far the most attention?

Revolution starts with U

24th June 2012, 01:34

More relevant than "who's better; bolsheviks or Makhnovists?" :lol:

#FF0000

24th June 2012, 01:50

Why do stupid threads like this get by far the most attention?

Because they're easy targets. It's the same reason why people harp on shitty bands all day every day instead of listening to good ones.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th June 2012, 03:59

Because they're easy targets. It's the same reason why people harp on shitty bands all day every day instead of listening to good ones.

To be fair, I wasn't expecting fabian to run out of arguments that quickly.

fabian

24th June 2012, 12:20

Face up to the fact that your fellow humans are imperfect and will do things you personally do not approve of, but in themselves do not hurt you or get in your way.
They do not hurt me because I've been exercising for years and have tons of experience in street fights, so drunk people get their asses kicked if they start being aggressive towards (/around) me, but it hurts other people who are not as informationally, mentally and physically prepared for life where drunk and drugged people walk freely on the streets.

Changing habits and circumstances does work, and it's far more pleasant than having your door kicked in and guns shoved in your face by some irate pig during one of their "no-knock" fuck-you-citizen-you-don't-need-to-see-our-warrant armed raids.
False dichotomy. I don't see why there shouldn't be both education and help options for people wanting them (who are basically victims of preatory poisoners, or simply of their own weak will, but want help) and severe repression for others.

Quote the relevant parts.
Can you be that lazy, it's not even a book, it's an online available interesting documentary lasting less then an hour.

That is compulsion, because my ethics permit no other acceptable course.
That means you are "compeling" yourself by your ethical choice, capitalists are not forcing you.

It has the same effect as far as safe driving is concerned - both of them are distracting, which is the point you are trying to avoid.
The point you're trying to avoid it's that that's false analogy. Cell phones and crying babies and being tired are not only not the same, but nowhere near similar alcohol and drugs.

instead of responding to their reasonable criticisms?
Abusive ad hominems? Stewart's fallacy? False analogies and association fallacy? "Party hard"? You don't even know the meaning of the words "reasonable" or "criticism".

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th June 2012, 14:52

They do not hurt me because I've been exercising for years and have tons of experience in street fights, so drunk people get their asses kicked if they start being aggressive towards (/around) me, but it hurts other people who are not as informationally, mentally and physically prepared for life where drunk and drugged people walk freely on the streets.

Your statement presupposes your unsupported assertion that violence from drug users is a consequence of the drug use itself rather than the social circumstances (including stigma and illegality) surrounding it. I remember asking you for citations which you have failed to provide.

False dichotomy. I don't see why there shouldn't be both education and help options for people wanting them (who are basically victims of preatory poisoners, or simply of their own weak will, but want help) and severe repression for others.

These "others" being guilty of what, precisely?

Can you be that lazy, it's not even a book, it's an online available interesting documentary lasting less then an hour.

I have my own stack of things I want to read, watch or listen to. If that documentary has evidence germane to the discussion, then highlight it.

That means you are "compeling" yourself by your ethical choice, capitalists are not forcing you.

Yes they are. They are the ones controlling the means of production, the products of which people need access to in order to live under capitalism.

The point you're trying to avoid it's that that's false analogy. Cell phones and crying babies and being tired are not only not the same, but nowhere near similar alcohol and drugs.

They're not the same things, but they all have generally negative effects on safe driving performance.

Abusive ad hominems? Stewart's fallacy? False analogies and association fallacy? "Party hard"? You don't even know the meaning of the words "reasonable" or "criticism".

How about the War on Drugs? Which you conveniently ignore.

#FF0000

24th June 2012, 15:49

How about the War on Drugs? Which you conveniently ignore.

that isn't real, remember.

the vast and rapid militarization of police forces in the name of the drug war is a myth/trick of the light.

fabian

24th June 2012, 16:16

Yes they are.

They're not the same things, but they all have generally negative effects
Again and again with using words for what they don't mean and the false analogies. Bye, troll.

#FF0000

24th June 2012, 16:18

Bye, troll.

Stunning rebuttal.

fabian

24th June 2012, 16:26

Maybe I should take methods of "rebuttal" you guys use around here.

*clear throat* Fuck you. Hahaha. Party hard.

Imagine some fallacies in between.

roy

24th June 2012, 16:35

Maybe I should take methods of "rebuttal" you guys use around here.

*clear throat* Fuck you. Hahaha. Party hard.

Imagine some fallacies in between.

excuse me, but need i remind you of my dancing kirby characters?

****<( ^_^ )> (> ^_^ )> <( ^_^ <) <( ^_^ )>****/rave

anyway yeah, don't be silly. that obviously wasn't intended as a rebuttal to anything.

Conscript

24th June 2012, 16:48

Again and again with using words for what they don't ean and the false analogies. Bye, troll.

Theres nothing wrong with either of those. Your arguments are weak and based more on emotion than logic. Just admit it, youve hit a wall and cant go any further.

Reading your posts i learn more about your stupid vendetta and superiority complex than something justifying stamping out drugs.

Which, speaking of false analogies, stop comparing drug use/addiction to reliance on wage labor. It's just dumb for obvious reasons (ive argued against this before and you refused to deal with it).

OTOH, i can tell you sleep deprivation, for example, and intoxication are both debilitating in similar ways and represents a danger. I'd never drive while suffering either. False analogy? Not at all.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th June 2012, 17:25

Again and again with using words for what they don't mean and the false analogies. Bye, troll.

So you're not going to address my point that the means of production are under the control of a powerful minority, and that therefore for those who do not control the means of production, economic necessity takes precedence over personal preference?

Do you deny that being tired or texting can negatively impact the safety of one's driving performance?

You can call me a troll all you like, but it is a matter of public record that you have avoided answering perfectly reasonably objections to your arguments.

If you continue responding the way you have been, then sooner or later nobody will bother responding to you.

fabian

24th June 2012, 17:45

Theres nothing wrong with either of those.
If your an idiot, there isn't. If you want to act as a human and talk instead of blabber, then there is.

Your arguments are weak and based more on emotion than logic.
Unargumented claim.

just admit it, youve hit a wall and cant go any further.
A wall of trolls and idiotic spammers.

i learn more about your stupid vendetta and superiority complex than something justifying stamping out drugs.
Psychologist's fallacy used as a red herring.

stop comparing drug use/addiction to reliance on wage labor.
Stop talking about ethics? No.

It's just dumb for obvious reasons (ive argued against this before
Argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

False analogy?
Both being same in one external detail doesn't mean that they're same in general. Thus conclusions for the two cannot be the same. Whether sleep deprivation, crying babies and cell phones should be banned is not connected with the topic of should being drunk or drugged be banned.
So yes. False analogy combined with association fallacy and ignoratio elenchi.

Prinskaj

24th June 2012, 17:59

that isn't real, remember.

the vast and rapid militarization of police forces in the name of the drug war is a myth/trick of the light.
It's not a myth, but rather an optical illusion! Using mirrors and shit..

Maybe I should take methods of "rebuttal" you guys use around here.

*clear throat* Fuck you. Hahaha. Party hard.

Imagine some fallacies in between.
I guess that with "fuck you", you are referring to me. But I wouldn't be certain since you continually ignore my replies.
That was not meant as a serious reply, but merely as a verbal warning, that you were discussing in a fashion, which at best could be described as dishonest. I even gave three examples of this, all from just a single post.

#FF0000

24th June 2012, 19:25

Maybe I should take methods of "rebuttal" you guys use around here.

*clear throat* Fuck you. Hahaha. Party hard.

Imagine some fallacies in between.

but dude you are literally doing just that anyway.

Conscript

24th June 2012, 20:11

If your an idiot, there isn't. If you want to act as a human and talk instead of blabber, then there is.

Is this supposed to be a response?

If you want act like an arrogant douche, thats fine. Just let me know what youre really here for, troll.

Unargumented claim.

Im not here to prove this, if you want to pretend you don't i don't care. It's evident to anyone reading your posts you're awfully emotionally charged and that you're on a moral crusade, which is what matters.

Not that trying to argue for the banning of a commodity can be anything else, though. To make it worse, you're being arbitrary on the matter. Are drug users the dehumanized knuckle draggers you think they are, because you say so?

Now we're getting subjective.

A wall of trolls and idiotic spammers.

Lol no. It's happened, but lets not act like the bunch of pages in this thread arent filled with either:

1. You ignoring arguments
2. You simply repeating assertions, asserting morals, and insulting others while doing it.

Trolling and spamming naturally follows. You can look through the plenty of other threads in OI where the discussions are handled more civilly, the only thing different from them is the fact you're the OP. What does that say?

Psychologist's fallacy used as a red herring.

Unless youre going to deny youve been dehumanizing drug users and comparing drugs to slavery, this is just false. I'm making observations, not saying you're wrong for them.

You contradict yourself just by establishing youre talking about 'ethics'. You're setting yourself up to be subjective, because there is no other way to coherently argue your morals. The reason for this fetishistic hatred for drugs, and arbitrarily not other conditions that cause similar dangers (like sleep deprivation), can't be described as anything else but a vendetta. Thus my post.

That's what you spend your time doing in this thread, rather than be objective and argue it's somehow in our interest. When someone disagrees with your subjective views, you insult them and call them a troll. I suggest you get used to actually being trolled, or being banned, when you do that.

Stop talking about ethics? No.

It has nothing to with ethics. The two are incomparable, because only one provides sustenance, and it's not an ethical issue, it's part of a conflict of interests that gives rise to class antagonisms. I've been over this before and you just ignored it in favor of trolling 'revolution starts with u'.

Argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it isn't written, troll. Don't expect me to dig through your threads to find something you skipped. If you didnt jump from replying to poster to poster and ignoring others we wouldn't have this problem of bringing up old arguments.

Also, just because people spend time working doesn't mean that it is in any way equal or similar to time spent doing something else, like using drugs. That's why i say it's obvious, it's a simple conclusion. There's just no comparison to be made between wage labor and drug use/addiction.

Both being same in one external detail doesn't mean that they're same in general.

What is external about debilitating effects? You list reasons why drugs should be banned, like how dangerous it is use a vehicle or a machinery under the effects of one.

If the effects are similar and produce similar results, we apply the same logic to it. If we don't, we just have a fetish. Let me know if you have one, because i don't plan on arguing it.

Whether sleep deprivation, crying babies and cell phones should be banned is not connected with the topic of should being drunk or drugged be banned.

I'm curious why, but i can't find out because this is just an assertion.

False analogy combined with association fallacy and ignoratio elenchi.

I'd love to see the logic for this one. When confronted with other things that produce the effects you're warning us of and justifying criminalization of the cause with, your anti-drug views start to look more like a fetish that takes issue with the aesthetics of drug use. It's no wonder you make subjective conclusions like 'drug users are less intelligent' or that drug use/wage labor is at all an 'ethical issue'.

Please take your moral crusade elsewhere, preferably where right wing liberals resign and whine about other subjective 'ills of society'. Here you'll find little sympathy, because leftists only care if workers have an objective interest in it or not. As it stands, your relationship to them is a paternalistic, socially conservative one that tries to tell everyone what they can and can't produce/consume.

I'd rather have abundance of use values, thanks.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th June 2012, 03:18

If your an idiot, there isn't. If you want to act as a human and talk instead of blabber, then there is.

Unargumented claim.

A wall of trolls and idiotic spammers.

Psychologist's fallacy used as a red herring.

Stop talking about ethics? No.

Argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

Both being same in one external detail doesn't mean that they're same in general. Thus conclusions for the two cannot be the same. Whether sleep deprivation, crying babies and cell phones should be banned is not connected with the topic of should being drunk or drugged be banned.
So yes. False analogy combined with association fallacy and ignoratio elenchi.

Hey you! Yes, you!

Where are the citations I asked for regarding the violence of drug users, you pretentious and vacuous pseudo-intellectual coward?

Why have you refused to discuss the situation of Mexico as a result of the War on Drugs?

What about all the other questions you've been running away from?

-----

What I suggest to everyone else is that they do not respond to him in any way until he starts answering the above questions.

fabian

25th June 2012, 09:47

It's evident to anyone reading your posts you're awfully emotionally charged
Two fallacies. Psychologist's fallacy, where you assume to know my motives and emotions, and also, an appeal to spite, because people here don't like me, and whether I am emotionally charged is totally irrelevant to whether I'm right or wrong, so that fallacy has only a purpose in arrousing more dislike towards me from people who allready support you, and in increasing your rep points, but it is totally worthless for the argument.

You can look through the plenty of other threads in OI where the discussions are handled more civilly, the only thing different from them is the fact you're the OP. What does that say?
Two reasons, because of the kiss-ass attitude restricted marxsists have towards you guys, and because of the similarity of your attitudes, you're all irrationalists and social (/moral) liberals.

I'm making observations, not saying you're wrong for them.
You're making assumptions about someones motives and emotions, which is both impossible for you to know, and irrelevant. Assumptions =/= observations.

You contradict yourself just by establishing youre talking about 'ethics'. You're setting yourself up to be subjective, because there is no other way to coherently argue your morals.
Argument that.

The reason for this fetishistic hatred for drugs
Petitio principi, you're offering a premise that has a conclusion in it, that's not an argument, and you're using psychologist's fallacy again.

arbitrarily not other conditions that cause similar dangers (like sleep deprivation),
Comparing drugs to sleep deprivation or crying babies or cell phones is a triple fallacy. It is assossiation fallacy, because those things are not drugs- having one same external detail doesn't mean they are same in general. Babies cannot be compared to or treated anywhere near similarly as drugs. Junkies cannot be compared to and treated anywhere near similar as parents. That is also ignoratio elenchi- the fact that babies and sleep deprivation cannot be banned is an irrelevant conclusion- it has nothing to do with whether drugs should be banned, that's a plain red herring. This all makes it a false analogy.

The two are incomparable
The two are perfectly comparable in the sense I compared them, because I was called paternalistic and "paternalism is bad". I just pointed out that oppossition to capitalism is paternalistic, too, and that there is no magical line separating social and personal ethics making the personal one ethics, and social one not-ethics.

because only one provides sustenance, and it's not an ethical issue
Something providing sustenance doesn't exclude it from being ethics. Even the most basic provision of sustenance- where do you get your food- is part of ethics. If you kill people to make yourself burgers, that's certainly an ethical topic. Animals, too.

Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it isn't written
Ad nauseam as an evasion tool.

Also, just because people spend time working doesn't mean that it is in any way equal or similar to time spent doing something else
Because you say so? What's this, an appeal to your own authority? Nice, you're invention your own versions of fallacies.

There's just no comparison to be made between wage labor and drug use/addiction.
Repeating something is not explaining it.

What is external about debilitating effects?
If it were internal, babies and drugs would have similar definition, and be similar things. Which they are not. Drugs and alcohol are worthless and poisounous consumables, and babies are very young humans. Babies cannot be treated in any way, either by people or by law the same or similar as drugs.

If the effects are similar and produce similar results
This is a false analogy fallacy continued and "explained" to be a false cause fallacy. Besides the fact that comparing drugs and babies is a false analogy, as I just said above, you are making a correlation fallacy here, because drugs are always and by themselves debilitating to mind and dexterity, whereas babies are not.

I'm curious why, but i can't find out because this is just an assertion.
This is a red harring ignoratio elenchi. Whether babies should be banned has nothing to do with whether drugs should be banned. Are drugs bad? If yes, lets ban them. Are babies bad? If yes, let's ban them. But banning of one is not dependant of wether the other is banned. You show that you don't know (ignoratio) what refutaion (elenchi) is, and instead to refute, you distract (red harring) using irrelevant correlations and impying irrelevant conclusions.

It's no wonder you make subjective conclusions like 'drug users are less intelligent'
Quote me properly- less intelligent then animals. Animals have anough mind and self-control (as a consequence of using the mind) in order to act in accordance in their basic self-interest, whereas people while drunk or drugged are both mentally and physically impaired.

or that drug use/wage labor is at all an 'ethical issue'.
Yes, both are ethical issues.

your relationship to them is a paternalistic
As is your relatinoship to capitalism. Liberty has two definitions. The voluntaryist one, and the liberationist one. Stuart Mill illustrated liberationist view by an example of saving a life- if someone is going to fall off a bridge, and you pull him- you violate his freedom of movement, but in his best interest, whereas in the voluntaryist view, no intervention is justified- if someone doesn't ask you, you have no right to intervene whether that intervention would have positive, neutral or negative consequences. If you're a voluntaryist in one regard- people should have the freedom to take drugs, you should be a voluntaryist in other regards, too- people should have the freedom to sell their labor or sell themselves into slavery. If you're against restricting people's freedom to do drugs, you should be against restricting people's freedom to sell their labor or sell themselves into slavery. That's called being consistent, that is- not being in a contradiction.

Kenco Smooth

25th June 2012, 10:08

As is your relatinoship to capitalism. Liberty has two definitions. The voluntaryist one, and the liberationist one. Stuart Mill illustrated liberationist view by an example of saving a life- if someone is going to fall off a bridge, and you pull him- you violate his freedom of movement, but in his best interest, whereas in the voluntaryist view, no intervention is justified- if someone doesn't ask you, you have no right to intervene whether that intervention would have positive, neutral or negative consequences. If you're a voluntaryist in one regard- people should have the freedom to take drugs, you should be a voluntaryist in other regards, too- people should have the freedom to sell their labor or sell themselves into slavery. If you're against restricting people's freedom to do drugs, you should be against restricting people's freedom to sell their labor or sell themselves into slavery. That's called being consistent, that is- not being in a contradiction.

Way to try and rope Mill into your nonsense. Mill's bridge example specifically works on the assumptions that 1) the person about to walk onto the bridge does not know that it is dangerous, 2) that they do not wish* to suffer the harm that walking on a dangerous bridge will likely result in and 3) that there is no time to check the validity of assumptions 1 and 2. In the case of say, drug use, the only assumption which could hold in a reasonable number of cases is 2 and even that assumption becomes redundant if time allows you to check with the agent. If the man knew the risks of the bridge and still wished to cross Mill's argument would have supported that right.

*and this doesn't mean what they 'truly and rationally' wish, it means in the common sense usage, what they actually wish

fabian

25th June 2012, 10:35

Jimmie Higgins

25th June 2012, 11:50

fabian

25th June 2012, 12:21

^Straw-men and weird abstractions about "freedom"
Straw-man about freedom? Do you even know what is straw-man? I have to argue against someone in order to make a straw-man, whereas I was talking about my view, not arguing against someone else's, so there was no possibility for me to misrepresent someone else's view, that is- commit a straw-man.

- no one would be against voluntarily selling your labor in exchange for something you wanted - but this is not how capitalism as a system has ever worked!
Based on the pressumption that capitalists force people to work for them, which, based on the meaning of the word "force", they don't. So it's a valid analogy.

When has there been a system of voluntary life-long chattel slavery?
In the middle ages the majority of slaves came from people selling themselves into slavery.

People don't CHOOSE to be wage-slaves
Yes they do. A lot of people even say they like and want capitalism even when it is explained to them that taking of their surplus value is parasitism and theft.

Kenco Smooth

25th June 2012, 12:33

Because Mill was basically a voluntaryist, but the point is in the question that Mill mentions- should one have the freedom to relinquish freedom. IMO, no one shouldn't have that "freedom", I consider freedom good in itself, and I keep my views consistent with that.

So, as I said- if you're against restricting people's freedom to do drugs, you should be against restricting people's freedom to sell their labor or sell themselves into slavery.

If it's ok I'm going to set aside the argument over selling wage labour as I can very easily see it being marred by concerns and accusations against ideological consistency/purity which I think obscure the question.

Even if freedom is to be taken as a good in itself (a view I'm not opposed to on any practical grounds) an ethical good will always come into conflict with others and a trade-off made. Short of abstractions such as 'The Good' or appeals to Bentham's all pervading 'utility' I don't see this as particularly controversial. As simply one good of several/many trade-offs of freedom are neither good nor bad intrinsically, they're simply necessary, good and bad must be assigned on a case by case basis (or more realistically for practical concerns, a general rule should be applied which best fits the conclusions of the individual cases).

On the view that freedom is an essential and indivisible good no contract would be ethically permitted, no obligation, no commitment. Simply through the purchase of a good I limit my freedom to purchase others. Likewise the signing of a contract (this need not concern wage labour, the law of contract binds the bourgeoisie also) seriously limits my freedom. I would put myself in such a position that in trying to leave I would face financial/judicial punishment to a varying degree (amongst primitive societies/animal communities reneging on such a contract could easily result in ostracism which is an effective death sentence for many). Once such a contract is entered into it is thus exceedingly difficult to leave whilst also honouring your other desires to not face punishment. Should even binding contracts be opposed on the grounds that they limit freedom in and of itself?

Certain lines must be drawn as regards what is and isn't acceptable even in principle, but these rarely concern the act in itself, rather it's social consequences. For example the possibility of a slave being pressured into slavery. Once someone is made a slave they have lost any legitimacy to challenge their position, that is lost, whilst, in the bizarre case of someone being forced to ingest a highly addictive drug they not only can legitimately claim legal recourse (excluding notable exceptions such as government involvement), they can also, not without difficulty granted, escape the situation they find themselves in (indeed the law would likely assist them in such).

fabian

25th June 2012, 12:59

Thanks for the answer.

As simply one good of several/many trade-offs of freedom are neither good nor bad intrinsically, they're simply necessary, good and bad must be assigned on a case by case basis (or more realistically for practical concerns, a general rule should be applied which best fits the conclusions of the individual cases).
If I accept any good of trade-off of freedom that cancels out accepting freedom as good in itself.

On the view that freedom is an essential and indivisible good no contract would be ethically permitted, no obligation, no commitment.
Non sequitur. I can sell the product of my action, but I cannot (that is- should not be able to) sell my actions- my freedom or labor, because they are correlates of myself, whereas goods are not. Entering into normal contracts or any interaction with other free agents is practicing freedom, not forgoing it.

Once someone is made a slave they have lost any legitimacy to challenge their position, that is lost, whilst, in the bizarre case of someone being forced to ingest a highly addictive drug they not only can legitimately claim legal recourse (excluding notable exceptions such as government involvement), they can also, not without difficulty granted, escape the situation they find themselves in (indeed the law would likely assist them in such).
I don't understand what are you saying here. If you are talking about volutary slavery, there is no analogy, if about involuntary, there is a vague one, which is also irrelevant, because I don't know what a hypothetical situation of someone being forced to take drugs has to do with the argument.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th June 2012, 01:44

Another article from the guy who fabian called "one of the wisest and most insightive leftist philosophers of our time". It's full of shit like this: (http://www.scribd.com/doc/74553311/Homosexuality#fullscreen:off)

Marriage is an institutionalized community of woman and man that provides an opportunity for a stable biological reproduction of society and for raising children. When marriage is devoid of the life-creating (fecund) dimension, it loses its primary reason for existence.

Marriage is here defined as an institution consisting of a man and a woman coming together for the purposes of reproduction. This is the same kind of shit that American conservatives spout, but with fancier words.

In the homosexual relationship, the human body loses its genuine erotic dimension and is instrumentalized in an unnatural and inhuman way. It becomes an object of sexual exhibitionism in which the most important role is given to body parts that are unrelated to any genuine erotic nature, and especially alien to the life-creating nature of man. It is no longer a humanized natural relation, but a denaturalized and therefore dehumanized relation in which the body of the "partner" is reduced to a means for achieving an orgasm. Penetration of the penis into the anus is a painful and injurious violence against the "partner’s" organism and (as with "oral sex") a degrading form of "sexual intercourse".

Followed by dehumanisation of homosexuals, because of course Mr Simonović being the genius he is, knows the hearts of all homosexuals the world over. Prick. Plus he projects his own view of anal and oral intercourse as "degrading" onto others. Because in his heterosexist worldview sexual acts not directly relating to reproduction are all about domination and violence, rather than mutual pleasure.

Bisexuals are also completely ignored, thus revealing that Mr Simonović is completely ignorant of the complex tapestry that is human sexuality.

Jimmie Higgins

26th June 2012, 03:58

Straw-man about freedom?No, the strawman is your depiction of the decriminalization of drugs argument as wanting people to enslave themselves... that any drug-user is instantly a chemically dependent addict. The abstraction is your discussion of "freedom" as some idealist concept divorced from the actual material workings of society and the world. The fact that you can't tell the difference between chattel slavery as a system of organizing production in society and someone who chooses to be a sexual slave for their sex-acts demonstrates this.

Based on the pressumption that capitalists force people to work for them, which, based on the meaning of the word "force", they don't. So it's a valid analogy. They don't often (though it happens) force people INDUVIDUALLY but as a SYSTEM, a way of organizing production in society. I'd say forcing the pesantry off the lands and then having anti-vagabond laws which often carried the punishment of forced labor is pretty much "forcing" people to be wage-laborers (because the alternative would be forced indentured service). I think monopolizing the means of production means people who have no trust-fund or family wealth or property have no other viable option than to sell their labor.

In the middle ages the majority of slaves came from people selling themselves into slavery.Sefdom was a caste and that was the SYSTEM of organizing production, slaves, particularly self-selected slaves were a marginal part of the way feudal society worked. Even then people were generally compelled and it wasn't some abstract choice of total free-will.

Yes they do. A lot of people even say they like and want capitalism even when it is explained to them that taking of their surplus value is parasitism and theft.Most people HAVE NO CHOICE. Even explaining how capitalism works and knowing about exploitation doesn't remove the fact THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO SELL THEIR LABOR. For people who haven't come to revolutionary conclusions, it's much better to pretend you have power over your situation than to feel like you are exploited all the time. During Jim-Crow many BLACK people supported aspects of it and said they preferred things they way they were - this is the effect of not believing things can be different, not some abstract choice of free-will as you claim. Hell, house slaves wanted to protect their master - now that the SYSTEM of slavery is long gone though, how many black people volunteer to serve rich white people for life for free and choose to be house-slaves?

As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. Everything in our society tells us that capitalism is natural and good and the best of all possible worlds - yes many people, in the absence of viable alternatives, buy into that.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th June 2012, 04:27

Appeal to majority? Fallacy.

Argumentum ad logicam?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th June 2012, 05:50

Amusing and relevant; this is a thread from 2010 concerning football:

Amazingly paranoid article about why "soccer is a socialist sport". (http://www.revleft.com/vb/amazingly-paranoid-article-t137884/index.html)

The world is crazy for soccer, but most Americans don’t give a hoot about the sport. Why? Many years ago, my former White House colleague Bill McGurn pointed out to me the real reason soccer hasn’t caught on in the good old U.S.A. It’s simple, really: Soccer is a socialist sport.
Think about it. Soccer is the only sport in the world where you cannot use the one tool that distinguishes man from beast: opposable thumbs. “No hands” is a rule only a European statist could love. (In fact, with the web of high taxes and regulations that tie the hands of European entrepreneurs, “no hands” kind of describes their economic theories as well.)
Soccer is also the only sport in the world that has “hooligans”—proletarian mobs that trash private property whenever their team loses.
Soccer is collectivist. At this year’s World Cup, the French national team actually went on strike in the middle of the tournament on the eve of an elimination match. (Yes, capitalist sports have experienced labor disputes, but can you imagine a Major League Baseball team going on strike in the middle of the World Series?)
At the youth level, soccer teams don’t even keep score and everyone gets a participation trophy. Can you say, “From each according to his ability…”? (The fact that they do keep score later on is the only thing that prevents soccer from being a Communist sport.)
Capitalist sports are exciting—people often hit each other, sometimes even score. Soccer fans are excited by an egalitarian 0-0 tie. When soccer powerhouses Brazil and Portugal met recently at the World Cup, they played for 90 minutes—and combined got just eight shots on net (and zero goals). Contrast this with the most exciting sports moment last week, which came not at the World Cup, but at Wimbledon, when American John Isner won in a fifth-set victory that went 70-68. Yes, even tennis is more exciting than soccer. Like an overcast day in East Berlin, soccer is … boring.
And finally, have you seen the World Cup trophy? It looks like an Emmy Award (and everyone knows that Hollywood is socialist).
There are many more reasons soccer and socialism go hand in hand. You can read some of them here. Perhaps in the age of President Obama, soccer will finally catch on in America. But I suspect that socializing Americans’ taste in sports may be a tougher task than socializing our healthcare system.

Quote from the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2010/06/soccer-is-a-socialist-sport/).

More evidence, if any were needed, that the lack of a materialist class analysis results in contradictory assessments that, surprise surprise, tell us more about the people making them and their positions than whatever subject they purport to elucidate. Both fabian and the AEI don't like football, but use completely different explanations in an attempt to rationalise their position.

fabian

26th June 2012, 21:20

that any drug-user is instantly a chemically dependent addict
First thing, in order to be become an addict you have to start using, so these are correlates.
Second thing- without talking about addiction, while someone is drunk or drugged he is mentally and physically impaired, and thus not entitled to be treaded as having right to liberty, same as animals, children, the retarded, and old demented people. Being that their not having liberty is not by their nature, but brought upon, it can be called slavery. Also, this mentioned state of being mentally and physically impaired being brought upon themselves is a double imperative for them to be confined (that is- not tolerated).

They don't often (though it happens) force people INDUVIDUALLY but as a SYSTEM, a way of organizing production in society.
As I said, to make something difficult in not to force.

Most people HAVE NO CHOICE. Even explaining how capitalism works and knowing about exploitation doesn't remove the fact THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO SELL THEIR LABOR.
These are flat out lies. First thing, even if you are (really) forced there is a choice to disobey, if you value your choice more then not-experiencing the force you are threatened with. So- there is always a choice.
Second thing- as long as there are viable alternatives you are not forced/ imposed with/ compelled. So- they do not "have to".

yes many people, in the absence of viable alternatives
There are many viable alternatives.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 21:45

Many people here see markets themselves as "opposed" of leftism, being that they're competative, yet when I suggested that sports are a manifestation of capitalism I was trashed for it, all I can say is it's a shame that people don't like to think more, not "even when" but especially when it concerns their established views and habits.

I just want to link to a few texts by, IMO, one of the wisest and most insightive leftist philosophers of our time, with whom I have the luck of living in the same country- Ljubodrag Simonovic.

People interested in learning something new and having some high-quality food for thought shourd read texts such as Sport and philosophy, Sport and labour, Olympism and fascism, and the few essays from the book Philosophy of Olympism. Several translated in english are here:

Physical engagement doesn't have to be competitive, so this makes sense. Maybe you like rock climbing or kayaking or cycling.

Some people yearn to compete though. It's important to have sports around so competitors don't succumb to fascism.

Jimmie Higgins

27th June 2012, 09:07

while someone is drunk or drugged he is mentally and physically impaired, and thus not entitled to be treaded as having right to liberty, same as animals, children, the retarded, and old demented people.Woah there, I think you may have just gone from restricted to banned with these openly fascist sentiments here. I'd suggest backtracking pretty quickly on that statement.

Animals can only have the rights and liberty that humans grant them because they are not conscious of this, can't articulate it or demand it and never could - animal rights are what HUMANS have organized and fought for them to have.

But individual humans who have lost or not yet developed a way to articulate their personal autonomy are still humans who potentially (or did) have this capacity. "Liberty" comes from what people in groups in society demand/articulate and fight for. If we want an egalitarian and liberated society, then these rights are not on an individual basis or only for specific groups but for everyone - as long as these rights aren't directly harmful to others. So it's perfectly reasonable to try and do something about drunk-driving or for a collective workplace to send an individual home if they are too drunk or too depressed or too distracted in some other way to function properly and safely. It is not consistent for a liberated society to make the rights fought for collectively as a class or species apply conditionally for individuals.

fabian

27th June 2012, 11:02

Some people yearn to compete though. It's important to have sports around so competitors don't succumb to fascism.
Enabling something only makes it worse.

Woah there, I think you may have just gone from restricted to banned with these openly fascist sentiments here. I'd suggest backtracking pretty quickly on that statement.
Why? Beings that are not rational are not entitled to liberty, in some cases they can have guardians in order not to hurt themselves or others. Eg. children are not treted as having liberty nor should they. If they start running on the streat, parent not only are ethically alowed but have an ethical imperative to restrict their freedom of movement, in order for the child not be hit by a car. That's just one example.

Animals can only have the rights and liberty that humans grant them because they are not conscious of this, can't articulate it or demand it and never could - animal rights are what HUMANS have organized and fought for them to have.
Like humans rights. Rights do not concern directly the bearer of those rights, rights are obligations for people to treat bearers of those rights in a certain matter. Right to life and bodily integrity (non-attacking) legitimally belongs to all humans and animals. Right to liberty belongs to rational being that have self-control and with it the ability to act with sensibility in regards to life and bodily intergirity of self and others.

but for everyone - as long as these rights aren't directly harmful to others.
Exactly. People in a society are entitled to protect themselves against dangerous elements. If someone deliberatly brings them in danger for his own recreation, society has the right to stop him.

It is not consistent for a liberated society to make the rights fought for collectively as a class or species apply conditionally for individuals.
Yeah that's why does damn fascist Zapatistas have banned alcohol and drugs. Or maybe it's that they are the only democratic society in the world, where all laws are brought by the plebiscite, and have decided to prohibit recreational behaviour that endangeres, harms and kills people.

My right to life and bodily integrity tops your "right" to get drunk or drugged and endanger me.

Fennec

27th June 2012, 12:11

Many people here see markets themselves as "opposed" of leftism, being that they're competative, yet when I suggested that sports are a manifestation of capitalism I was trashed for it, all I can say is it's a shame that people don't like to think more, not "even when" but especially when it concerns their established views and habits.

I just want to link to a few texts by, IMO, one of the wisest and most insightive leftist philosophers of our time, with whom I have the luck of living in the same country- Ljubodrag Simonovic.

People interested in learning something new and having some high-quality food for thought shourd read texts such as Sport and philosophy, Sport and labour, Olympism and fascism, and the few essays from the book Philosophy of Olympism. Several translated in english are here:

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/category/2-articles-in-english/

Simonović is a homophobe and he vocally supported Milošević. He rambles about preserving national culture and how it's dangerous that we're adopting aspects of foreign cultures (using an example with children training karate and wearing kimonos). I could go on and on, but it's perfectly clear that we're talking about a reactionary.

fabian

27th June 2012, 13:06

Simonović is a homophobe and he vocally supported Milošević.
He is not a homophobe, but a critic of bringing (homo)sexuality into politics; and he is not a supporter of milosevic, but prefers milosevic over american controled government that came after him. Don't see anything wrong with either.

He rambles about preserving national culture
What's wrong with preserving your culture? Eg. Zapatistas are pretty fond of their culture.

Anyways, ad hominem doesn't change the fact that he's right.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th June 2012, 13:11

Enabling something only makes it worse.

Bullshit. 5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization)

Why? Beings that are not rational are not entitled to liberty, in some cases they can have guardians in order not to hurt themselves or others.

Humans in general are not rational beings unless they are genuinely trying to be. Why do you think critical thinking skills are things that have to be taught, rather than being instinctual from birth?

Eg. children are not treted as having liberty nor should they. If they start running on the streat, parent not only are ethically alowed but have an ethical imperative to restrict their freedom of movement, in order for the child not be hit by a car. That's just one example.

No, parents have an ethical imperative to prevent their children from coming to harm. This does not necessarily entail restriction of movement as a general rule.

Like humans rights. Rights do not concern directly the bearer of those rights, rights are obligations for people to treat bearers of those rights in a certain matter. Right to life and bodily integrity (non-attacking) legitimally belongs to all humans and animals. Right to liberty belongs to rational being that have self-control and with it the ability to act with sensibility in regards to life and bodily intergirity of self and others.

Rights are not conditional, otherwise they are privileges.

Exactly. People in a society are entitled to protect themselves against dangerous elements. If someone deliberatly brings them in danger for his own recreation, society has the right to stop him.

We're still waiting for you to provide evidence that drug users present more of a danger to everyone else than non-drug users.

Yeah that's why does damn fascist Zapatistas have banned alcohol and drugs. Or maybe it's that they are the only democratic society in the world, where all laws are brought by the plebiscite, and have decided to prohibit recreational behaviour that endangeres, harms and kills people.

So if most people vote to legalise drugs, you'll be fine with that? I thought you were against appeals to popular opinion...

My right to life and bodily integrity tops your "right" to get drunk or drugged and endanger me.

So if other peoples' chemical habits don't put you in danger, you'll leave them the fuck alone?