I've given up arguing with idiots. Is that a bad thing?

[Questionable]

I simply can't stand arguing wtih people who are blatantly wrong anymore.

I still make efforts to debate with people who are well-informed, but whenever someone is an idiot who is totally wrong, I just have no patience for them. I'll either simply tell them they're wrong and leave, or I won't say anything at all because the people who are the most idiotic tend to be the most set in their ways.

When I first became interested in Marxism and politics in general, I would argue with anybody, no matter how ridiculous they were being. It was a challenge I couldn't turn down; if someone said something false about Marxism, internet or real life, I had to say something.

But I've just grown so goddamn tired of it. I'm sick of arguing with people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who insist that they're right. But is that just what politics are about? If I don't argue with people who are blatantly incorrect, will the less-informed but more open-minded people be drawn to them?

[Akshay!]

people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who insist that they're right.

Most accurate description of every single person I've met (in real life). Can't think of any exceptions.

[Questionable]

Most accurate description of every single person I've met (in real life). Can't think of any exceptions.

The only time I've been able to convince someone of something was in an academic setting. Casual conversations about politics always result in people just repeating their own beliefs ad nauseum.

Actually no, there's been quite a few friends I've converted to a form of leftism in casual speech. But the ones who were completely close-minded left a sour taste in my mouth.

[Tenka]

No it's not a bad thing unless you like having high blood pressure. I stopped arguing on youtube because my poor heart, I was sure, could not handle the incessant, gnawing and prevailing stupidity. It's not really conducive to any constructive discussion, either. Yet I also avoid confrontation in real life because I am weak and my death would not be much noticed by anyone.

What is to be done?

[Bostana]

Eh
How do you hope to establish Marxism into the hearts and minds of people around you if all you do is:

. I'll either simply tell them they're wrong and leave, or I won't say anything at all......

Are people sometimes stupid and clueless and bent on their ways? Yes. But you can't just simply "stop," other wise people will grow doubtful of you and just stop listening what you have to say. This impression that you give off could have a lifetime affect on them about Marxism and Communism. A little thing I learned, as far as debating with people goes, is that they grow more stubborn if you are more offensive to them and insult them. If you truly want to make them listen more than they talk, you compliment them. Odd I know, but they seem more open when you do. I'm not talking about "wow, john, what a great shirt" I mean like "you make and excellent point" or "smart of you notice that." Whether it was smart observation they made or not, they will be more open and possibly willing to go deeper into Marxism and read about it and possibly become a commie one day

Do you understand what I'm getting at or no?

[Questionable]

Eh
How do you hope to establish Marxism into the hearts and minds of people around you if all you do is:


Are people sometimes stupid and clueless and bent on their ways? Yes. But you can't just simply "stop," other wise people will grow doubtful of you and just stop listening what you have to say. This impression that you give off could have a lifetime affect on them about Marxism and Communism. A little thing I learned, as far as debating with people goes, is that they grow more stubborn if you are more offensive to them and insult them. If you truly want to make them listen more than they talk, you compliment them. Odd I know, but they seem more open when you do. I'm not talking about "wow, john, what a great shirt" I mean like "you make and excellent point" or "smart of you notice that." Whether it was smart observation they made or not, they will be more open and possibly willing to go deeper into Marxism and read about it and possibly become a commie one day

Do you understand what I'm getting at or no?

I believe if you put all of the hours I spent debating wtih people on real life and the internet, I would have a good solid month of speaking with people about politics altogether.

In that time, I can count on one finger how many people said "Wow, you're right, I never thought of it that way!" after it was all said and done.

Perhaps that means I'm terrible at expressing my ideas and I don't realize it. But I've received many compliments from comrades who were also leftist, so that causes me to conclude that it was the other people. Maybe not, though. Who knows?

[Bostana]

In that time, I can count on one finger how many people said "Wow, you're right, I never thought of it that way!" after it was all said and done.
Right, which is why you must,
1st). State your opinion.
2nd). Allow them to speak or state their opinion
3rd). Say something like "good-point" or something. Then gently refute their statement
Emphasis on no insulting or harsh tones. Kinda sounds like dealing with a child, I know, but you want to seem welcoming


Perhaps that means I'm terrible at expressing my ideas and I don't realize it.
I doubt this Comrade.
You're a good poster and an excellent debater :)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I feel like "arguing with idiots" is roughly equivalent to trying to fight your way through a line of riot cops; one should instead be figuring out how to out maneuver them.
After all, let's face it arguments are generally more likely to persuade third parties than they are anyone who's directly involved in them, and, even then, moreso when there's at least some sort of common ground from which everyone is starting. So, basically, when it's just you and an "idiot", you might as well not bother.
That said, I don't think there are many idiots out there, or, at least, they're less common than is typically assumed. There's lots of ideological bullshit that people spout off, but it's probably grounded somewhere, in a real experience and in real conditions. That trick with people who seem like idiots is the flesh out the details of where they're coming from and why they've reached their conclusions.

Just this afternoon, I was out for a smoke break (I don't actually smoke, but I like to drink my coffee outside) with a co-worker, and he was talking some smack about last year's student strikes. Sure, the obvious thing might be to just tear in, but, in this case, as often, a bit of patience paid dividends (yes, that's a joke about capitalism). With a bit of conversation his feeling was that bachelors degrees in the humanities are essentially worthless on the job market (relatively true), and that making them free and widely available would only serve to further devalue them (also true). So, where to from there? Once I'd listened for a while - gotten a handle on his language and perspective, it wasn't that hard to develop the conversation in a more useful, critical direction. We agreed that "degree factories" are a terrible, that school's relationship to work essentially undermined its ostensible values (e.g. learning), that the student strikers problem was, in the final analysis, that they didn't go far enough.

Of course, usually nothing pans out so well over the course of a single conversation, but I think my point generally stands. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[Tenka]

Right, which is why you must,
1st). State your opinion.
2nd). Allow them to speak or state their opinion
3rd). Say something like "good-point" or something. Then gently refute their statement
Emphasis on no insulting or harsh tones. Kinda sounds like dealing with a child, I know, but you want to seem welcoming


One of many good reasons not to have children. Though admittedly most parents don't actually deal with their children in such a sensible and gentle manner. No, many are content to let their size and authority intimidate the child into compliance or acceptance.

That aside, the point you make seems good, even if I don't have such patience with people.

[Comrade Nasser]

I've stopped talking politics in real life unless I know they are leftists or if they are border-line leftist liberals who I feel just need a push farther left. The thing about Libs is that many of them are actually racists. Obviously not the shaved head swastika on the forehead types but more of the racist way in that they don't know that they are being racist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Haha! Best thread title of the week...
Yeah, that's me in a nutshell, at least on some days.
Though being on a debate team has given me some perspective---if the person with whom you are arguing is an idiot, but it's in some sort of public forum where each of you is less trying to convince the other and more trying to convince an audience of two, three, four, or however many people, then maybe it's worthwhile being the voice of reason. But "pick your battles", as they say. That's probably the ironically best advice my liberal/borderline Conservative mom has given me.

Short of that, I've come to realize that just because I've changed my own political perspective doesn't mean that everyone is willing to if you just push them enough.

I'm not prepared to give up on people easily, but if all they offer is blatant racism/sexism/bigotry of any sort or try to mask their lack of arguments with personal attacks, I'm not going to waste my time.

I welcome differences of opinion but all too often they're poorly thought out because I'm talking to sheltered suburbanites who've never given poverty, starvation and imperialism a second thought because it's not happening to their immediate family or is "just a fact of life".

I could go on and on and on, but I'll shut up. :D

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Right, which is why you must,
1st). State your opinion.
2nd). Allow them to speak or state their opinion
3rd). Say something like "good-point" or something. Then gently refute their statement
Emphasis on no insulting or harsh tones. Kinda sounds like dealing with a child, I know, but you want to seem welcoming


I doubt this Comrade.
You're a good poster and an excellent debater :)

I never state my opinion. Opinions are useless. If people ask me for my political opinion I tell them it is irrelevant; I don't have opinions, I have convictions.

I never say 'Communism would be kinda cool', or 'Free Healthcare for everyone would be sorta humane, ya know?', that is just useless. I say "90% of the US Media is owned by 6 Corporations", or try to inform them what the goal of Socialism is: workers democratic control over the fruits of their labor.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The memories are flooding back....

"Look at Stalin. Look at the deaths he caused."

"Look at Kim Jong. You want someone like him? X wants to be a dictatorship king."

"60 Million people dead in Mao's china, buddy. Communism fails."

I share your sympathy absolutely.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've done the same. I think it's natural for anyone would has at least come to have a decent understanding of Marxism (or anarchism). It's not worth the time or effort to debate ever single reactionary with the same flawed arguments the you come across. Sometimes it's just not worth it.

[Prof. Oblivion]

That's why I don't post that often. ;)

[Crixus]

I simply can't stand arguing wtih people who are blatantly wrong anymore.

I still make efforts to debate with people who are well-informed, but whenever someone is an idiot who is totally wrong, I just have no patience for them. I'll either simply tell them they're wrong and leave, or I won't say anything at all because the people who are the most idiotic tend to be the most set in their ways.

When I first became interested in Marxism and politics in general, I would argue with anybody, no matter how ridiculous they were being. It was a challenge I couldn't turn down; if someone said something false about Marxism, internet or real life, I had to say something.

But I've just grown so goddamn tired of it. I'm sick of arguing with people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who insist that they're right. But is that just what politics are about? If I don't argue with people who are blatantly incorrect, will the less-informed but more open-minded people be drawn to them?

You're just angry because Ludwig Von Mises debunked Marxism. At least, such is the mantra on youtube. You can imagine my dismay when I found out Hitler was a socialist! I'm now in the process of accepting that evolutionary psychology shows us the way to equality but first I had to come to see the Federal Reserve as the cause of everything. It's at the center of all of this. My point- sometimes uncontested beliefs catch on. On a serious note what I find a tad disturbing is the new (old) 'intellectualized' racism or 'race realism', evo psychology atatcks on feminism, free market capitalist theory, general liberal apologetics for capitalism and perpetual attacks on communism from liberals, fascists, conservatives, free market people, actual capitalists, family, friends etc. Sometimes I go years without addressing any of it. Sometimes I put on my proverbial armor and jump into the battle. It does indeed take time and energy and one does have to wonder if it makes the least bit of difference. Changing public opinion concerning communism is possible but it helps to do so during times of struggle where people can see the conflict between labor/capital for themselves. I'm not sure 'debating' some fascist or free market capitalist will change anything but to leave their ideas alone out there uncontested just feels irresponsible to me at times. I think debates amongst ourselves need to happen. The whole 'everyone's point of view is right' is the sort of idealism that needs to go.

[Red Nightmare]

Some people simply cannot be reasoned with or simply refused to, instead try to reach out to the open minded.

[Dropdead]

I have a ''friend'' that is an idiot.

I've tried to explain to him about communism when he has said it sucks.

Today I asked him do you know who Marx was? Do you know Engels? He's like: ''Who are they? Some crazy killers like Stalin and Hitler?'' At that point I just said fuck it.

I don't even wanna talk to him anymore, he's a complete idiot and it's impossible to argue with him.

[Nevsky]

The problem is that many people are not open minded enough to try to understand how a communist thinks. Communism is not just one part of the bourgeois democratic political spectrum, it's an entirely different system of thought with a political spectrum of its own. We communists are used to debate with fellow comrades about Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism-Leninism, Orthodox Marxism, Left Communism, Anarchism, Bakuninism, Titoism, Maoism and so on, we are used to the categories and methods of marxist thought just like an "ordinary" western person is used to debate about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians etc., for them communism is just "Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, 1000000000 billion deaths" and all that stuff. Whenever I try to make a reasonable argument from a marxist perspective, I look like an alien to many of my compatriots. Of course this is also the fault of massive anti-communist propaganda from Berlusconi's private TV and newspapers...

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I've got the perfect book for you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Arguing_with_Idiots.jpg

Why Beck insisted on writing a book on how to argue with himself remains unknown.

[Lucretia]

I simply can't stand arguing wtih people who are blatantly wrong anymore.

I still make efforts to debate with people who are well-informed, but whenever someone is an idiot who is totally wrong, I just have no patience for them. I'll either simply tell them they're wrong and leave, or I won't say anything at all because the people who are the most idiotic tend to be the most set in their ways.

When I first became interested in Marxism and politics in general, I would argue with anybody, no matter how ridiculous they were being. It was a challenge I couldn't turn down; if someone said something false about Marxism, internet or real life, I had to say something.

But I've just grown so goddamn tired of it. I'm sick of arguing with people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who insist that they're right. But is that just what politics are about? If I don't argue with people who are blatantly incorrect, will the less-informed but more open-minded people be drawn to them?

I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but the problem with your attitude is that some of the people who are the most blatantly wrong are the ones with this very attitude. And by adopting it, they shut themselves off from accessing reality. The Glenn Beck book illustrates this point perfectly.

[Questionable]

I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but the problem with your attitude is that some of the people who are the most blatantly wrong are the ones with this very attitude. And by adopting it, they shut themselves off from accessing reality. The Glenn Beck book illustrates this point perfectly.

That is true. I know our ideologies contrast and you're probably thiking I try to convince people Stalin was a genius, but in most cases I'm only trying to argue for basic tenets of Marxism like the labor theory of value and historical materialism, and my "opponent" still rejects me without much though.

[Questionable]

The problem is that many people are not open minded enough to try to understand how a communist thinks. Communism is not just one part of the bourgeois democratic political spectrum, it's an entirely different system of thought with a political spectrum of its own. We communists are used to debate with fellow comrades about Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism-Leninism, Orthodox Marxism, Left Communism, Anarchism, Bakuninism, Titoism, Maoism and so on, we are used to the categories and methods of marxist thought just like an "ordinary" western person is used to debate about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians etc., for them communism is just "Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, 1000000000 billion deaths" and all that stuff. Whenever I try to make a reasonable argument from a marxist perspective, I look like an alien to many of my compatriots. Of course this is also the fault of massive anti-communist propaganda from Berlusconi's private TV and newspapers...

This is extremely true. I can debate quite well with informed comrades from any part of the communist spectrum, but when it comes time to confront liberals or libertarians or those kinds of groups, they often have literally no clue what Marxism or even leftism stands for, and it takes some time for me to adjust to.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This is extremely true. I can debate quite well with informed comrades from any part of the communist spectrum, but when it comes time to confront liberals or libertarians or those kinds of groups, they often have literally no clue what Marxism or even leftism stands for, and it takes some time for me to adjust to.

Wellyou shouldn't debate liberals, you should educate them.
If you come in big guns firing, then yes, they will get defensive and won't listen. If you calmly explain and answer peoples' questions, they often will listen.

Remember these are people who aren't marxists and probably have never researched it, and you can't exactly blame them for that.
If you don't try to calmly explain something that is completely new for them, you will fail. Nobody listens to you when you try to explain something totally new and then agressively debate them because "they don't know shit".

[Ele'ill]

Ever been talking with one of these folks and they are like all over the place and incoherent as said earlier so you try to find 'common ground' by redirecting the conversation a little bit and they answer your question or whatever and it's still like amidst their incoherent babble but a piece of it is really brilliant and blows your mind. They don't even know what they said or how they worded it but it fills in some gap in your own wording of things

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I've got the perfect book for you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Arguing_with_Idiots.jpg

Why Beck insisted on writing a book on how to argue with himself remains unknown.


lol... I have that book. In fact I can see it sitting on the bottom row of my shelf slightly painted over by industrial black paint.

But yeah, I stopped arguing with online people a long time ago.Now I prefer to spend my free time reading Leftist texts and improving my theoretical knowledge as well as my historical knowledge. I just don't have the strength to keep up with their nonsense. The times when I did argue weren't the worst but that is because they were conservatives semi-trolling in the Youth for Socialist Action facebook group. In the end they never bothered to respond to my retorts (so I guess I "won") but I agree with other comrades thoughts that any debate will likely influence spectators, not the opponent in question. As the guide goes: pick your battles carefully.

[REV3R]

Part of being a good arguer is knowing when to argue and when to just walk away. But yeh, arguing with stubborn idiots that dont have any evidence either way is infuriating.

I guess its kinda like trying to tell a creationist about evolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem is that you're trying to argue an entirely completely and I mean alien way of thinking onto people who have usually bought in hook line and sinker the things they've been conditioned to believe in.

Not only that but at this point, especially in America, the political discourse has gotten so bad that not even people who supposedly know, know anything at all. The propaganda spewed out by corporate America has sunk in so deep that it has entirely soiled any decent conversation you can ever have with a huge chuck of the populace.

You're dealing with a social reality that have totally usurped the reality on the ground, the material reality. So now it takes years.....like it took me and I am sure it took many of you to completely undo.

How long did it take you to become a leftist? I am sure quite a while. I mean becoming a Marxist or even a leftist takes a lot of study and a lot of deeper analysis.

I know some people in here will argue against that and say that workers living in a capitalist society have their experiences to tell them what is right but we have a pounding propaganda system here, a hegemonic culture that literally guides them in the the opposite direction.

This is pervasive at all levels. The ruling class will not even let the people think that what they're experiencing is true. For instance there is always that one conservative at every workplace that will try and contradict everything the other workers feel they are experiencing as workers in the hierarchy. People come to these conclusions about work, their relation to work, their position and where their income puts them in the social hierarchy which first stems from the workplace. But there is that one guy or that one guy on the radio, tv, the school or whatnot who tells them otherwise. That these feelings, these gut reactions are just feeble thinking. The reality is really XYZ aka you're complaining, you're being lazy, the boss worked hard his whole life, the rich are the victims, etc. etc. etc. And my personal favorite Economics 101 goes like this....and cue reactionary libertarian propaganda.

Thatcher and Reagan did succeed in changing peoples minds about making them believe that they are consumers not workers, that they are temporary workers on their way to being millionaires and that the gains of someday achieving wealth are worth the heartache of being poor. If you lose well that is your own fault and you should've tried harder.

How else do you explain the conservative movement and it's popularity among working and middle class people? How else do you explain a sizable movement that campaigns and campaigns pretty actively against any social services or safety nets and wished to give rich people all the social, economic and political power they ask for because they truly believe that these same rich people will shower them jobs.

[#FF0000]

I generally don't "argue" at all. I have hella discussions with all sorts of people, but what I call "arguing" is what happen when you try to discuss something with the outrageously and willfully ignorant. And it's annoying, of course.

So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with choosing to not engage with youtube commenters or whatever.

[#FF0000]

I generally don't "argue" at all. I have hella discussions with all sorts of people, but what I call "arguing" is what happen when you try to discuss something with the outrageously and willfully ignorant. And it's annoying, of course.

So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with choosing to not engage with youtube commenters or whatever.

[blake 3:17]

In that time, I can count on one finger how many people said "Wow, you're right, I never thought of it that way!" after it was all said and done.


How often have you said that to anyone else?

[RadioRaheem84]

That's why I wonder if revolutions happen. I mean if things were that evident and things were that rationally deduced than there would be no need for revolution. There are ruling classes which are brought down and their many followers who won't listen to reason.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To be fair, there have been some pretty stupid Communists in history. In fact, many otherwise intelligent Communists took stupid political positions. Imagine arguing with a mainstream Communist before 1990 on the issue of gay rights - they would passionately tell you that homosexuality is a symptom of bourgeois identity and something to be banned. So don't think that there's just a bunch of rational commies floating out there in a sea of stupidity from everyone else.

Instead of trying to "Argue" with "idiots", I find it best to acknowledge that there are often particular reasons why people are ignorant on XYZ topic, and introduce things to them that will make them less ignorant. Perhaps its easier for me because i have friends who are at once educated and fairly critical but lets face it, how do you ever hope to convince the working class with that kind of attitude?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I've got the perfect book for you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Arguing_with_Idiots.jpg

Why Beck insisted on writing a book on how to argue with himself remains unknown.

Well, I like the East German uniform.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What Comrade Walrus said:


Well, you shouldn't debate liberals, you should educate them.

Its difficult, I know, but the only way to gain any kind of hold is to first have a normal human interaction with them, and then try to just throw facts, statistics and historical stories at them. I have a few historical I like to tell the liberal crowd, foremost the one about how 1917 saw the Russian Soviet Republic established, 1918 saw the Ukrainian, Finnish working class Revolutions being slaughtered at the hands of the Nationalists, 1919 saw the Soviet Republic of Bavaria, the Soviet Republic of Hungary, and the Soviet Republic of Ukraine established, with the mass demonstrations in Austria March 1919 calling for State powers to the Soviets and nearly succeeding in building a Union of Socialist Soviet Republics spanning from East Asia to Central Europe within the time span of 2 years. Then I culminate the historical account with a line that goes something like, "The Communist ideal is not just a tremendous moral force. It, and the sweeping socialist revolutions stemming from this powerful ideal of communism in the past hundred years, is a material force of history. Socialist Revolution is a direct product of the anti-human outgrowths of capitalism, which cannot be stopped by any Hitler, McCarthy, or any other counterrevolutionary pawn of history".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I doubt the relevance of the book, though; Beck clearly states that he's "ayaguing" with idiots, whatever that might mean.


To be fair, there have been some pretty stupid Communists in history. In fact, many otherwise intelligent Communists took stupid political positions. Imagine arguing with a mainstream Communist before 1990 on the issue of gay rights - they would passionately tell you that homosexuality is a symptom of bourgeois identity and something to be banned. So don't think that there's just a bunch of rational commies floating out there in a sea of stupidity from everyone else.

The point stands but, as I recall it, only some of the "official" communist parties and certain Maoist groups continued to bash gays in the eighties and the nineties. Of course, communists aren't inoculated against idiocy, but the fact that the most progressive modern attitudes have all first been expressed in the communist milieu demonstrates, I think, that those who make an effort to correctly apply the materialist analysis to social matters are less likely to take outrageously stupid positions.


Wellyou shouldn't debate liberals, you should educate them.
If you come in big guns firing, then yes, they will get defensive and won't listen. If you calmly explain and answer peoples' questions, they often will listen.

I've tried to do so, several times, and honestly, I'd rather french-kiss an angle grinder than try to educate another liberal. These people seem to consider any theoretical analysis of society - outside the sort of pulp "theory" promoted by the NYT perhaps - as "pseudoscience" and "idealism", and unless something includes "compromise" and "rights", they don't want to hear about it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I've tried to do so, several times, and honestly, I'd rather french-kiss an angle grinder than try to educate another liberal. These people seem to consider any theoretical analysis of society - outside the sort of pulp "theory" promoted by the NYT perhaps - as "pseudoscience" and "idealism", and unless something includes "compromise" and "rights", they don't want to hear about it.

It's because they presuppose their ideology as the happy medium.

Liberals can be done of the worst to deal with because they're not anti establishment at all and think its vulgar or childish to not submit to some level of technocratic nonsense that's espoused by the Economist or a weak policy rag.

I mean the conservatives are so bad at presenting facts and coherent arguments that that just solidifies their arrogant outlook. So when approached with opposition from the left, they deem us just extremists from the other side.

[Ele'ill]

sometimes it's better to just troll

[blake 3:17]

I mean the conservatives are so bad at presenting facts and coherent arguments that that just solidifies their arrogant outlook. So when approached with opposition from the left, they deem us just extremists from the other side.

There are and have been plenty of very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives and rightwingers & lots of complete fools on the Left. The idea that one is smarter, wiser, or more ethical the further one is in a particular direction on the political spectrum is a kooky delusion. It gets especially mixed up in the US where "conservative" and "liberal" don't really mean what they mean anywhere else.

[Crixus]

There are and have been plenty of very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives and rightwingers & lots of complete fools on the Left. The idea that one is smarter, wiser, or more ethical the further one is in a particular direction on the political spectrum is a kooky delusion. It gets especially mixed up in the US where "conservative" and "liberal" don't really mean what they mean anywhere else.
The only smart supporters of capitalism are the honest supporters of capitalism. The ones who admit the need to oppose democracy and why. The ones who admit the need for war and why. The ones who admit the need to attack unions and why. The ones who admit the federal reserves role is to try to end crisis. The ones who admit that keeping workers "illegal" is for profits. The ones who admit full unemployment would make profits impossible. People like Kissinger, Greenspan, Hayek and a small handful of other pro capitalist economists, theorists and 'statesmen'. I find most of the rest are idealists who's sole purpose is to obfuscate the actual necessities of the capitalist system which even the smart ones will do but sometimes the smart ones slip up. :)

[blake 3:17]

The only smart supporters of capitalism are the honest supporters of capitalism. The ones who admit the need to oppose democracy and why. The ones who admit the need for war and why. The ones who admit the need to attack unions and why. The ones who admit the federal reserves role is to try to end crisis. The ones who admit that keeping workers "illegal" is for profits. The ones who admit full unemployment would make profits impossible. People like Kissinger, Greenspan, Hayek and a small handful of other pro capitalist economists, theorists and 'statesmen'. I find most of the rest are idealists who's sole purpose is to obfuscate the actual necessities of the capitalist system which even the smart ones will do but sometimes the smart ones slip up. :)

Agreed. But there are other strains of conservatism that are either anti-capitalist or contain strong elements of anti-capitalism. I'm thinking of people like Burke, Carlyle, and Eliot.

Have you read Hilary Wainwright's Arguments for a New Left? She pulls off the amazing feat of synthesizing Marx and Hayek! It's not easy, but very stimulating.

[Crixus]

Have you read Hilary Wainwright's Arguments for a New Left? She pulls off the amazing feat of synthesizing Marx and Hayek! It's not easy, but very stimulating.
I'm not sure if I'm prepared for that sort of skullduggery. I had to force myself to read the major capitalist and free market theorists over the years so I'm not even sure....at this point I can't imagine how..... in what sense does she synthesize the two? Hayek's views on democracy, property and, well, pretty much everything are the antimatter to Marx's matter. When the two touch things might explode (my brain?).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There are and have been plenty of very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives and rightwingers & lots of complete fools on the Left. The idea that one is smarter, wiser, or more ethical the further one is in a particular direction on the political spectrum is a kooky delusion. It gets especially mixed up in the US where "conservative" and "liberal" don't really mean what they mean anywhere else.

I am not sure the "political spectrum" is a useful model; it seems to imply that liberalism and petite-bourgeois democracy is somehow "close" to socialism, and that a liberal could somehow "drift leftward" - or be "pushed leftward", as some people claim - and become a socialist. But this ignores an important theoretical break between socialism and liberalism - socialists are not simply liberals that want to nationalise the economy, as some people seem to think.

In any case, yes, there are quite a few idiots on the Left, and intelligent people in the ranks of liberals, conservatives and so on. But even intelligent people can spew absolute nonsense (and, conversely, idiots can parrot an intelligent analysis), and the liberal and conservative analyses of society simply do not add up. I actually think the conservative theories - those due to Durkheim, Parsons, and others - hold up better than liberal ones, and that they are closer in spirit to the Marxist analysis (since they admit the existence of social structures other than atomic individuals and imagined contracts).

As for ethics, I don't consider classism, racism and ethnic chauvinism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, the phobia of science, of materialism and of atheism and so on, which form much of conservative "morality", to be particularly praiseworthy.


Agreed. But there are other strains of conservatism that are either anti-capitalist or contain strong elements of anti-capitalism. I'm thinking of people like Burke, Carlyle, and Eliot.

But their anti-capitalism is reactionary and feudal - their alternatives to capitalism are much worse than the bourgeois dictatorship and, besides, they are blatantly impossible to attain.


Have you read Hilary Wainwright's Arguments for a New Left? She pulls off the amazing feat of synthesizing Marx and Hayek! It's not easy, but very stimulating.

And how does the "synthesis" hold up? There have been numerous attempts to "synthesise" Marx with this or that bourgeois writer - Kant, Mach, Bergson, Rawls and so on - and the result is, as far as I know, always revisionist, reformist, opportunist, and usually moralist. Also, why would we need a "new" left? Is there something wrong with the old one?

[RadioRaheem84]

There are and have been plenty of very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives and rightwingers & lots of complete fools on the Left. The idea that one is smarter, wiser, or more ethical the further one is in a particular direction on the political spectrum is a kooky delusion. It gets especially mixed up in the US where "conservative" and "liberal" don't really mean what they mean anywhere else.

I don't even know how you figure that. I've read Thomas Sowell who is about the only conservative I tend to think of as thoughtful, and even he takes the lazy road of human nature to argue against leftism.

Their methodology is completely flawed and they continually assert their surface level explanations as self evident truth.

There are kooky leftists but you're clearly comparing the least level headed with the most level headed in the right wing camp. Still though I would take a kooky Bob Avakian over a Hayek. I find the methodology leftists and especially Marxists use as one of the best analysis to understand the world under capitalism.

And what kooky Marxists are referring to? Seriously your point seems more like a contrarian for the hell of it position.

[RadioRaheem84]

I second what Semendyay said and just want to add that the self deprecation in order to appear humble and more broadminded is something I am not all that keen on the left, especially the kind that happens on revleft. I mean conservatives and right wingers as more thoughtful? That is absurd. If anyone can see right through their presupposed dogma one can see that their anti-capitalism is probably nostalgia for feudalism. So are national syndicalists thoughtful too? There are critiques of capitalism found in religious thinkers as well Baathists, they seem pretty well thought out from their own outlook. I tend to look at their presuppositions and then where those notions lead their conclusions. 9 times out of 10 it leads to some ridiculous stuff, and even though it may well be well thought out and less vulgar than some of the kooky Marxists you speak of, the stuff is still shit.

I wasn’t meaning to say that anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is automatically a far superior intelligent being but that the tools and method of analysis Marxists use, I tend to trust that there will be some modicum of a clear and concise analysis of the world we live in over a right winger.

[blake 3:17]

RadioRaheem -- There is no lack of kooky Marxists. We can plat the pick & choose game and say so and so isn't a real Marxist, but... Our movements have put forward the absolute the best in humanity and the worst.

At others on anti-capitalist conservatism -- I'm not endorsing it all. I was just responding to a post which implied that the only right wing politics were pro-capitalist. But I would warn some caution at writing off all conservatives as horrible reactionaries. I recently read a stunning essay by Henry Louis Gates Jr on Burke and his prolonged attacks on British colonialism in India. Probably the best handling of this is Raymond Williams' Culture and Society.

On Arguments for a New Left -- I was wrong to say it was a synthesis of Marx and Hayek. An exploration of the two? Anyways, what it came from was Wainwright's contact with peace, feminist, environmental, etc activists in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed and in discussions with them, she found a lot were really really into Hayek. Having just spent a decade fighting Thatcherism, the idea that her peers were following the philosopher of her enemy was so weird, she decided to find out why. I haven't read it in ten years, and the good parts were in the details. The bits in Hayek, she did see value in was the recognition of informal knowledge, local knowledge and skills. Some of this is similar to what James C. Scott writes on so I might be mashing it up a bit, but the sentiment is the same. I am in favour of a planned economy, but recognize the dangers in over planning.

[Ocean Seal]

If they aren't informed and are arrogant to boot, I'd try making fun of their beliefs by showing their absurdity. If they continue to deny evidence, just troll harder. I've had my fun trolling people, and educating the open minded. That's pretty much it.

[rylasasin]

This is why I almost never try to debate with anyone about anything...

... except on youtube, where it's more trolling than anything.

[B5C]

I know the feeling. I made a statement on facebook about trying to fix my wife's PS3 networking issues. (The PS3 on my network refuses to go to NAT2)

One of my facebook friends respond with this:
" So let me understand this, as a Marxist, you own a PS3 and an Xbox? Your complaint about "not having enough" comes form where?"

Continues:

"No it does not make them invalid, just odd. If he has disposable income, then does that not make him part of the bourgeois?"

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz3xws8MGl1r8wxeyo1_500.jpg

Then it becomes an debatethon on why I an Marxist is an hypocrite for owning an PS3 & an Xbox which my wife uses the most for.

[RadioRaheem84]

RadioRaheem -- There is no lack of kooky Marxists. We can plat the pick & choose game and say so and so isn't a real Marxist, but... Our movements have put forward the absolute the best in humanity and the worst.

At others on anti-capitalist conservatism -- I'm not endorsing it all. I was just responding to a post which implied that the only right wing politics were pro-capitalist. But I would warn some caution at writing off all conservatives as horrible reactionaries. I recently read a stunning essay by Henry Louis Gates Jr on Burke and his prolonged attacks on British colonialism in India. Probably the best handling of this is Raymond Williams' Culture and Society.

On Arguments for a New Left -- I was wrong to say it was a synthesis of Marx and Hayek. An exploration of the two? Anyways, what it came from was Wainwright's contact with peace, feminist, environmental, etc activists in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed and in discussions with them, she found a lot were really really into Hayek. Having just spent a decade fighting Thatcherism, the idea that her peers were following the philosopher of her enemy was so weird, she decided to find out why. I haven't read it in ten years, and the good parts were in the details. The bits in Hayek, she did see value in was the recognition of informal knowledge, local knowledge and skills. Some of this is similar to what James C. Scott writes on so I might be mashing it up a bit, but the sentiment is the same. I am in favour of a planned economy, but recognize the dangers in over planning.

I agree. But you don't think that a lot of the overlap and agreement is similar to how some progressives agree with Ron Paul over the war on drugs and imperalism? Even Murray Rothbard praised Che Guevara because of his anti-imperial stance? I also agree that many libertarians and Austrians such as Hayek and Milton Friendman can poke holes in the enefficiency of the Soviet system. But aren't those critiques against state capitalism, and are presupposed under their false dichotomy of the private/public sector split? When I hear Milton Friedman tackle the Soviet System, I tend to agree with him on it's faults, but I disagree when he keeps attributing it to socialism in general and not the specific system in question. He does the same when finds holes in the public sector in America attributing it to socialism but they're under the false impression that socialists want everything to be run like the US Post Office.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

RadioRaheem -- There is no lack of kooky Marxists. We can plat the pick & choose game and say so and so isn't a real Marxist, but... Our movements have put forward the absolute the best in humanity and the worst.

That said, you seem to be drawing some sort of equivalence between Marxists on one hand and liberals and conservatives on the other; I think no such equivalence exists. Obviously, there exist Marxist cranks (in fact, I have just finished reading an incredibly obtuse IMT pamphlet on "the Big Bang" and related matters), but are they cranks because of their Marxism or despite it? I think the latter is the case; pseudoscientific and crackpot notions in Marxist movement seem to arise because:

(1) the dialectical method is applied incorrectly;
(2) the ideas of "leaders" or noted socialist figures are accepted uncritically;
(3) bourgeois notions are assimilated uncritically, particularly if they're the latest "scientific" fad;
(4) social prejudice is portrayed as "theory".

Obviously, the same things happen in liberal and conservative circles, but in addition to that, their own theories are, and let's be reasonable here, rubbish. Liberal theories do not even try to explain anything, whereas conservative theories explain - something that does not exist (long-term social stability).


At others on anti-capitalist conservatism -- I'm not endorsing it all. I was just responding to a post which implied that the only right wing politics were pro-capitalist.

In the present period, most right-wing thought is capitalist, and can't be anything else. That said, Crixus's point seems to stand even when these reactionary anti-capitalists are taken into account; the only honest supporters of feudalism or slavery would be those that admit what measures are necessary to preserve pre-capitalist societies - as Carlyle did.

I think there is a pronounced tendency in the modern revisionist left (of which you, of course, are not a member) to replace "socialism" with "anti-capitalism"; thus opening themselves up for an alliance with the most reactionary elements of society.


But I would warn some caution at writing off all conservatives as horrible reactionaries. I recently read a stunning essay by Henry Louis Gates Jr on Burke and his prolonged attacks on British colonialism in India. Probably the best handling of this is Raymond Williams' Culture and Society.

Yet Burke was an enthusiastic supporter of the landlord dictatorship in England; one or two statements that we, today, interpret as progressive do not make a figure progressive.

I admit that I still find your reference to the supposed "ethics" of conservatives baffling - I mean, I probably despise liberals more than the average conservative, due to their poisonous influence on the left, but the worst excesses of the present era - the murderous racism, ethnic chauvinism, homophobia and transphobia, the crushing misogyny, opposition to abortion, the attacks on science, the moralistic debasement of the impoverished, the idiotic "work ethic" - all of this is something the average conservative cherishes. Liberalism is probably more deadly in the long run, but conservatism inspires most short-term outrages.


On Arguments for a New Left -- I was wrong to say it was a synthesis of Marx and Hayek. An exploration of the two? Anyways, what it came from was Wainwright's contact with peace, feminist, environmental, etc activists in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed and in discussions with them, she found a lot were really really into Hayek. Having just spent a decade fighting Thatcherism, the idea that her peers were following the philosopher of her enemy was so weird, she decided to find out why.

Is that really odd, though? Much of the "dissident movement" in the former Eastern Bloc were inveterate rightists, from Saint Solzhenitsyn the Black-Hundred to the sort of "environmental activists" who enthusiastically participated in the demolition of much of Eastern European industry.

[RadioRaheem84]

I know the feeling. I made a statement on facebook about trying to fix my wife's PS3 networking issues. (The PS3 on my network refuses to go to NAT2)

One of my facebook friends respond with this:
" So let me understand this, as a Marxist, you own a PS3 and an Xbox? Your complaint about "not having enough" comes form where?"

Continues:

"No it does not make them invalid, just odd. If he has disposable income, then does that not make him part of the bourgeois?"

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz3xws8MGl1r8wxeyo1_500.jpg

Then it becomes an debatethon on why I an Marxist is an hypocrite for owning an PS3 & an Xbox which my wife uses the most for.



Have you ever gotten the "you're trying to shut me down because I have a different viewpoint than you, typical leftist"?

It's like if you challenge them then you're automatically trying to stifle dissent.

[B5C]

Have you ever gotten the "you're trying to shut me down because I have a different viewpoint than you, typical leftist"?

It's like if you challenge them then you're automatically trying to stifle dissent.

Not all the time. Most of the debates fall apart because many of them are ignorant of the terms in Marxism or they really love the Red Scare propaganda.

I find it really funny that I notice that Marxists tend to know about many economic theories and how economies work than right wingers and some liberals.

[Crixus]

I know the feeling. I made a statement on facebook about trying to fix my wife's PS3 networking issues. (The PS3 on my network refuses to go to NAT2)

One of my facebook friends respond with this:
" So let me understand this, as a Marxist, you own a PS3 and an Xbox? Your complaint about "not having enough" comes form where?"

Continues:

"No it does not make them invalid, just odd. If he has disposable income, then does that not make him part of the bourgeois?"



Then it becomes an debatethon on why I an Marxist is an hypocrite for owning an PS3 & an Xbox which my wife uses the most for.

You're married? How bourgeois. First world scum. You probably drive a car too. Eat out from time to time? Marxists are suppose to be flagellants. You need to renounce your freedom to choose and give yourself the whip. You should've told him you also have a computer. I wonder if he knew that?

[B5C]

Twice in a row today!!



Friend 1 posted this on facebook:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946529_462267360520428_759836567_n.jpg



Me: Welcome to Capitalism!
Tea Party Republican: Well to start with get rid of the fed...and return to the gold standard...sounds more Republican than Democrat.....
Me: The problem with the gold standard:
- Limits Growth: When economies grow. They need more money. How do we get more money with a limited gold supply. If we need more money. We need to dig more gold.
- Hurts economy during an recession: You need money flowing during a recession to keep it stable or get out of an recession. If money is limited to the amount of gold. You can't pump more money.
TPGOP: B5C,

As we see now and during the great depression Keynesian economics do't work. if you look again only when government was cut back did the private sector start growing again after WWII. The depression of 1920 was worse that the great depression and we were on the gold standard then. An Austrian/ supply side solution was what got us out of that.

It would be constitutional to have gold-silver mix ( as we had before about 1873-ish and it would be needed now because of all the monopoly money you guys have printed).

Lastly your argument relies on the false premise that money is the only form of wealth and that there is a fixed amount of wealth. Money is only the means of exchange. If you want to prevent this from happening again 1st balance the budget (and keep it balanced), 2nd mop up the monopoly money 3rd return to a commodity back currency and 4th abolish the federal reserve (which will probably mean eliminating frictional reserve lending or severely curtailing it).
Me: "An Austrian/ supply side solution was what got us out of that."
No, WWII got us out of an Great Depression, but the supply side system fell apart when the world economies started crashing.

The problem TPGOP. Is that the Capitalists love the current system we have place. Why would the Capitalists change a system that they make money from? Do you really think Capitalists will be so nationalist in their American ideals and lose their profits to a gold standard? Hell no. The Capitalists love the Feds because it gives them more capital. The Fed loves the Capitalists because of the interest that comes in.

What is really hurting our economy is having an permanent war time economy & plus it's Capitalism.
TPGOP: B5C, was pointing to the Depression of 1920 not WW II...the private sector didn't start growing even after WWII until after a Republican congress came in after 1946 and started repealing new deal legislation.

Not a capitalistic like the fed or fiat money..in that you are wrong.

The war doesn't amount to enough money to make difference short term at least on the economy (even VA benefits per year don't amount to much). Even if we eliminated the entire defense budget (including the war) you wouldn't balance the budget.

Capitalism is good thing. In rewards innovation, hard work and creates wealth. No amount of socialism ever does that. Look at Cuba, in 1955 it had the 3rd largest economy in the western hemisphere...now it is 3rd world country. You can't blame our foreign policy or our refusal tro trade with them...the rest of the world does that.

Socialism only rewards, freeloading, whining and covetous.

You knowledge of economics B5C is horrendous...but then you don't believe in personal responsibility or hard work. You just think your entitled to everything despite having not earned it.

(Everything falls apart from here)
Me: Oh yes TPGOP. Only Austrian School or the Ayn Rand School of economics is the only way for an economy. You do there are many many forms of schools of economics.

"No amount of socialism ever does that. Look at Cuba, in 1955 it had the 3rd largest economy in the western hemisphere...now it is 3rd world country."

Yeah, Cuba was better before the Revolution. I guess the Dictator Fulgencio Batista was the better leader for Cuba if you ignore the his corrupt deals with American companies to exploit Cubans for their sugar, made deals with the American mafia, and he used his anti-communist secret police to kill THOUSANDS OF CUBANS!!

I guess the Iranians under the Shah or the Chileans under Augusto Pinochet were just cry babies who didn't have personal responsibility. America had to come in to remind those people that they needed the Shah, Pinochet, and Ngo Dinh Diem to have freedom under Capitalism.

"You can't blame our foreign policy or our refusal tro trade with them...the rest of the world does that."

Yes, a lot it was the Embargo and the fall of the USSR. Going the China route (State-Capitalism) will not help Cuba either.

"Not a capitalistic like the fed or fiat money..in that you are wrong."

Do you believe the Hamiltonian system is wrong for America and we should stick the Jeffersonian economic model?
Me: BTW: I have read Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and Jean-Baptiste Say.

So, yes. I know my economic theories.

[blake 3:17]

I don't know. I've been in in an internal mental war with Lukacs for the past few years. I think the brother was absolutely right about some things -- reification in particular. I've come to reject totality, while still still seeking projects which can 'totalize'. It's a strange way of thinking but I'm fine with it.

Back to the sort of topic--

As E.P. Thompson laid out, and I think one that anybody who's grounded in actual movements or does empirical study will agree with, rebellions of the exploited of the exploited and oppressed are actually conservative -- they're about holding onto what we've had. And given the given the ecocidal liberal money war machine which has been so strong and prevailing, isn't there something to be said for this? A defense of the commons, a preservation of social and economic rights of oppressed, a respect for peoples rights, and a right to clean air, water, earth and sky seem more important than ever. It can be easy to say that Marxists will figure it out (and some have while others have totally violated them) and that it all flows from some base principle.

But Marx wasn't an Aristotelian, was he? I know this kind of advanced stuff, but I do get frustrated on here by people arguing on Aristotelian lines -- often with a "dialectical" cover --

I've been way more affected by the SWP rape cover up than I thought I would be. I always thought the organization was screwed up, but in the last few months, the amount of dirt I've learnt is massive, and folks I know and have done work with defending this garbage. I don't see any difference between it and the Catholic Church on this.

Sorry for the drift. I know I'm on a bit of a detour. Totally committed to struggle for workers power, socialism, popular democracy, and the end to imperialism, colonialism and all forms of oppression. Tired & thinking too much.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As E.P. Thompson laid out, and I think one that anybody who's grounded in actual movements or does empirical study will agree with, rebellions of the exploited of the exploited and oppressed are actually conservative -- they're about holding onto what we've had.

Certainly some of them are; but I fail to see how, for example, the Russian revolutions in 1905 and in 1917 could be described in this manner, or the Stonewall Riots etc. etc.


And given the given the ecocidal liberal money war machine which has been so strong and prevailing, isn't there something to be said for this?

I don't think so. Movements of the oppressed that try to be reasonable have already failed; even concessions are not won by being reasonable and by limiting one's demands. Otherwise the supposed "left" of the various liberal and petite-bourgeois democrat groups would have been able to preserve these concessions.


A defense of the commons, a preservation of social and economic rights of oppressed, a respect for peoples rights, and a right to clean air, water, earth and sky seem more important than ever. It can be easy to say that Marxists will figure it out (and some have while others have totally violated them) and that it all flows from some base principle.

I don't quite understand the point here, to be honest.


But Marx wasn't an Aristotelian, was he? I know this kind of advanced stuff, but I do get frustrated on here by people arguing on Aristotelian lines -- often with a "dialectical" cover --

What posters argue on Aristotelian lines? If you don't want to name them, what arguments are Aristotelian? The only political arguments I would call "Aristotelian" are rubbish statements about "human nature", but I don't see many of those statements on revleft.


I've been way more affected by the SWP rape cover up than I thought I would be. I always thought the organization was screwed up, but in the last few months, the amount of dirt I've learnt is massive, and folks I know and have done work with defending this garbage. I don't see any difference between it and the Catholic Church on this.

For one thing, while the SWP seems to have severe organisational problems and a worrying mentality, they have always been firmly on the side of the oppressed. The Catholic Church is firmly against the oppressed. As a consequence, the Catholic Church receives massive state grants and acts as an organ of state in many countries, while the sweepies have problems funding themselves.

I am not saying that the actions of the SWP leadership are therefore justified; far from it. But I really wouldn't compare the SWP, a revolutionary party with an unhealthy internal culture, to the Catholic Church, a branch of the bourgeois dictatorship and a bastion of reaction and murder.

As for comrades "defending this garbage", I think the acrimonious nature of disputes on the Left, particularly among Trotskyist groups, is to blame; many comrades in the SWP would probably be more critical of their central committee if they hadn't experienced, for example, the slanderous campaigns of the Healey sect etc.

[blake 3:17]

This could very weird because we're in agreement except on side issues. Poor OP.


Certainly some of them are; but I fail to see how, for example, the Russian revolutions in 1905 and in 1917 could be described in this manner, or the Stonewall Riots etc. etc.

None of them were done for 'progress' -- they were done to hold on and extend rights. The most dynamic sector of the Russian proletariat was that closest to the peasantry. I don't know enough about 1905, and not sure there's enough study of it, but in 17, the most militant workers who sided with the Bolsheviks were frequently going between town and city. That gave them abilities to evade punishment, survive physically, and provide for their families in the middle of a strike and war. In terms of Stonewall, the queens were defending their turf. Homophobic scum had beaten them enough and they fought back. Enough. There was inspiration from various parts of the New Left and Black Power movements, but it was self defense.




I don't think so. Movements of the oppressed that try to be reasonable have already failed; even concessions are not won by being reasonable and by limiting one's demands. Otherwise the supposed "left" of the various liberal and petite-bourgeois democrat groups would have been able to preserve these concessions.

By conservative, I don't mean right wing or timid -- the terms get all screwed up. Our defense of the Palestinians is conservative. We believe they have a right to not have their land stolen. Same with Ireland. Same with the native peoples of North America. For revolutionaries, it's much easier when the leadership of an oppressed nation is left wing. But just because it isn't doesn't mean we shouldn't support.

America and Israel are founded on liberal myths which too many socialists and Marxists have adopted. Lands without a people? Yeah, if you get rid of the people.


What posters argue on Aristotelian lines? If you don't want to name them, what arguments are Aristotelian? The only political arguments I would call "Aristotelian" are rubbish statements about "human nature", but I don't see many of those statements on revleft.

Aristotelian in the sense of flowing from first principles. Anyways, that's another very very long debate. And I'm anti-Aristotelian but do believe in human nature. Don't ask me to define it. The modern Marxist disavowal of human nature is, I think, been a massive disaster for Marxist and socialist thought.

I had loads of respect for Lewontin and Gould until I read Defenders of the Truth -- ick. Steve Pinker's book on human nature is quite good. It's got loads of apologies for stupid contemporary capitalist nonsense which is completely ahistorical, but other portions are quite good. He's largely taking on Locke, who I think is the worst person in the last 1000 years.




For one thing, while the SWP seems to have severe organisational problems and a worrying mentality, they have always been firmly on the side of the oppressed. The Catholic Church is firmly against the oppressed. As a consequence, the Catholic Church receives massive state grants and acts as an organ of state in many countries, while the sweepies have problems funding themselves.

I am not saying that the actions of the SWP leadership are therefore justified; far from it. But I really wouldn't compare the SWP, a revolutionary party with an unhealthy internal culture, to the Catholic Church, a branch of the bourgeois dictatorship and a bastion of reaction and murder.

As for comrades "defending this garbage", I think the acrimonious nature of disputes on the Left, particularly among Trotskyist groups, is to blame; many comrades in the SWP would probably be more critical of their central committee if they hadn't experienced, for example, the slanderous campaigns of the Healey sect etc.

They can barely tie their own shoes. More's the relief. There's been a pretty phenomenal amount of sexual assault in the organization over how long? Who knows? And it is SMALL! That's what I find so gross. There have been less in the WRP because Healey was the alpha dog.

It's so disgusting to think of these people as any kind of peers -- very few IS came out to May Day here and nobody will talk to them. There was a recent decision by the national group to fully endorse the SWP CC & a small split happened formally, but it had happened in practice quite a few years ago.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I know the feeling. I made a statement on facebook about trying to fix my wife's PS3 networking issues. (The PS3 on my network refuses to go to NAT2)

One of my facebook friends respond with this:
" So let me understand this, as a Marxist, you own a PS3 and an Xbox? Your complaint about "not having enough" comes form where?"

Continues:

"No it does not make them invalid, just odd. If he has disposable income, then does that not make him part of the bourgeois?"

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz3xws8MGl1r8wxeyo1_500.jpg

Then it becomes an debatethon on why I an Marxist is an hypocrite for owning an PS3 & an Xbox which my wife uses the most for.
Nice pic, comrade. Well this is lame brained idealism at its worst. As Marxists, we are materialists. Therefore, we do not eschew material things -- we leave that to Ghandi's followers and the like. Socialism will usher in a epoch where material wants are more or less eliminated and almost everyone will have MORE. That is the key point. So enjoy your xbox and fight for socialism. And tell the imbeciles that criticize you for having material goods to go to the nearest monastery and check in.

Also, being bourgeois, petite bourgeois, or proletarian, has little to do with the extent of the creature comforts that you own -- it is about your relationship to the means of production. I am sure many members of the proletariat have game boxes. Geez.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm sure some of you have gotten the "it's Econ 101" argument too from people who think the current strain of economics being taught in schools is a value free science.

[Crixus]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/animal-rights-activists-t180410/index.html

Arguing with idiots.

[helot]

I'm sure some of you have gotten the "it's Econ 101" argument too from people who think the current strain of economics being taught in schools is a value free science.


I've usually gotten that if they're a nut for the Austrian School. Previously i even pointed out that it lacks any empirical evidence to which the person then went to reject the use of empirical evidence and claim this rejection helps prove its scientific. I was speechless.

[bhagirathbaria]

Dear Questionable, it is perfectly normal to come across a lot many people who are ill-informed about Marx & Marxism. Years of brainwashing in educational institutions has propagated all sorts of incorrect notions about Marx & his ideas, let aside Marxism.

I too faced the same situation when I started studying Marx. People used to criticize him, his ideology, his key ideas, his methodology, and make all sort of claims about his character, and a lot more. But a good way to deal with such people is that you must never initiate or get involved in any such debate in the first place. Discussions & Debates can be undertaken on well-established and reliable platforms such as revleft and other well-known blogs.

One-to-One talks consume a lot of energy and don't really produce any worthwhile result. You might think that your exchange with someone has changed the person's viewpoint- at least a bit, but the 'ideological bias' factor is strong among people and it is not possible to change it through debates or such verbal/written communication. Thus, its best if you have a blog of your own, put your praxis there, and let people read about it.

Generally, individuals are more comfortable in accepting radically different viewpoints when introduced to them in their private settings. This takes away all the ego-issues that arise if you were to challenge a person's ideas in public.

-- Warm Regards.:)

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you dismiss people who don't fuck with Marxism-Leninism as idiots, you're probably an idiot.
Understand that most people are not going to dig your fringe politics.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, when complete morons start saying Marx was a mass murderer (someone told me that yesterday), I am sure they are forever lost. No hope.

[Fionnagáin]

people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who insist that they're right.

Most accurate description of every single person I've met (in real life). Can't think of any exceptions.
If you go around with the conviction that everyone you've ever encountered is an idiot, should it comes as a surprise that they don't have much time for you or your opinions?

[Nicolas_Cage]

You guys really are snobby if you think you're so great that nobody deserves your time. What happened to education and patience with those you're supposedly so enthusiastic about helping? Christ, you're making your ideology look hypocritical if you don't have time for the average working person.

One word, guys: C. UN TS.

[RadioRaheem84]

Woah, calling people the c word for being a not frustrated with the situation people are in is ok. He should have more patience but I guess it's cooler to just call the OP an idiot?

I understand having patience with people who don't understand fringe politics. I make sure to be patient and not just call them idiots right away but again this is not a religion and I still don't have time for the forgive them father for they know not what they do attitude. People still have as much access to info as you and I do and we are not privileged to have recieved some revelatory knowledge. We have to engage people and be patient but there are those that do assert that fascism is socialism and other right wing canards. Most of the time if they know that much they've done some research and will argue with you like an idiot. I'm sorry but not every worker out there is a saint naive little fool. Some like someone mentioned earlier are so far gone as to think that Stalin murdered babies in his sleep and Castro killed millions.

[Marxaveli]

You guys really are snobby if you think you're so great that nobody deserves your time. What happened to education and patience with those you're supposedly so enthusiastic about helping? Christ, you're making your ideology look hypocritical if you don't have time for the average working person.

One word, guys: C. UN TS.

I'd edit that last part of the post if I were you, before a mod sees it.

Anyways, I really feel the OP's pain. I generally try to avoid debating people both online and offline just because I have found that most are too close-minded to be educated about revolutionary leftist thought. If I find someone who is open minded and doesn't jump to quick conclusions, or if the subject is brought it up, I will engage, but otherwise I usually leave it alone. Youtube is the absolute worst - so many brain dead people on there its not even funny.

[ВАЛТЕР]

You guys really are snobby if you think you're so great that nobody deserves your time. What happened to education and patience with those you're supposedly so enthusiastic about helping? Christ, you're making your ideology look hypocritical if you don't have time for the average working person.

One word, guys: C. UN TS.


Hey there Nicolas Cage, as much as I love your acting I gotta give you a verbal warning for sexist language. Try not to use such language on the board as many may find it discriminatory (which it is).

[#FF0000]

You guys really are snobby if you think you're so great that nobody deserves your time. What happened to education and patience with those you're supposedly so enthusiastic about helping? Christ, you're making your ideology look hypocritical if you don't have time for the average working person.

Er, nobody said anything about "average working people". We're talking about people who are absolutely set in their dumb ideas and interested only in reinforcing their preconceived notions rather than having a discussion, e.g. just about every commenter on youtube or yahoo or something.

Some people just aren't worth engaging with and someone shouldn't waste their time on trying to have a discussion with someone who isn't interested in a discussion.

[Ele'ill]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/animal-rights-activists-t180410/index.html

Arguing with idiots.

I see you are again whinging for attention outside of that thread. It's certainly not helping you out.

[Brutus]

You guys really are snobby if you think you're so great that nobody deserves your time. What happened to education and patience with those you're supposedly so enthusiastic about helping? Christ, you're making your ideology look hypocritical if you don't have time for the average working person.

One word, guys: C. UN TS.

I like how he is using exclusive pro nouns.
'your ideology'

[Nicolas_Cage]

Er, nobody said anything about "average working people". We're talking about people who are absolutely set in their dumb ideas and interested only in reinforcing their preconceived notions rather than having a discussion, e.g. just about every commenter on youtube or yahoo or something.

Some people just aren't worth engaging with and someone shouldn't waste their time on trying to have a discussion with someone who isn't interested in a discussion.

You can be sure that the average working person isn't going to understand your ideology. This is why I suggest you learn to be patient. Maybe dealing with these people on Youtube and Yahoo(answers?) is good practice.

[Nicolas_Cage]

I like how he is using exclusive pro nouns.
'your ideology'

I don't see how this is really valid criticism of my argument...

[blake 3:17]

I don't see how this is really valid criticism of my argument...

Well, you sorta really shot yourself in the foot by using extremely sexist misogynist language. It wouldn't be that hard to get away with "guys". Using cuss terms for female genitals as an insult is harder to get out of.

Just be respectful of people on the board, OK?

[Nicolas_Cage]

Using cuss terms for female genitals as an insult is harder to get out of.

It sounds like you're the one being sexist here ;)

I've been warned by a mod about my use of language so you can count on me not using it again but I don't agree with you calling me sexist when I can freely get away with calling someone a dick. That is what is sexist.


Also, how is that relevant to my post? You didn't address the post you quoted at all and instead decided to attack one of my other posts.

[Crixus]

I see you are again whinging for attention outside of that thread. It's certainly not helping you out.
It's an 'arguing with idiots' thread. I'm currently arguing with idiots. Totally relevant. I suppose the only idiots are anti-socialists who regurgitate free market ideology? The idiot umbrella covers a wide range of topics and if the sort of idiocy I'm encountering in that idiot thread is attempting to contaminate the broader socialist tradition I'll very well confront it everywhere. Especially in threads concerning arguing with idiots on the same site I'm having arguments with idiots but also within the community (which I have been doing albeit on a small scale).

I've just joined Pro-Test and Speaking Of Research thanks to that thread. Thank you. I intend to be extremely militant in my support for animal testing for medical research. I'm talking an exorbitant amount of time dedicated to the subject. Almost to the point of obsession. You've done well. Your proselytizing has had the opposite effect. You also need to realize I lost my father to cancer and am losing my mother to Alzheimers at the moment and to hear people like you equate their value to the value of a rat disgusts me. I think you're an idiot of the highest order. At least concerning the subject at hand. You may hold some rational views on other topics.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I've usually gotten that if they're a nut for the Austrian School. Previously i even pointed out that it lacks any empirical evidence to which the person then went to reject the use of empirical evidence and claim this rejection helps prove its scientific. I was speechless.

I don't know why an Austrian school nut would appeal to "econ 101" because I was under the impression that they were viewed as only slightly better than Marxists by mainstream economists.


I've been warned by a mod about my use of language so you can count on me not using it again but I don't agree with you calling me sexist when I can freely get away with calling someone a dick. That is what is sexist.

Yes. And calling a white person a honky is every bit as offensive as calling a black person the n word. It's reverse racism/sexism!

[evermilion]

Yes. And calling a white person a honky is every bit as offensive as calling a black person the n word. It's reverse racism/sexism!

As a white person, I can assure you this isn't true.

[Crixus]

It sounds like you're the one being sexist here ;)

I've been warned by a mod about my use of language so you can count on me not using it again but I don't agree with you calling me sexist when I can freely get away with calling someone a dick. That is what is sexist.


Also, how is that relevant to my post? You didn't address the post you quoted at all and instead decided to attack one of my other posts.

In America '****' or the C word is used as derogatory slander against women which more times than not represents disdain for women bordering on pure hatred. In Europe/Britain the culture is different. I prefer to just call everyone assholes (since everyone has one) or, in this thread, idiots.

[Nicolas_Cage]

Yes. And calling a white person a honky is every bit as offensive as calling a black person the n word. It's reverse racism/sexism!

Are you saying I'd get the same treatment if I said d**ks?

[Ele'ill]

It's an 'arguing with idiots' thread. I'm currently arguing with idiots. Totally relevant. I suppose the only idiots are anti-socialists who regurgitate free market ideology? The idiot umbrella covers a wide range of topics and if the sort of idiocy I'm encountering in that idiot thread is attempting to contaminate the broader socialist tradition I'll very well confront it everywhere. Especially in threads concerning arguing with idiots on the same site I'm having arguments with idiots but also within the community (which I have been doing albeit on a small scale).

essence of broader socialist tradition brought to you by Crixus


I've just joined Pro-Test and Speaking Of Research thanks to that thread. Thank you.I just figured you were already a member of a lot of shitty uncritical organizations



I intend to be extremely militant in my support for animal testing for medical research. I'm talking an exorbitant amount of time dedicated to the subject. Almost to the point of obsession. You've done well. Your proselytizing has had the opposite effect.because you lost the debate so badly and your pride is hurt so you found some comfortable organizationy shit to hide in, cool I am happy for you



You also need to realize I lost my father to cancer and am losing my mother to Alzheimers at the moment and to hear people like you equate their value to the value of a rat disgusts me.

no ur right u r the only one ever u r the spokes person of humanity it's not possible at all that I and others have had people close to us die from diseases but simply have another take on things



I think you're an idiot of the highest order. At least concerning the subject at hand. You may hold some rational views on other topics.how would you know you don't even read the posts you're replying to

[Crixus]

essence of broader socialist tradition brought to you by Crixus

Marx started opposing idealism within the broader socialist tradition. Try reading the Thesis on Feuerbach and his criticisms of Proudhon. Idealism and socialism are oil and water. You're a utopian socialist at best. A total idiot at worst.


I just figured you were already a member of a lot of shitty uncritical organizations Only organization I've been a member of was the ISO which is concerned with human liberation. You know, socialism?



because you lost the debate so badly and your pride is hurt so you found some comfortable organizationy shit to hide in, cool I am happy for you

I haven't lost any debate with you. Not in the slightest.





no ur right u r the only one ever u r the spokes person of humanity it's not possible at all that I and others have had people close to us die from diseases but simply have another take on things

If your loved one was dying and tests on rats could minimize their suffering and you destroyed the research gained from testing on the rat I would, in fact, place you on the same level of a rat. There, I just conceded some ground to your argument. Happy?



how would you know you don't even read the posts you're replying to

I read your posts quite well and have dissected your argument to it's foundation. You place the same value on a rats life as you do a humans life. Dissecting the rat. The irony.


It's no "artificial" hierarchy.

The human
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1851981_f260.jpg

Takes priority over the rat
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Street-rat.jpg/220px-Street-rat.jpg

IDEALISM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_%28Buddhism%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_%28Buddhism%29)

[Ele'ill]

Crixus, you had your shot in that thread (the thread is still open) can you stop spamming that stuff in here I think you've been asked two or three times to stop doing it in several other unrelated threads, It makes it hard for other users to read and converse.

[RadioRaheem84]

As a white person, I can assure you this isn't true.

No kidding. From my experience white people do not care if you call them a honky, cracker, white boy, etc.

If you mean it as an insult to the a racist white person that person will not only not take offense but would be proud.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Are you saying I'd get the same treatment if I said d**ks?

No. I'm saying that dicks isn't as big of a deal.

[Rafiq]

Crixus, you cannot talk of Idealism when you force us to infer that humans have some kind of existential objective universal (ethical) worth. Not only are humans just as worthless as rats, they are just as worthless as non living entities. It is humanism that is just as, if not more Idealist. Our struggle is not one for human liberation but proletarian emancipation and class dictatorship.

Now, on the other hand, the problem with Mari3l's position is not that she reduces human worth to that of a rat's, but that she pre-supposes human worth as something which exists and *elevates* a rat's supposed objective ethical value to the supposed value of a humans. In other words, she is a humanist, but so much to the point where organic life which posseses human characteristics ("Animals have feelings too, unethical acts toward animals are cruel" or "Look, the mother bear loves her children too) also fall to this mystified, deluded conception of morality and existence.

For us Communists, the point is that universal human rights are inherent to the language of the class enemy. The point is that we do not hate humanity, but that the bourgeois-conception of humanity as a homogeneus whole which carries intristic (not only political, but metaphysical, objective) worth is ideological in nature. Here we should agree with Focault: Our cause is not "sustained" by petty notions of "justice", rather, justice is merely rhetoric from which we use to further our cause: The conquest of state dictatorship and the destruction of the class enemy (by which the proletariat abolishes itself, a process of emancipation). The struggle is real and material, and all ideological rhetoric is merely a symbolic expression of it as such.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Crixus]

Crixus, you had your shot in that thread (the thread is still open)

The other thread is what inspired me to post in this thread. The title? Arguing with idiots? Mariel, your position is idiotic. Here's some smelling salts. Take long deep breath. Condisder this an example of the futility of arguing with idiots. You place the same value on a rats life that you do of a humans life. Thats an idiotic position Mariel. This thread is concerning how frustrating is is arguing with idiotic positions,or, idiots. I'm simply giving some empirical data here. You know, the sort of data you oppose being used to minimize human suffering? In this case the empirical data is showing how fruitless it is arguing with idiots.




can you stop spamming that stuff in here I think you've been asked two or three times to stop doing it in several other unrelated threads

Again you think wrong. Hasn't happend. Not surprising coming from an idealist. Again, it only exists in your head. Like your belief that a rats life is just as valuable as a humans life.




, It makes it hard for other users to read and converse.

It's an example of arguing with an idiot.

[Rugged Collectivist]

As a white person, I can assure you this isn't true.

I was being sarcastic to make a point.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No kidding. From my experience white people do not care if you call them a honky, cracker, white boy, etc.

If you mean it as an insult to the a racist white person that person will not only not take offense but would be proud.

This basically

Except the degree to which a word is racist is not determined by how much it hurts peoples feelings. I do not care how much emotional harm the n word causes people. What I do care about is the social relationship imbued in those words, and the very real, material oppression that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites.

[Craig_J]

You have to remember that the bourgeoisie have imposed a hegenomy on the proloteriat to keep them down. If people thought communism was right and being exploited is wrong than the bourgeoisie wouldn't last 5 seconds. All of this has taken hundreds, hell maybe even thousands, of years to develop. In a world where there has always been a bourgeois group exploiting others for profit of course the values and norms that construct society are going to be difficult to break down.

From ancient times in Egypt there were bourgeoisie in terms of the pharaohs with their slaves, and now you have owners of multinational corporations who have their free range slaves. If they wern't free range they'd have struck back ages ago. But we NEED to be free range to give us the illusion that it's all down to us. That's why they've indoctrinated almost everyone in society and made them think that us communists are a bunch of loonys wanting everyone penned in behind electric fences.

In my opinion don't call them idiots because that can seem patronising and at the end of the day they're only doing what society constructs them to do. I was a centre-right capitalist once untill I reached the age of 18 and started to realise everything wasn't quite as simple as we're told.

It's going to take time and a lot of it but the day we give up is the day we don't make any difference. Hang in there and remember, your not alone in your views and your frustration.:)

[Crixus]

Crixus, you cannot talk of Idealism when you force us to infer that humans have some kind of existential objective universal (ethical) worth. Not only are humans just as worthless as rats, they are just as worthless as non living entities. It is humanism that is just as, if not more Idealist. Our struggle is not one for human liberation but proletarian emancipation and class dictatorship.



Both young and late Marx had humanist elements. What you're describing is a sort of nihilism or abject materialism. Marx specifically stated the goal of communism is human liberation. He and Engles both talked about the liberation of humanity and the liberation of society. Anyhow modern secular humanism isn't by default idealist or materialist and any revolution without a touch of humanism is going to excuse all manner of nasty things in order to achieve the goal of human liberation. If human life holds no value then killing 100 million people to achieve proletarian dictatorship is excusable. If human life holds no value then fighting human oppression is pointless. If human life holds no value slavery, wage slavery and anything done to humans is justifiable. Marx died before he could write on the subject of how and why workers should oppose oppression (as in depth and from a materialist standpoint as Capital was). If he had been completely anti humanist Marx would've sounded more like Nietzsche and would have been supporting 'the will to power'. Might makes right. What's justifiable is what you can force on others. What do you think about Marx's theory of alienation?


Anyhow, what would you do and why in this situation. If a rat and a human were on fire 100 yards from eachother and you in the center which would you run to first to try to save? It's a material fact species, more times than not, are hardwired to take care of each other. This is to ensure the propagation of the species. This is why rats don't try to have sex with dogs. Why ants don't make colonies with grasshoppers etc and so on. Next we'll be attacking evolution as idealist?

[melvin]

hahaha what the hell happened to this thread? I read the first couple pages then skipped to the last page and it is completely different.

on topic, it's a bad idea to argue on places like youtube or really any comment section of overall apolitical websites. just in general, it's a bad idea to get into arguments with people you don't know whatsoever.

[evermilion]

No. I'm saying that dicks isn't as big of a deal.

No worries then, cracka.

[Geiseric]

No worries then, cracka.

Cracker in olde english means basically "one who cracks jokes," and was used to describe irish and scottish wiseacres in the new world, but later was connected to the whips because they were the main slavedrivers.

[evermilion]

Cracker in olde english means basically "one who cracks jokes," and was used to describe irish and scottish wiseacres in the new world, but later was connected to the whips because they were the main slavedrivers.

I never knew that!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Understand that most people are not going to dig your fringe politics.

This sounds like something a Democrat would say.

[Fionnagáin]

Broken clocks, twice a day, etc.

[#FF0000]

You can be sure that the average working person isn't going to understand your ideology. This is why I suggest you learn to be patient.

Er, I am patient and I talk to hella working people as it is (I work with them as it turns out).

Someone not "getting it" or disagreeing with me/communism doesn't make them an idiot, though. That isn't what we're talking about. Someone shutting themselves off completely to what someone else is saying and who would rather go on about how right they are is what makes someone an idiot.


Maybe dealing with these people on Youtube and Yahoo(answers?) is good practice

Haha noooope.

[Quail]

Christ, what has happened to this thread? Crixus, please take your animal testing stuff back to the thread in which it belongs. Try to keep vaguely on topic everyone else.

[Comrade #138672]

Just now again: "Marx was a mass murderer. This is a historical fact."

You can not argue with these people. They are even implying that I am myself a mass murderer. I know it is ridiculous, but it is still very bothersome. It is impossible to be called something worse than a mass murderer.