great political interview with anarchist UFC fighter Jeff Monson

[Sasha]

OA0hfRAfhWo

[Sasha]

also any excuse to post this great picture of the beast;
http://www.soundthealarm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/jeffmonsoon.jpg

[BIXX]

OA0hfRAfhWo
He came to my mma gym

Didn't he abuse his girlfriend or some shit?

[The Disillusionist]

I was expecting him to be a typical meatheaded moron, claiming to be anarchist just because it seems "edgy" and reciting like 3 main half-baked talking points. While he didn't really add much to the discussion, it did seem like he actually takes it seriously, which I think is cool.

That doesn't mean I don't think he's an idiot for participating in the circus that is MMA/UFC though.

[BIXX]

I was expecting him to be a typical meatheaded moron, claiming to be anarchist just because it seems "edgy" and reciting like 3 main half-baked talking points. While he didn't really add much to the discussion, it did seem like he actually takes it seriously, which I think is cool.

That doesn't mean I don't think he's an idiot for participating in the circus that is MMA/UFC though.
Dude, he is doing what he enjoys. Don't act all high and mighty because he's in MMA.

Though I would like to confirm whether or not he abused his girlfriend. I'm at work so I don't really have time but I'll figure it out later.

[The Disillusionist]

Dude, he is doing what he enjoys. Don't act all high and mighty because he's in MMA.

Though I would like to confirm whether or not he abused his girlfriend. I'm at work so I don't really have time but I'll figure it out later.

Sorry, I don't really think that someone who voluntary beats people up/gets beaten up for money should really be taken all that seriously. He's a corporate shill, like a modern gladiator, and the entire existence of his career is geared around sating the public's desire for violence (with a bit of sexual exploitation thrown in for good measure). It's barely even a real sport anymore, because it got so popular and so much corporate money got thrown at it, it's essentially just a boobs, blood, and punching exhibition meant to appeal to the traditional right-wing hedonistic types (the kind of people who love strip clubs and hate feminism). The UFC organization, and MMA as a whole is only slightly less cartoonish than WWE and all that wrestling mess, and by extension, MMA fighters are only slightly less cartoonish than professional wrestlers.

[Creative Destruction]

Sorry, I don't really think that someone who voluntary beats people up/gets beaten up for money should really be taken all that seriously. He's a corporate shill, like a modern gladiator, and the entire existence of his career is geared around sating the public's desire for violence (with a bit of sexual exploitation thrown in for good measure). It's barely even a real sport anymore, because it got so popular and so much corporate money got thrown at it, it's essentially just a boobs, blood, and punching exhibition meant to appeal to the traditional right-wing hedonistic types (the kind of people who love strip clubs and hate feminism). The UFC organization, and MMA as a whole is only slightly less cartoonish than WWE and all that wrestling mess, and by extension, MMA fighters are only slightly less cartoonish than professional wrestlers.

Welcome to capitalism; where corporate money is thrown at all workers and it transforms things we want to do into corporate shitfests. I guess all the working class are "corporate shills," too.

You're a huge shithead. Please stop posting.

[The Disillusionist]

Welcome to capitalism; where corporate money is thrown at all workers and it transforms things we want to do into corporate shitfests. I guess all the working class are "corporate shills," too.

You're a huge shithead. Please stop posting.

Aww, did I hurt someone's feelings?

I've got no problem if two guys want to beat the pulp out of each other (I still wouldn't take their political opinions seriously), but without corporate interests, the whole mess wouldn't be nearly as glamorized, it would just be two guys beating the pulp out of each other. MMA as a sport would not exist without capitalism.

By the way, it's only a matter of time until we find out that these guys are destroying their brains by punching each other in the head, just like boxers and football players.

[BIXX]

Sorry, I don't really think that someone who voluntary beats people up/gets beaten up for money should really be taken all that seriously. He's a corporate shill, like a modern gladiator, and the entire existence of his career is geared around sating the public's desire for violence (with a bit of sexual exploitation thrown in for good measure). It's barely even a real sport anymore, because it got so popular and so much corporate money got thrown at it, it's essentially just a boobs, blood, and punching exhibition meant to appeal to the traditional right-wing hedonistic types (the kind of people who love strip clubs and hate feminism). The UFC organization, and MMA as a whole is only slightly less cartoonish than WWE and all that wrestling mess, and by extension, MMA fighters are only slightly less cartoonish than professional wrestlers.
Except we train hard asshat. We put a lot of time and effort into what we do. Sometimes its the only thing we have that we can enjoy. Most of us are workers in fast food places or delivery companies or what have you, but whatever it is, we would all love to go pro, or UFC (which in a lot of cases is unfortunately less technical and thus for people who actually train more boring- still cool as fuck though).

This is that same puritan crap like saying "you shouldn't take a high paying job because it makes you less proletarian"

No, fuck you, we need to live somehow.

[The Disillusionist]

Except we train hard asshat. We put a lot of time and effort into what we do. Sometimes its the only thing we have that we can enjoy. Most of us are workers in fast food places or delivery companies or what have you, but whatever it is, we would all love to go pro, or UFC (which in a lot of cases is unfortunately less technical and thus for people who actually train more boring- still cool as fuck though).

This is that same puritan crap like saying "you shouldn't take a high paying job because it makes you less proletarian"

No, fuck you, we need to live somehow.

Ahhhh, you're into MMA... That explains SOO much...

Listen, I don't care if you train hard. I'm all for personal improvement. If you want to improve your body, go for it, good for you. Everyone else has passions too, yours isn't special, but it is yours.

But, that has absoutely no bearing on my argument. I'm not gonna pretend that MMA isn't stupid, just because some people like it and/or the fighters are good at fighting (I should hope they are, otherwise the sport is even dumber than I thought). It's stupid because its corporate exploitation at its very core, it appeals to the worst in people, and it's completely mindless. It's just a way to distract people from real life, the same purpose the gladiators served back when Rome was collapsing.

In the future, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MMA gets even bloodier and more sensationalized to keep the public's interest. Maybe in the future, it'll devolve into MMA fighters beating skinny criminals to death. Then eventually, maybe the skinny guys won't be criminals. Hey, maybe someday we'll just pay good money to watch meatheads beat the pulp out of women and children. Talk about good fun, and what a profit it would turn from the right-wingers.

Oh, and if you take a higher paying job, then in many cases you are, by definition, less proletarian.

[BIXX]

Ahhhh, you're into MMA... That explains SOO much...

Listen, I don't care if you train hard. I'm all for personal improvement. If you want to improve your body, go for it, good for you. Everyone else has passions too, yours isn't special, but it is yours.

But, that has absoutely no bearing on my argument. I'm not gonna pretend that MMA isn't stupid, just because some people like it and/or the fighters are good at fighting (I should hope they are, otherwise the sport is even dumber than I thought). It's stupid because its corporate exploitation at its very core, it appeals to the worst in people, and it's completely mindless. It's just a way to distract people from real life, the same purpose the gladiators served back when Rome was collapsing.

In the future, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MMA gets even bloodier and more sensationalized to keep the public's interest. Maybe in the future, it'll devolve into MMA fighters beating skinny criminals to death. Then eventually, maybe the skinny guys won't be criminals. Hey, maybe someday we'll just pay good money to watch meatheads beat the pulp out of women and children. Talk about good fun, and what a profit it would turn from the right-wingers.

I'm saying your position is standing against all the workers who only have that in their life. That's why you're a fuck face.

[Creative Destruction]

Aww, did I hurt someone's feelings?

lol, you flatter yourself too much.


I've got no problem if two guys want to beat the pulp out of each other (I still wouldn't take their political opinions seriously)

Which means we can safely discard your opinions to the dustbin.

[The Disillusionist]

I'm saying your position is standing against all the workers who only have that in their life. That's why you're a fuck face.

This is a totally meaningless appeal to emotion. It has no factual or logical basis. You could just as easily say that because I think the lottery is stupid, I'm standing against "all the workers who only have that in their life." The fact is that both the lottery and MMA are stupid distractions that, for the vast majority of people, only suck money from worker's pockets.

[Creative Destruction]

Ahhhh, you're into MMA... That explains SOO much...

Listen, I don't care if you train hard. I'm all for personal improvement. If you want to improve your body, go for it, good for you. Everyone else has passions too, yours isn't special, but it is yours.

But, that has absoutely no bearing on my argument. I'm not gonna pretend that MMA isn't stupid, just because some people like it and/or the fighters are good at fighting (I should hope they are, otherwise the sport is even dumber than I thought). It's stupid because its corporate exploitation at its very core, it appeals to the worst in people, and it's completely mindless. It's just a way to distract people from real life, the same purpose the gladiators served back when Rome was collapsing.

In the future, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MMA gets even bloodier and more sensationalized to keep the public's interest. Maybe in the future, it'll devolve into MMA fighters beating skinny criminals to death. Then eventually, maybe the skinny guys won't be criminals. Hey, maybe someday we'll just pay good money to watch meatheads beat the pulp out of women and children. Talk about good fun, and what a profit it would turn from the right-wingers.

Oh, and if you take a higher paying job, then in many cases you are, by definition, less proletarian.

If it "appeals to the worst people," it's sort of a paradox that I came into socialism at the height of my interest in wrestling, kickboxing and MMA. It's amazing how that works out.

[Creative Destruction]

It has no factual or logical basis.

And your whining and crying and saying you're not going to listen to the opinions of MMA fights, simply because they're MMA, does have a factual or logical basis? I don't think so, shit for brains.

[The Disillusionist]

If it "appeals to the worst people," it's sort of a paradox that I came into socialism at the height of my interest in wrestling, kickboxing and MMA. It's amazing how that works out.

This argument is nonsensical to an extreme degree. Socialism has very little to do with personal character. Fighting has very little to do with personal character either. Like I said, if you want to fight, I don't care, go for it. There have been lots of nice-guy fighters (though not many geniuses, and if there ever were any geniuses, they weren't anymore by the end of their careers, thanks to all the brain-bashing). But MMA as a spectator sport itself appeals to the worst in people. Sitting on your ass on a couch and watching guys beat each other up appeals to the worst in people.

I'm not gonna take MMA fighters seriously because they get punched in the face for a living. Their reasoning skills seem lacking to me. And on top of that, they are mainly corporate shills, as I said, owned and paid for by whatever organization they fight for. Would you take anything Hulk Hogan says seriously?

[Creative Destruction]

And on top of that, they are mainly corporate shills, as I said, owned and paid for by whatever organization they fight for.

Just like any other wage slave.


Would you take anything Hulk Hogan says seriously?

If he ever had something worthwhile to say, yeah. I don't think what he does for a living immediately disqualifies him from consideration if I happen to think he has an opinion worth listening to.

[The Disillusionist]

Just like any other wage slave.



If he ever had something worthwhile to say, yeah. I don't think what he does for a living immediately disqualifies him from consideration if I happen to think he has an opinion worth listening to.

First, many UFC fighters earn far more than the average PhD college graduate, not to mention advertising endorsements. They aren't working class by any means, and they are hardly wage slaves. Second, they aren't just paid for their labor, they are literally corporate shills. They are paid to act in a way that benefits their owners. If a fighter is paid good money to like Gatorade, that fighter LOVES Gatorade. The reason you shouldn't take Hulk Hogan seriously is because he's owned by the WWE. Anything Hulk Hogan says is really being said by the WWE corporation. AFTER fighters retire, if their brains haven't been knocked out, THEN I might take something they say seriously. But as long as they are on corporate payrolls, I don't trust them. I don't trust Hollywood celebrities either.

That's why I said that I was somewhat surprised that Jeff Monson seemed to actually take leftism somewhat seriously, because his whole anarchy bit could have just as likely been a publicity stunt to promote the UFC.

[Creative Destruction]

First, many UFC fighters earn far more than the average PhD college graduate, not to mention advertising endorsements. They aren't working class by any means, and they are hardly wage slaves.

"Working class" isn't defined by income, you incredibly dense moron. It's defined by the relation to the means of production. These UFC fighters probably do not own the production and promotion companies, unless UFC is some unprecedented cooperative within the fighting world.


Second, they aren't just paid for their labor, they are literally corporate shills. They are paid to act in a way that benefits their owners.

Just like any other worker.


That's why I said that I was somewhat surprised that Jeff Monson seemed to actually take leftism somewhat seriously, because his whole anarchy bit could have just as likely been a publicity stunt to promote the UFC.

Well, you've already established that you're an idiot, so it's easy to see why you believe some dumb bullshit like that.

[motion denied]

Monson by north-south choke

[The Disillusionist]

"Working class" isn't defined by income, you incredibly dense moron. It's defined by the relation to the means of production. These UFC fighters probably do not own the production and promotion companies, unless UFC is some unprecedented cooperative within the fighting world.

Just like any other worker.

Well, you've already established that you're an idiot, so it's easy to see why you believe some dumb bullshit like that.

Oh, ok. Well then in that case, everyone is working class. Theoretically, the government owns everything and if a rich business owner were to stop paying taxes, the government would reclaim control of his means of production. Therefore, since that rich business owner pays taxes, he is working class. After all, it isn't defined by income. Seriously though, income is a large part of it.

Also, you aren't getting what I'm saying (maybe you've taken too many hits to the head). Workers are paid to engage with the means of production in order to produce for the business owner. Fighters are paid to "act," as in, to play a theatrical role, in a way that benefits their owners. Fighters and Hollywood celebrities are not poor oppressed workers, they are paid to be the "faces" of their respective corporations. They are essentially public relations agents for their owners.

Oh, and right, because the UFC would never try any ridiculous publicity stunts like that... They've got too much integrity. :rolleyes: Seriously, pretty much everything professional wrestlers do is a publicity stunt, and MMA fighters aren't far behind in that trend.

[Atsumari]

The self-righteousness is so cringey that I am losing my appetite.

[Creative Destruction]

Oh, ok. Well then in that case, everyone is working class. Theoretically, the government owns everything and if a rich business owner were to stop paying taxes, the government would reclaim control of his means of production.

my god..

[The Disillusionist]

my god..

I know right? YOUR argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, IS rather ridiculous. Income, relative to the rest of the population, does play a part in the class structure. Otherwise, business owners are just managers for the government who pocket most of the profit for themselves.

[The Disillusionist]

The self-righteousness is so cringey that I am losing my appetite.

You're on a leftist website. Every cause endorsed by anyone on this website could be called "self-righteous" by someone.

[motion denied]

Actually, the more MMA got popularized the more it got 'professional'. In the PRIDE days people from different weight classes would fight one another and fighters could kick a downed opponent (including the head), to cite two examples. Before that, when Vale Tudo was a thing, some tough motherfuckers would fight with their bare hands. This happened in the beginning of the UFC too, iirc.

Today, at least in the US, people from different weight classes will not fight; fighters are examined and anti-dopping is getting stricter (people still trick it as in any other sport); professionals are actually pretty good athletes, as opposed to bar brawlers such as Tank Abbott; kicking a downed opponent is not allowed and refs are concerned with each fighter's integrity. You have no clue of what you're talking about.

[Creative Destruction]

I know right? YOUR argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, IS rather ridiculous.

No. I was stunned at the utter and complete idiocy that you spewed in just the first two sentences of that post. The only level of complete idiocy that I've seen on these forums usually come from the OI forum. IOW:

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[The Disillusionist]

No. I was stunned at the utter and complete idiocy that you spewed in just the first two sentences of that post. The only level of complete idiocy that I've seen on these forums usually come from the OI forum. IOW:

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

How convenient for you, that my argument is so idiotic that you don't have to bother replying to a single one of the points I made. Typical internet argument tactic.

[The Disillusionist]

Actually, the more MMA got popularized the more it got 'professional'. In the PRIDE days people from different weight classes would fight one another and fighters could kick a downed opponent (including the head), to cite two examples. Before that, when Vale Tudo was a thing, some tough motherfuckers would fight with their bare hands. This happened in the beginning of the UFC too, iirc.

Today, at least in the US, people from different weight classes will not fight; fighters are examined and anti-dopping is getting stricter (people still trick it as in any other sport); professionals are actually pretty good athletes, as opposed to bar brawlers such as Tank Abbott; kicking a downed opponent is not allowed and refs are concerned with each fighter's integrity. You have no clue of what you're talking about.

None of this has any bearing on what I was talking about. The NFL has all that regulation type stuff too, and yet the NFL is every bit as much of a circus as WWE and UFC are, for the same reasons.

[Creative Destruction]

How convenient for you, that my argument is so idiotic that you don't have to bother replying to a single one of the points I made. Typical internet argument tactic.

It's called "not wasting my time" and it's existed far long before the Internet.

[Palmares]

Back on the subject...

Jeff Monson has been around for a long time, and I've been a fan of his for many years too. It's just an entertaining spectacle to have an anarchist MMA fighter. :grin:

Info about Jeff Monson's assault and property damage charges relating to an ex-girlfriend:

Charges Against Jeff Monson Dropped, Ex-Girlfriend Still Might Be in Trouble (http://www.cagepotato.com/charges-against-jeff-monson-dropped-ex-girlfriend-still-might-be-trouble/)

http://cdn2.cagepotato.com/wp-content/uploads/jeff_monson_fujita.jpg
(Victory!)

Despite Jeff Monson (http://wiki.cagepotato.com/index.php/Jeff_Monson)‘s commitment to anarchy and breaking stuff, the American legal system cut the wandering MMA fighter some slack recently, dismissing the charges against him for the grandfather clock-bashing domestic dispute (http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/monsons-domestic-violence-charge-dismissed-17470) he got himself into back in January.
As you’ll no doubt recall, Monson was arrested for “assault on a female” and “damage to real property” (http://www.cagepotato.com/jeff-monson-arrested-not-graffiti) after an argument with his then-girlfriend, Stephanie Trapani (http://www.cagepotato.com/monson-update-ex-girlfriend-turn-more-graffiti-pictures-authorities), who had just found out Monson was still married and also playing the hell out of the proverbial field. She threw his cell phone out the window of her moving car, so he smashed her grandfather clock and her computer, and even allegedly put his hands on her. Though Monson only denies that last charge, the court apparently decided to drop all charges against him last week after ruling that the case had been “misclassified” and Monson had been improperly held.

Monson was understandably pretty pleased about having the charges against him dropped, telling Sherdog:


“I made the mistake of breaking her clock and her computer, but I never touched her. I never actually made physical contact with her. …It’s just not in my character to do these things. It’s been hard on my family. It’s been on hard on me. The allegation was completely unfounded and untrue.”
The allegation of assault, maybe. But am I crazy or did he just admit to doing damage to “real property” right before saying it wasn’t in his nature? Sounds like that charge was dropped because the police screwed up the handling of it and “improperly” held him for five days while it was classified as a domestic assault incident. But dammit, that won’t put Stephanie’s grandfather clock back together.
Speaking of the scorned ex-girlfriend, her charge for destroying Monson’s cell phone was also dropped, but she allegedly “used his bank card and security code to empty out his account without his knowledge,” which is felony identity theft, right there. That charge wasn’t dropped, so she might end up in more hot water than the crazed anarchist pro fighter after this altercation. That’s almost an accomplishment.
Of course Monson still has to face vandalism charges for defacing the Capitol Building in Olympia, Washington (http://www.cagepotato.com/jeff-monson-pleads-not-guilty-felony-vandalism), and he also has to finish kicking himself for allowing an ESPN photographer to document that vandalism (http://www.cagepotato.com/jeff-monson-faces-10-years-first-degree-malicious-mischief). He’s due in court on that bad boy in mid-August.

http://www.cagepotato.com/charges-against-jeff-monson-dropped-ex-girlfriend-still-might-be-trouble/

[Palmares]

Old revleft thread about him training antifa:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ufc-superstar-jeff-t164889/index.html

And when he beat up some cops in Russia:

http://rt.com/sport/monson-moscow-cops-fedor-843/

[BIXX]

Huh
Thanks for the links.

I would really love to get good at the MMA stuff, I haven't trained in a while due to motivation issues but I am slowly getting back.

[The Jay]

Oh, and if you take a higher paying job, then in many cases you are, by definition, less proletarian.

I would love to see you explain that.

[The Disillusionist]

I would love to see you explain that.

I was hoping someone would say this.

Definition of proletariat (in a Marxist context):
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Marxist theory) the class of wage-earners, esp industrial workers, in a capitalist society, whose only possession of significant material value is their labour.

Once a person has a wage that allows them to accumulate things of significant material value, I would say that they are no longer proletariat in the traditional sense. For example, a guy who becomes a manager of a company and has enough income to buy a summer house, or even a new car every two or three years probably doesn't count as an oppressed worker. That guy has enough capital that he could probably start his own business if he wanted to, but he chooses not to for a myriad of reasons. I would say that any so-called "proletarian" who could make the decision that easily to become "bourgeois" doesn't really qualify as a proletarian, under Marx's intended defintion. A real proletarian doesn't have that luxury, as he/she doesn't have the resources for it to even be an option.

I would hazard a guess that the reason this definition has been conveniently "forgetten" is that there are a lot of upper/middle class leftists who like to associate themselves with the overly-romanticized idea of the proletariat just because they have jobs.

[Creative Destruction]

I was hoping someone would say this.

Definition of proletariat (in a Marxist context):
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Marxist theory) the class of wage-earners, esp industrial workers, in a capitalist society, whose only possession of significant material value is their labour.

Once a person has a wage that allows them to accumulate things of significant material value, I would say that they are no longer proletariat in the traditional sense. For example, a guy who becomes a manager of a company and has enough income to buy a summer house, or even a new car every two or three years probably doesn't count as an oppressed worker. That guy has enough capital that he could probably start his own business if he wanted to, but he chooses not to for a myriad of reasons. I would say that any so-called "proletarian" who could make the decision that easily to become "bourgeois" doesn't really qualify as a proletarian, under Marx's intended defintion. A real proletarian doesn't have that luxury, as he/she doesn't have the resources for it to even be an option.

I would hazard a guess that the reason this definition has been conveniently "forgetten" is that there are a lot of upper/middle class leftists who like to associate themselves with the overly-romanticized idea of the proletariat just because they have jobs.

I'm a poor working class leftist. What you're saying here is completely bullshit. Marx's only "intended definition" of the proletariat was those who did not own the means of production. He did not attach any qualifiers, or hinted at any qualifiers, that made one "less proletarian" unless they became owners of the means of production.

There are destitute petit-bourgeoisie. They are not proletarian, or less of a capitalist, simply because they make just as much as a poor worker. You complete idiot.

[The Disillusionist]

I'm a poor working class leftist. What you're saying here is completely bullshit. Marx's only "intended definition" of the proletariat was those who did not own the means of production. He did not attach any qualifiers, or hinted at any qualifiers, that made one "less proletarian" unless they became owners of the means of production.

There are destitute petit-bourgeoisie. They are not proletarian, or less of a capitalist, simply because they make just as much as a poor worker. You complete idiot.

Uh.... Marx attached a TON of qualifiers. He even made up a special type of proletariat, "Lumpenproletariat" to designate the really poor people without jobs who he felt were degenerates and scum (not all of his ideas were winners). Also, you can't just pretend that definitions don't exist.

Here's a quote from the Communist Manifesto:

"The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

How can these people " sink gradually into the proletariat" if they are already proletariat? And if capital doesn't mean anything in the definition of proletariat, why would their diminutive capital mean anything? Why would their specialized skills need to be rendered worthless if wages mean nothing?

But, in case you still don't see it my way, here's another quote from the Manifesto:
"In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character."

It's hard to get more obvious than that.

I won't quote more, because I hate it when people flood threads with miles and miles of Marx quotes. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of him, myself. But read the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, and you will find that Marx had a very specific group of people in mind when he used the word "proletariat" and that group didn't not include middle/upper class skill specialists or people with significant amounts of money.

[Sasha]

Lol at the "anarchy anthropology student" going on a whose the prole trip while calling UFC fighters stupid brutes and shills at the same time without knowing that Monson made his name as a university wrestler and has a whole bunch of PhD's...

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one...

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't particularly care about that fighter, haven't heard of him before. I just don't understand where people get their moral high ground from. Isn't it just that many of us need some offset? Like, when you sit in the library or at work all day, you wanna come home and dispose of all that energy? Some would go jogging and others like doing fighting stuff. It's not like you wanna knockout your opponent or inflict irreversible damage upon him. There are clear rules and it's a 1 on 1 in comparable weight classes. I wouldn't want to do it, but other people wouldn't want to read beauty blogs. You could rant about how stupid and shallow beauty blogs are and go on introducing us barbaric rowdies to some more appropriate and intellectual leasure activities. Like books and stuff, although I highly doubt that reading skills are widespread among those brutal thugs here.

[Creative Destruction]

Uh.... Marx attached a TON of qualifiers. He even made up a special type of proletariat, "Lumpenproletariat" to designate the really poor people without jobs who he felt were degenerates and scum (not all of his ideas were winners). Also, you can't just pretend that definitions don't exist.

Distinguishing the lumpenproletariat as a subsection within the proletariat, is completely and totally different from saying that there are people who are less proletarian based on their income. For what it's worth, I disagree with his assessment of the lumpenproletariat. I agree with Franz Fanon and the Black Panthers on this question.


Here's a quote from the Communist Manifesto:

"The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

How can these people " sink gradually into the proletariat" if they are already proletariat? And if capital doesn't mean anything in the definition of proletariat, why would their diminutive capital mean anything? Why would their specialized skills need to be rendered worthless if wages mean nothing?

Yeah, he's talking about the petite-bourgeoisie "sink gradually into the proletariat." He's not talking about it on the basis of income. He's talking about it on the basis of their relation to the means of production, you dunderhead.


But, in case you still don't see it my way, here's another quote from the Manifesto:
"In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character."

It's hard to get more obvious than that.

Did you just completely skip the part of the Mainfesto where he distinguishes what kind of property he's talking about? It's not personal possessions, moron. "Property" in the context of the [i]Communist Manifesto means the means of production.


I won't quote more

Good, because it's pretty obvious that you're misreading Marx. You need to re-read those passages, then read them again. And if you still don't get it, read them again. If you still don't get it then, then go play in traffic instead of bothering us with this dumb bullshit.

[motion denied]

None of this has any bearing on what I was talking about. The NFL has all that regulation type stuff too, and yet the NFL is every bit as much of a circus as WWE and UFC are, for the same reasons.

Oh:



In the future, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MMA gets even bloodier and more sensationalized to keep the public's interest. Maybe in the future, it'll devolve into MMA fighters beating skinny criminals to death. Then eventually, maybe the skinny guys won't be criminals. Hey, maybe someday we'll just pay good money to watch meatheads beat the pulp out of women and children. Talk about good fun, and what a profit it would turn from the right-wingers.


You're coming off as the worst kind of pretentious University kid. If regular sports are commodified (they are), so are most things. Harry Potter is as much a commodity as Goethe's Faust (notwithstanding the literary relevance, and that HP is a commodity par excellence).

[The Disillusionist]

Lol at the "anarchy anthropology student" going on a whose the prole trip while calling UFC fighters stupid brutes and shills at the same time without knowing that Monson made his name as a university wrestler and has a whole bunch of PhD's...

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one...

He has a Master's in Psychology, not a PhD, but that is impressive. Richard Sherman, of the Seattle Seahawks, has the same degree. I'd be a lot more impressed if either of them actually used those degrees though. But neither of them need to, because they make more playing sports. Why? Because our society values sports more than intellectual development, because thinking leads to rebellion while watching guys punch each other doesn't not.


I don't particularly care about that fighter, haven't heard of him before. I just don't understand where people get their moral high ground from. Isn't it just that many of us need some offset? Like, when you sit in the library or at work all day, you wanna come home and dispose of all that energy? Some would go jogging and others like doing fighting stuff. It's not like you wanna knockout your opponent or inflict irreversible damage upon him. There are clear rules and it's a 1 on 1 in comparable weight classes. I wouldn't want to do it, but other people wouldn't want to read beauty blogs. You could rant about how stupid and shallow beauty blogs are and go on introducing us barbaric rowdies to some more appropriate and intellectual leasure activities. Like books and stuff, although I highly doubt that reading skills are widespread among those brutal thugs here.

You must not watch much fighting. Knockout is many times the preferred way to win, as a knockout tends to be more impressive than a tapout. Oh, and a tapout is when you stress a guy's joints to the point where he has no choice but to forfeit unless he wants his joints broken, which has happened many times before. And irreversible damage happens ALL the time, as I've referred to many times with the "brain damage" comments.

And as I've said before, there's nothing really wrong with fighting... if guys want to beat the crap out of each other, I really don't care, though I won't take them too seriously. What I really have a problem with is the way that MMA, and the NFL, and the WWE are marketed. They're sexually exploitative, they glorify violence, and they appeal to the worst in their audiences, as I've already said.


Distinguishing the lumpenproletariat as a subsection within the proletariat, is completely and totally different from saying that there are people who are less proletarian based on their income. For what it's worth, I disagree with his assessment of the lumpenproletariat. I agree with Franz Fanon and the Black Panthers on this question.


Yeah, he's talking about the petite-bourgeoisie "sink gradually into the proletariat." He's not talking about it on the basis of income. He's talking about it on the basis of their relation to the means of production, you dunderhead.


Did you just completely skip the part of the Mainfesto where he distinguishes what kind of property he's talking about? It's not personal possessions, moron. "Property" in the context of the [I]Communist Manifesto means the means of production.


Good, because it's pretty obvious that you're misreading Marx. You need to re-read those passages, then read them again. And if you still don't get it, read them again. If you still don't get it then, then go play in traffic instead of bothering us with this dumb bullshit.

Except you're completely wrong, he never makes that definition (at least, not in the context of the first chapter of this book). He refers several times to both property AND the means of the production as seperate entities in the same sentences. One example:

"The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation."


Oh:


You're coming off as the worst kind of pretentious University kid. If regular sports are commodified (they are), so are most things. Harry Potter is as much a commodity as Goethe's Faust (notwithstanding the literary relevance, and that HP is a commodity par excellence).

I wouldn't take a corporate-endorsed book seriously either, so that doesn't have any bearing on my statement that I don't really take fighters seriously.

As for the commodification thing: capitalism turns everything into a commodity. I understand that. But violent professional sports are especially dangerous commidities because they are used as a means of sating the public by glorifying violence and sexually exploiting women. As I said, these sports play the same role as the gladiators did during the collapse of Rome, they give people an outlet to keep them placated. And since they glorify violence more and more to satisfy an increasingly jaded public, I only see it getting more violent, or eventually being replaced by something that is more violent. They might have stricter rules now, but pretty much every UFC advert begins with a picture of guy whose face and/or body is smeared in blood. The other alternative is that it will SEEM more and more violent as it gets more and more fake, just like professional wrestling. Then the fighters make the complete transition into actors and their entire job revolves around defrauding the bloodthirsty public that they've created.

At that point then, fighting becomes just like all those violent movies that Hollywood uses to justify things like torture, foreign wars, sexism, and racism. Violent sports, like the media, is the way big corporations keep real progress from happening. Anyone who watches just one hour of WWE with a leftist eye should be absolutely shocked at the bigotry.

Finally, I am slightly amazed that the members of this site will jump ALL over a thread about hunting and yet see absolutely nothing wrong with paying humans to hurt each other. I think a part of it is that most of the people on this site are doubtlessly young men who have been socialized to glorify violent sports, yet they become leftists ostensibly because they care about people. If you want cognitive dissonance, there's some cognitive dissonance for you.

[Creative Destruction]

Except you're completely wrong, he never makes that definition (at least, not in the context of the first chapter of this book). He refers several times to both property AND the means of the production as seperate entities in the same sentences. One example:

"The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation."

Jesus Christ, you don't even know what you're reading. He's equating the two. Just, for two seconds, stop being an idiot and think about this. It boils down to Marx's style: one., when he isn't using literary metaphors, he's otherwise painfully literal about everything. Two., he tends to not define terms clearly at first; you usually have to wait until later in the chapter before he gets to addressing that issue. He does this a lot in Capital. He introduces the term, plays with it a bit, gives some summation of what it means and then, ultimately, arrives at a definition (which is what he did here with "property.")

Now, given how literal Marx was, let's go to the first quote you used, about where he said the proletariat possesses "no" property. Do you really think that he meant the proletariat possesses no personal property? You've got to be just terminally stupid to think that, even in Victorian England, the working class had no personal property whatsoever. So, either, we're to assume that Marx was terminally stupid for suggesting such a thing; or, the real answer and which is explained later on in the Manifesto, is that the "property" he was referring to, and which the proletariat does not actually have by necessity of them being proletarian, is actually the means of production. It's better to take your quote as a literary twinge coupled with the difficulties of translating certain German things into English; he's stating "means of production," and equating it with property.

Let's even allow that I may be completely wrong in this -- which I'm not -- but let's, for the sake of argument, say I am. It doesn't matter. Nothing you have quoted thus far implies or makes explicit that there are "degrees" of being a proletariat based on income. That's a formulation of your own, and not based on anything Marx has said.

[Lily Briscoe]

Only on revleft, a thread about an MMA fighter turns into Marx quotes.

I actually think there's something pretty weird about the whole concept, for sort of the reverse reason as 'The Disillusionist', I.e. Not because "corporate-endorsed sports are bad!" but because it's watching people beat the shit out of each other for entertainment. Idk, it's just kinda gross imho.

[Tim Cornelis]

Bawling because 'the big bwad cowpowations make money of off selling things'. In a society where everything is commodified, criticising someone for working in a field that is commodified. It's clear that this is informed by The Disillusionist's smug sense of superiority, 'ugh, plebs liking fighting sports, how barbaric' -- if not petty bourgeois politics (small business owners > big bad corporations).

And yes, Marx is talking about the petty bourgeoisie owning means of production and the forces of competition bankrupting them making them dispossessed workers (proletariat). Lumpen-proletariat also means something differently than you think. It means people that rely on thievery and begging (thus not selling their labour-power).

[The Disillusionist]

Only on revleft, a thread about an MMA fighter turns into Marx quotes.

I actually think there's something pretty weird about the whole concept, for sort of the reverse reason as 'The Disillusionist', I.e. Not because "corporate-endorsed sports are bad!" but because it's watching people beat the shit out of each other for entertainment. Idk, it's just kinda gross imho.

Oh. My. God. This is actually exactly what I've been saying. EVERYTHING is a commodity, it's the fact that it's corporate endorsed violence and exploitation that I don't like. Why is it so hard for people to get that?

The only other point I made is that people who are paid to theatrically behave in a way that benefits corporations shouldn't be trusted. Public figures, sports figures, politicians... they are all paid by corporations to have certain opinions.

Tim Cornelis, your argument makes the same mistake. As I've said like FIFTEEN FREAKIN TIMES, I don't give a crap if people fight each other. It's the fact that this fighting is exploited and glorified by corporations that I don't like.

Also, you're wrong about Marx. That argument has already been stated and supported.

[Tim Cornelis]

Oh. My. God. This is actually exactly what I've been saying. EVERYTHING is a commodity, it's the fact that it's corporate endorsed violence and exploitation that I don't like. Why is it so hard for people to get that?

The only other point I made is that people who are paid to theatrically behave in a way that benefits corporations shouldn't be trusted. Public figures, sports figures, politicians... they are all paid by corporations to have certain opinions.

Tim Cornelis, your argument makes the same mistake. As I've said like FIFTEEN FREAKIN TIMES, I don't give a crap if people fight each other. It's the fact that this fighting is exploited and glorified by corporations that I don't like.

Also, you're wrong about Marx. That argument has already been stated and supported.

The big bwad cowpowations :crying: ? The point is you're discriminating between good and bad business, which is inconsistent with socialist politics.

As for Marx, I'm not wrong. It's simply factual what I, and everyone else, said.

[G4b3n]

I think its awesome that hes an anarchist and he definitely shows a coherent understanding of the fundamental problems inherent to capitalism. But his class analysis could use a little work, with the liberal conception of the oppressed "middle class" and so on.

Also a big Fuck You to everyone who is too far up on their high horse to recognize his political opinions.

[Bala Perdida]

I generally don't give a fuck about celebrities and less about their opinions, but seeing this guy is a contradiction to many stereotypes about anarchists. So, I'd say he's alright, as far as I know. He also faced charges for tagging up a military base with politicaly charged graffiti so I'd say he's put in some work too.

[The Disillusionist]

The big bwad cowpowations :crying: ? The point is you're discriminating between good and bad business, which is inconsistent with socialist politics.

As for Marx, I'm not wrong. It's simply factual what I, and everyone else, said.

You have, once more, completely misunderstood the entire basis of my argument. Also, if it's oh so factual what you and everyone else said, why am I the only one who has been able to provide real, solid evidence for my argument?


I think its awesome that hes an anarchist and he definitely shows a coherent understanding of the fundamental problems inherent to capitalism. But his class analysis could use a little work, with the liberal conception of the oppressed "middle class" and so on.

Also a big Fuck You to everyone who is too far up on their high horse to recognize his political opinions.

Even if he wasn't a fighter, he provides nothing new to the discussion. He doesn't give any new research, or any kind of groundbreaking analysis, or any penetrating insight, he's just a dude talking about why he likes anarchy. He might as well be my irritating uncle who always rambles on about welfare being the end of America. The only credibility this guy has for his opinions to be put on tv is the fact that he's a fighter. Is that seriously reason enough to take him seriously? Even if his opinions aren't in line with the corporation he works for, his only source of public authority is his position in the corporation he belongs to. You don't see Walmart employees going on tv and expecting everyone to listen to their political opinions just because they work for Walmart (unless they are talking specifically about Walmart). That's one of the big differences between workers and public figures.

What's funny is that if he had stayed a psychologist and done some real psychological research into the topic, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because no one would really care what he had to say. That's how screwed up our society is.

He's no different than those celebrities who go on tv and give their political opinions as if they mean anything. As if I'm gonna become a Republican because Tim Allen says it's cool, or an anarchist because Jeff Monson says it's cool...

[Creative Destruction]

You have, once more, completely misunderstood the entire basis of my argument. Also, if it's oh so factual what you and everyone else said, why am I the only one who has been able to provide real, solid evidence for my argument?

You haven't. You misconstrued and took out-of-context the quotes you gave, which I corrected for you. You're welcome, btw.

[motion denied]

I wouldn't take a corporate-endorsed book seriously either, so that doesn't have any bearing on my statement that I don't really take fighters seriously.

As for the commodification thing: capitalism turns everything into a commodity. I understand that. But violent professional sports are especially dangerous commidities because they are used as a means of sating the public by glorifying violence and sexually exploiting women. As I said, these sports play the same role as the gladiators did during the collapse of Rome, they give people an outlet to keep them placated. And since they glorify violence more and more to satisfy an increasingly jaded public, I only see it getting more violent, or eventually being replaced by something that is more violent. They might have stricter rules now, but pretty much every UFC advert begins with a picture of guy whose face and/or body is smeared in blood. The other alternative is that it will SEEM more and more violent as it gets more and more fake, just like professional wrestling. Then the fighters make the complete transition into actors and their entire job revolves around defrauding the bloodthirsty public that they've created.

At that point then, fighting becomes just like all those violent movies that Hollywood uses to justify things like torture, foreign wars, sexism, and racism. Violent sports, like the media, is the way big corporations keep real progress from happening. Anyone who watches just one hour of WWE with a leftist eye should be absolutely shocked at the bigotry.

Finally, I am slightly amazed that the members of this site will jump ALL over a thread about hunting and yet see absolutely nothing wrong with paying humans to hurt each other. I think a part of it is that most of the people on this site are doubtlessly young men who have been socialized to glorify violent sports, yet they become leftists ostensibly because they care about people. If you want cognitive dissonance, there's some cognitive dissonance for you.

Personally, I don't care about hunting, though I find some people's fixation with guns and killing off-putting. I've always been a calm person. No, not the 'macho' archetype.

Again with the attitude. Are mainstream sports any more 'placating' than posting on RevLeft? Or whatever people feel like doing in their leisure time? As for the book, publishers publish for profit, be it for the silly mortals fans of Hatty Potter, be it for the niche readers of Marshal Sahlins' and Bruno Latour's oeuvres.

Sports fans are bigots - no argument here. Fighting sports, where many men feel the need to reassert their masculinity at the expense of violence and objectification of women, make it even clearer. Then again, that's more of a expression than a cause. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter - said some German dude -, and in this case, it's not the sport, but the alienated personality engendered by class society (or, on a interesting take, by value [value-dissociation, Roswitha Scholz]), made crystal clear for anyone to see.

Talking on behalf of myself only, I do not feel too disgusted seeing two well trained athletes fight each other (though you'd like the examples of Chuck Liddell whose speech is hardly understandable and Gary Goodrige, in a far more grave condition). Seeing normal people beating the hell out of each other in a club or a pitch, however, is very upsetting.

For what it's worth, you're right about the acting thing. Most "rivalries" are not real and just parroted to sell pay-per-views.

[Lily Briscoe]

I generally don't give a fuck about celebrities and less about their opinions, but seeing this guy is a contradiction to many stereotypes about anarchists.

In what way?

[The Disillusionist]

You haven't. You misconstrued and took out-of-context the quotes you gave, which I corrected for you. You're welcome, btw.

No, you just restated the exact same argument that I had already responded to and ignored everything I posted.

[motion denied]

Strix is right though. We're so boring and/or predictable.


This was supposed to be about Monson, an anarchist who happens to fight in the big leagues, and sometimes takes a break to train antifa people.

[Creative Destruction]

No, you just restated the exact same argument that I had already responded to and ignored everything I posted.

No, I addressed your argument above. You're just a thick sack of cow shit and can't understand what is being argued.

[Sasha]

Sigh he is not just a fighter with an opinion, next to explicitly using his position as a platform to make people who would otherwise probably never come into serious contact with anarchism and communism aware of these concepts he also puts his money where his mouth is. Next to the already mentioned training of antifascist comrades in eastern Europe in much needed self defence the picture I posted on page 1 is from the RNC protests, he also got nicked for spray painting anarchist slogans on a court building and some other actions.

[Sasha]

So im.pretty sure he did already a lot more useful stuff than dipshit Lantz here.

[G4b3n]

You have, once more, completely misunderstood the entire basis of my argument. Also, if it's oh so factual what you and everyone else said, why am I the only one who has been able to provide real, solid evidence for my argument?



Even if he wasn't a fighter, he provides nothing new to the discussion. He doesn't give any new research, or any kind of groundbreaking analysis, or any penetrating insight, he's just a dude talking about why he likes anarchy. He might as well be my irritating uncle who always rambles on about welfare being the end of America. The only credibility this guy has for his opinions to be put on tv is the fact that he's a fighter. Is that seriously reason enough to take him seriously? Even if his opinions aren't in line with the corporation he works for, his only source of public authority is his position in the corporation he belongs to. You don't see Walmart employees going on tv and expecting everyone to listen to their political opinions just because they work for Walmart (unless they are talking specifically about Walmart). That's one of the big differences between workers and public figures.

What's funny is that if he had stayed a psychologist and done some real psychological research into the topic, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because no one would really care what he had to say. That's how screwed up our society is.

He's no different than those celebrities who go on tv and give their political opinions as if they mean anything. As if I'm gonna become a Republican because Tim Allen says it's cool, or an anarchist because Jeff Monson says it's cool...

Oh I forgot that the only anarchists to be taken seriously are those who have altered the course of the discussion. Please link me to your renowned works of theory or ground breaking mode of organization that has so heavily impacted anarchist praxis, please I am waiting oh God of Anarchism. It is elitist douchers like you who are and always have been the cancer of all socialist movements. So, sorry the voices of all of us little anarchists, lacking in our "credibility" and "ground breaking analysis" can't reach you up atop that giant high horse. Dick.

[Tim Cornelis]

You have, once more, completely misunderstood the entire basis of my argument. Also, if it's oh so factual what you and everyone else said, why am I the only one who has been able to provide real, solid evidence for my argument?

This is not even up for discussion. He simply does not say what you think he says. I can't provide additional proof other than the base source, which you quoted. It says it right there, and I if you refuse to see it I can't help you. Additionally, everyone has always interpreted that text the way we do. Bukharin, Trotsky, Lenin, and however many others, all refer to the throwing into the ranks of the proletariat of small business owners. So you are the only person to interpret it the way you do. You don't think that maybe that warrants reconsideration?

[The Disillusionist]

No, I addressed your argument above. You're just a thick sack of cow shit and can't understand what is being argued.

Whatever, think what you will, but you still haven't provided one bit of evidence.


Sigh he is not just a fighter with an opinion, next to explicitly using his position as a platform to make people who would otherwise probably never come into serious contact with anarchism and communism aware of these concepts he also puts his money where his mouth is. Next to the already mentioned training of antifascist comrades in eastern Europe in much needed self defence the picture I posted on page 1 is from the RNC protests, he also got nicked for spray painting anarchist slogans on a court building and some other actions.

The idea that self-defense training camps are what the antifascists need is completely laughable, it's so naive. That's like those naive teenagers you meet in karate classes who are convinced that a black belt in karate makes you invincible and bulletproof. But, good for him, at least he's trying to do something. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, but maybe not... And hey, he's a vandal too, so along with pretty much every guy I went to highschool with, he really must be a crusader for truth. This is why I sometimes have trouble identifying as an anarchist, because apparently the only thing we've got to be proud of is beating up fascists and spraypainting things. But good for him, I really mean that. At least he's done something.


So im.pretty sure he did already a lot more useful stuff than dipshit Lantz here.

You are just TOO upset that your naive worship of corporate violence-mongers is being contested. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a guy with a cartoon "mercenary" as his avatar. And you even identify as a "Merc?" I mean, it is totally representative of your misguided values that you think being a soldier for the highest bidder is something for a leftist to idealize.


Oh I forgot that the only anarchists to be taken seriously are those who have altered the course of the discussion. Please link me to your renowned works of theory or ground breaking mode of organization that has so heavily impacted anarchist praxis, please I am waiting oh God of Anarchism. It is elitist douchers like you who are and always have been the cancer of all socialist movements. So, sorry the voices of all of us little anarchists, lacking in our "credibility" and "ground breaking analysis" can't reach you up atop that giant high horse. Dick.

Am I on tv? Am I being publicly represented as the voice of the movement I associate with? Do you really think you deserve to be? I'm not on the high horse, I'm the only one with the sense to cut through all this crap to try to tear down this high horse that we've put our "celebrities" up on, and to confront this naive obsession with violence that seems to have pervaded this website. The true " cancer" of socialist movements is naive priviledged kids who treat the movement as their play thing, behaving recklessly and making heroes out of cartoon characters, or out of anyone really. There should be no such thing as anarchist heroes or anarchist public figures, it gives authority to single people, an inherently anti-anarchist principle.

[synthesis]

I really think that if you notice someone only ever railing against "corporations" and "corporate overlords" it is pretty much a green light to assume their politics are ass.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whatever, think what you will, but you still haven't provided one bit of evidence.



The idea that self-defense training camps are what the antifascists need is completely laughable, it's so naive. That's like those naive teenagers you meet in karate classes who are convinced that a black belt in karate makes you invincible and bulletproof. But, good for him, at least he's trying to do something. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, but maybe not... And hey, he's a vandal too, so along with pretty much every guy I went to highschool with, he really must be a crusader for truth. This is why I sometimes have trouble identifying as an anarchist, because apparently the only thing we've got to be proud of is beating up fascists and spraypainting things. But good for him, I really mean that. At least he's done something.



You are just TOO upset that your naive worship of corporate violence-mongers is being contested. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a guy with a cartoon "mercenary" as his avatar. And you even identify as a "Merc?" I mean, it is totally representative of your misguided values that you think being a soldier for the highest bidder is something for a leftist to idealize.



Am I on tv? Am I being publicly represented as the voice of the movement I associate with? Do you really think you deserve to be? I'm not on the high horse, I'm the only one with the sense to cut through all this crap to try to tear down this high horse that we've put our "celebrities" up on, and to confront this naive obsession with violence that seems to have pervaded this website. The true " cancer" of socialist movements is naive priviledged kids who treat the movement as their play thing, behaving recklessly and making heroes out of cartoon characters, or out of anyone really. There should be no such thing as anarchist heroes or anarchist public figures, it gives authority to single people, an inherently anti-anarchist principle.

Are you Chris Hedges.

[motion denied]

"vandal"

hahaha oh wow

[The Disillusionist]

I really think that if you notice someone only ever railing against "corporations" and "corporate overlords" it is pretty much a green light to assume their politics are ass.

I think the same way about people who say this exact sentence. :rolleyes:


Are you Chris Hedges.

Who?


"vandal"

hahaha oh wow

It's the term for someone who engages in vandalism, yes?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Who?

Another dude what is against corporations and consumerism and people not singing and gardening enough and OH MY GOD THE BLACK BLOC IS TURNING PEOPLE AWAY!!1!!

[Bala Perdida]

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, but maybe not... And hey, he's a vandal too, so along with pretty much every guy I went to highschool with, he really must be a crusader for truth. This is why I sometimes have trouble identifying as an anarchist, because apparently the only thing we've got to be proud of is beating up fascists and spraypainting things.
Seriously fuck you, you elitist piece of shit. Discrediting what little activity the movement engages in these days. Acting like there are no serious reprocutions for them. Spreading propaganda and suppressing fascist and racist elements is pretty important to the movement. If it happens to be outlawed by the state and ruin their precious property, then more power to us. Unless you have positive sentiments towards property what's the point of calling him a vandal? He's certainly doing more for the movement than you, being an ass condemning anarchists for working and being active in the movement. Also, what suggests it's a publicity stunt?

[Lily Briscoe]

Everybody, doggypile!

But for real,

I generally don't give a fuck about celebrities and less about their opinions, but seeing this guy is a contradiction to many stereotypes about anarchists.In what way?

[The Disillusionist]

Another dude what is against corporations and consumerism and people not singing and gardening enough and OH MY GOD THE BLACK BLOC IS TURNING PEOPLE AWAY!!1!!

Sounds like an interesting guy. Seeing as corporations and consumerism are two of the most destructive phenomenon on the planet, I'm not seeing the problem here.


Seriously fuck you, you elitist piece of shit. Discrediting what little activity the movement engages in these days. Acting like there are no serious reprocutions for them. Spreading propaganda and suppressing fascist and racist elements is pretty important to the movement. If it happens to be outlawed by the state and ruin their precious property, then more power to us. Unless you have positive sentiments towards property what's the point of calling him a vandal? He's certainly doing more for the movement than you, being an ass condemning anarchists for working and being active in the movement. Also, what suggests it's a publicity stunt?

If this is the "movement" then the movement is dead, and it's corpse is being grotesquely and pathetically reanimated by a bunch of naive, short-sighted children. You really think beating up racists and plastering mindless propaganda all over the place is the key to the survival of the "movement"? That's just superfical crap used to keep a movement alive that died a long time ago. Not to mention the fact that violent "suppression" of subversive elements is inherently anti-anarchist.

Jaywalking is outlawed by the state too. I suppose everyone who is too lazy to walk to the crosswalk is now a world-changing revolutionary?

I'm not condemning vandalism, I'm saying that it's superficial. It doesn't really mean anything in the vast majority of cases, it's just a minor inconvenience for the state that most people barely even notice in their day to day lives.

Also, you really don't see how it looks like a publicity stunt? You don't find it slightly coincidental that he just happened to have an ESPN photographer there to take a picture of him spraypainting that building, and he thought nothing of it? And you don't think that makes for some great UFC publicity? A radical anarchist fighter would be GREAT for business. They invent all kinds of personas like that for their fighters. Take the wrestler CM Punk for example, who was invented to appeal to the straight edge punk movement. Coincidentally, CM Punk was recently hired by the UFC in yet another publicity stunt. I'm not saying that Monson's vandalism was definitely a publicity stunt, it's fully possible that it wasn't, but it wouldn't be all that surprising if it was.

And he didn't even vandalise in a particularly clever or subversive way. All he spraypainted was the typical anarchy circle "A", a completely meaningless symbol nowadays. Grade school kids spray paint that symbol all over the place, and they barely even know what it means. It's an easily recognizable symbol, and makes for a great magazine cover, but it's meaningless.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sounds like an interesting guy. Seeing as corporations and consumerism are two of the most destructive phenomenon on the planet, I'm not seeing the problem here.

The problem is that people who moan about corporations don't recognise that capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production and generalised commodity production, which includes both Northrop Grumman and the most impoverished local Ma and Pa shop, is the problem, and that corporations are merely a highly efficient form of capitalist enterprise. And those who are agaiinst consumerism, in nine cases out of ten, are hairshirt ascetics who want to force their preferences down everyone's throats.

[PhoenixAsh]

And he didn't even vandalise in a particularly clever or subversive way. All he spraypainted was the typical anarchy circle "A", a completely meaningless symbol nowadays. Grade school kids spray paint that symbol all over the place, and they barely even know what it means. It's an easily recognizable symbol, and makes for a great magazine cover, but it's meaningless.


Except he didn't just sppray paint the anarchy sign?





""When they went in there the next day to go to their legislative sessions and stuff like that, they had to see that walking in," Monson told me in March. "They had to see 'End Poverty,' 'Stop the War,' the anarchy sign, the peace symbol, and they had to (understand), 'Hey, some people don't agree with what you're doing.' ""

[Lily Briscoe]

Whoa, that's intense...

[The Disillusionist]

Except he didn't just sppray paint the anarchy sign?

My mistake. It still seems like the whole affair was rather overly publicized though, just for a few cliche'd symbols and phrases.

870, I actually agree with the majority of your post. I disagree though that being against consumerism makes one a " hairshirt aesthetic" since consumerism is the mechanism that drives American capitalism, but that's a complicated issue.

[synthesis]

My mistake. It still seems like the whole affair was rather overly publicized though, just for a few cliche'd symbols and phrases.

How could it be overly publicized if you hadn't heard of it until now?

[PhoenixAsh]

So to get to the root of what this thread inevitably has become:

Is it a problem that people beat each other up for money? Because in communism they are going to do it for free...

Just saying....


Or is this secretly about "OMG violence is so vulgar" and under communism we wouldn't have martial arts

[Lily Briscoe]

I don't really think anyone can say definitively that 'in communism, people will still beat the shit out of each other for sport'. We have no idea. It seems just as possible that people raised in a world without the macho status games and casual violence endemic to class society would see the whole concept as something completely alien.

Anyway. What's weird to me about this thread and the dogpile in defense of Jeff Monson is that, if you actually watch the video in the OP, the guy's politics seem to be exactly the same kind of anarcho-liberalism that people are lambasting 'The Disillusionist' for, right down to the language about The Corporations ("corporate control", "the corporate elite"), but he isn't receiving any of the same criticism, despite being the actual topic of this thread. It's kind of puzzling, idk if people just haven't watched the video, or...?

[PhoenixAsh]

So basically sports will end? Since they are all based on the idea of competition...and basically boil down to the same macho attitude that motivates people to see who is physically stronger or more skilled in fighting. And we are using macho here in a very broad scope definition since there are plenty of female martial artists.

[synthesis]

I don't really think anyone can say definitively that 'in communism, people will still beat the shit out of each other for sport'. We have no idea. It seems just as possible that people raised in a world without the macho status games and casual violence endemic to class society would see the whole concept as something completely alien.

Anyway. What's weird to me about this thread and the dogpile in defense of Jeff Monson is that, if you actually watch the video in the OP, the guy's politics seem to be exactly the same kind of anarcho-liberalism that people are lambasting 'The Disillusionist' for, right down to the language about The Corporations ("corporate control", "the corporate elite"), but he isn't receiving any of the same criticism, despite being the actual topic of this thread. It's kind of puzzling, idk if people just haven't watched the video, or...?

I haven't watched the interview and don't really plan to, but I don't think that matters so much, not to me. For one thing, I'm generally not gonna fault a MMA guy if he's dumbing down his language for a spoken interview that is mainly targeted at sports fans. If he's not, and that really is the extent of his analysis, and most importantly it is in the same problematic ways as our guy here - as opposed to just having a lightweight theoretical background - I still don't really give a shit because he's not the one that is interacting with people on this forum.


So to get to the root of what this thread inevitably has become:

Is it a problem that people beat each other up for money? Because in communism they are going to do it for free...

Just saying....


Or is this secretly about "OMG violence is so vulgar" and under communism we wouldn't have martial arts

To be honest, I think this post most aptly captures what the "root of this thread has become":


'ugh, plebs liking fighting sports, how barbaric'

[Lily Briscoe]

So basically sports will end? Since they are all based on the idea of competition...and basically boil down to the same macho attitude that motivates people to see who is physically stronger or more skilled in fighting. And we are using macho here in a very broad scope definition since there are plenty of female martial artists.

No, I said that I don't know, and I don't think anyone can say. I don't think it's that 'out there' to imagine that sports in a communist society might be completely different. We're not just talking about some superficial transformation where basically everything continues exactly as it is now but without money. We don't have a crystal ball, though, so 'sports in communism' is a pretty pointless discussion.

[The Disillusionist]

I will say, for the billionth and final time, that I really do not care if people fight each other. I don't think it's a particularly great idea, because it rattles your brains out of your head, but as an anarchist, it's not my business to care what kind of stupid crap other individuals do with their lives, as long as they aren't hurting people who aren't voluntary participants in their fighting. What I don't like is the corporate exploitation and glorification of that violence. And I'm not calling it "barbaric." In fact, nothing is more "civilized" than turning violence into a business.

As people have said, it's hard to say exactly what sports would look like under a Communist system, but I'm fairly confident that people would still beat the crap out of each other for fun. However, I don't think that those people would ever become culture heroes or celebrities to the extent that they do under capitalism, and the entire business wouldn't be exploited for cash like it is today. You wouldn't have all the half-naked women, or the publicity stunts, or the tv advertisements starring guys with blood smeared all over their bodies. Overall, under a Communist/Socialist/Anarchist system, I see sports focusing on smaller scale local games, individuality, and personal enjoyment, rather than brutality, brands, and large scale marketing as modern sport industries love to focus on.

[Lily Briscoe]

I haven't watched the interview and don't really plan to, but I don't think that matters so much, not to me. For one thing, I'm generally not gonna fault a MMA guy if he's dumbing down his language for a spoken interview that is mainly targeted at sports fans. If he's not, and that really is the extent of his analysis, and most importantly it is in the same problematic ways as our guy here - as opposed to just having a lightweight theoretical background - I still don't really give a shit because he's not the one that is interacting with people on this forum.I would think the fact that Jeff Monson has a platform and a certain level of popular visibility - in addition to being the actual subject of this thread, with a bunch of posters defending him - would make criticisms of his politics more relevant than criticisms of some lone random anonymous guy on the internet whose views everyone already seems to recognize as being wrong. A lot a leftists have this tendency to get all starry-eyed and defensive about "radical" celebrities with shitty politics and it just kind of irks me, the swooning over Russell Brand comes immediately to mind.


To be honest, I think this post most aptly captures what the "root of this thread has become":

'ugh, plebs liking fighting sports, how barbaric'

Really there's only one poster in this thread who has said anything along these lines, and the fact that it's been blown up into the entire topic of discussion is more down to the fact that everyone and their mother has piled on top of it to voice virtually the exact same (albeit not inaccurate) criticism.

[Creative Destruction]

Whatever, think what you will, but you still haven't provided one bit of evidence.

There's no "evidence" to present. You're taking those quotes out of context and misreading them. I put them back in context for you. If you want "evidence" for Marx's style and how he presents his material, go read Capital.

[Bala Perdida]

Sounds like an interesting guy. Seeing as corporations and consumerism are two of the most destructive phenomenon on the planet, I'm not seeing the problem here.



If this is the "movement" then the movement is dead, and it's corpse is being grotesquely and pathetically reanimated by a bunch of naive, short-sighted children. You really think beating up racists and plastering mindless propaganda all over the place is the key to the survival of the "movement"? That's just superfical crap used to keep a movement alive that died a long time ago. Not to mention the fact that violent "suppression" of subversive elements is inherently anti-anarchist.

Jaywalking is outlawed by the state too. I suppose everyone who is too lazy to walk to the crosswalk is now a world-changing revolutionary?

I'm not condemning vandalism, I'm saying that it's superficial. It doesn't really mean anything in the vast majority of cases, it's just a minor inconvenience for the state that most people barely even notice in their day to day lives.

Also, you really don't see how it looks like a publicity stunt? You don't find it slightly coincidental that he just happened to have an ESPN photographer there to take a picture of him spraypainting that building, and he thought nothing of it? And you don't think that makes for some great UFC publicity? A radical anarchist fighter would be GREAT for business. They invent all kinds of personas like that for their fighters. Take the wrestler CM Punk for example, who was invented to appeal to the straight edge punk movement. Coincidentally, CM Punk was recently hired by the UFC in yet another publicity stunt. I'm not saying that Monson's vandalism was definitely a publicity stunt, it's fully possible that it wasn't, but it wouldn't be all that surprising if it was.

And he didn't even vandalise in a particularly clever or subversive way. All he spraypainted was the typical anarchy circle "A", a completely meaningless symbol nowadays. Grade school kids spray paint that symbol all over the place, and they barely even know what it means. It's an easily recognizable symbol, and makes for a great magazine cover, but it's meaningless.
Yes the movement is 'dead', it was never really all that alive to begin with, but don't pretend like they aren't taking action. What else do you suggest anarchists do that they aren't already doing?

Don't even start with that pacifist bullshit either, violence is not a contradiction to anarchism. Especially not against fascists. If it's organized state violence, it is. This however is not.
Graffiti is also historically tied to revolutionary movements, just saying. I don't think any anarchist movement as they stand have the capacity for revolution, but that's one thing to keep in mind. Also it's not just about propaganda, it's an act against property in many ways. With very serious reprocutions because it is an act against private property. A very carefully planned act, that is often difficult to carry out.
Honestly I still barley give half a fuck about the wrestler, or if any of this is a publicity stunt. It's just annoying to find another coffee shop revolutionary piece of shit act like they're so much better than us 'barbaric teens, masturbating to riot porn' and what not. Despite the militant sector actually trying to rally people and actively spreading the ideas and having charges pile up against then for their actions against the state.

[Bala Perdida]

In what way?
He's not the standard thin young college student that people think anarchists are. There are several other stereotypes, but several people I know break those.

[Lily Briscoe]

Idk man, I don't really see 'ripped professional fighter who has been arrested for domestic violence' as an improvement upon 'thin young college student', but to each his own I guess.

[Bala Perdida]

Idk man, I don't really see 'ripped professional fighter who has been arrested for domestic violence' as an improvement upon 'thin young college student', but to each his own I guess.
Probably why no one brings him up often lol

[Lily Briscoe]

I hear him mentioned semi-frequently, but it's probably down to where I live (he's from Olympia)

[Bala Perdida]

Ouch

[synthesis]

I would think the fact that Jeff Monson has a platform and a certain level of popular visibility - in addition to being the actual subject of this thread, with a bunch of posters defending him - would make criticisms of his politics more relevant than criticisms of some lone random anonymous guy on the internet whose views everyone already seems to recognize as being wrong. A lot a leftists have this tendency to get all starry-eyed and defensive about "radical" celebrities with shitty politics and it just kind of irks me, the swooning over Russell Brand comes immediately to mind.

Well, I think that's sort of a dishonest way to portray the discussion in this thread. It expanded a ways back to encompass MMA as a sport much more broadly; Jeff Monson himself is not being held up as a paragon of communist theoretical fluency here, not that I can see.

[consuming negativity]

He's not the standard thin young college student that people think anarchists are. There are several other stereotypes, but several people I know break those.

when i think of anarchists i think of idiots wearing all black and throwing bricks through windows

frankly, i guess i'm just pissed off that apart from the college student part i am both thin and young and white and thus fit the stereotype

[Bala Perdida]

when i think of anarchists i think of idiots wearing all black and throwing bricks through windows

frankly, i guess i'm just pissed off that apart from the college student part i am both thin and young and white and thus fit the stereotype

Sorry, I'm also young and somewhat in college and hopefully thin lol. Also an idiot to some degree lol.
Of any of these it's only the young part that really gets to me. We gotta get some older anarchists. Lol

[BIXX]

Sorry, I'm also young and somewhat in college and hopefully thin lol. Also an idiot to some degree lol.
Of any of these it's only the young part that really gets to me. We gotta get some older anarchists. Lol
There are plenty of old anarchists they're just sneakier than us generally

[Sewer Socialist]

No, I said that I don't know, and I don't think anyone can say. I don't think it's that 'out there' to imagine that sports in a communist society might be completely different. We're not just talking about some superficial transformation where basically everything continues exactly as it is now but without money. We don't have a crystal ball, though, so 'sports in communism' is a pretty pointless discussion.

Martial arts have been around long enough it seems likely to me that they will continue in some form; their history seems to predate writing and artwork, and since we can see them practised amongst many animals of the same species for fun (dogs, ants, etc.). That said, as the economy (and societies) change, they have changed in form quite a bit. Even without money itself being a factor, amateur sports, including those which have no professional form

Like, when I was a bike messenger, people would praise people who were noticably faster, people would argue about who was faster (myself included). Of course, this was more common amongst newer bike messengers, whereas people got more comradely with time. But anyway, races would be organized to settle it, to determine who was objectively faster, determine bragging rights, etc. This is how I became a fairly successful bike racer, where the same sort of attitudes prevailed; rivalries, shit-talking, picking people apart, etc. It continued on to the higher levels.

While it is what got me started in the first place, it's also why I lost interest, and began to realize that it had taken over my life, and in more negative than positive ways. It was destroying friendships and causing me mental anguish. The competitive attitudes sustained my interest at first, but also later destroyed it.

While I agree that we really couldn't say that martial arts, or even competitive sport itself, will continue in communism, it seems equally possible that sports will flourish as a form of entertainment and also a form of popular activity without the same sort of destructive competitiveness. With me, personally, sports are more appealing when they are more supportive than competitive.

I can easily watch a "competitive sport" - soccer, martial arts, cycling, hockey - without caring who wins, or picking a side, and just enjoying the spectacle, the same as I enjoy the ballet, or a play. I enjoy participating in a bike race I have no chance of winning, just pushing myself to my physical limits near others doing the same, maybe even engaging in spectation from a different perspective.

Not all sports even need competitors; gymnastics, weightlifting, and archery can be enjoyed on their own. Often, one person's performance is measured against another's, but this is not the core of the sport. They are fundamentally individual sports.

And one more thing - if Strix and I can have our very different opinions on competitive sports while probably living in similar economic conditions, people will probably have different opinions in communism, probably even more so, and I have a hard time imagining that no one will be interested in martial arts and sports any more.

[Sewer Socialist]

This discussion thread would be a lot better if the disillusionist and everyone talking to them were split off. I just ignored all those after the first few.

[Lily Briscoe]

@upthehunx

Those are all fair points. I just wanna be clear, though, that I wasn't saying 'sports won't exist in communism' (personally I've done sports, including competitive sports, my whole life) or even 'fighting sports won't exist in communism'. I was simply objecting to someone else's statement that people will still beat each other up for sport in communism, the only difference is that they'll do it for free. I don't think it's something you can say definitively. Communism will transform human values and relationships in ways we can't even imagine. It seems likely that sports will look very different than they do today, beyond the simple absence of money from the equation.

[Sewer Socialist]

Oh, I realize that wasn't what you were saying, though I certainly have heard it from other people, and maybe that seeped into my response.

I just think that martial arts have historically been a part of so many cultures and economies, that it seems almost certain that some level of interest will continue on into communism. It certainly will be transformed, and attitudes about it will change, but I don't think it will disappear. Fighting and running are the oldest sports in the world!

[Lily Briscoe]

You may be right, I don't know. But you could make a similar argument about warfare, and I don't think anyone believes that will persist in communism.

[BIXX]

Meh if communism won't have martial arts then fuck it I'm out

[Lily Briscoe]

Good that you have your priorities straight.

If people still want to beat each other up for sport in communism, and other people want to watch people beating each other up for sport, then nothing's going to prevent it from happening. 'If' being the key thing.

[G4b3n]

Good that you have your priorities straight.

If people still want to beat each other up for sport in communism, and other people want to watch people beating each other up for sport, then nothing's going to prevent it from happening. 'If' being the key thing.

I don't think that was an expression of his priorities. I think he was criticizing the fruitless expression of leftists who think that they have a solid and golden understanding of what a future communist society would look like stating that "x, y, and z will not exist under communism because it is totally possible for me to know these things".

[BIXX]

Good that you have your priorities straight.

You might say the same about Emma Goldman...
"If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution"
What a dirty counterrevolutionary, amirite strix?

Anyway I'm not even a communist I just wanted to say I would be pretty damn pissed if we got rid of martial arts. I'd even go so far as to say I would actively fight against a society that takes that away from me, because it is something I care deeply about.

[Creative Destruction]

That's not even to mention that martial arts isn't strictly about "beating people up."

[The Disillusionist]

That's not even to mention that martial arts isn't strictly about "beating people up."

Martial arts absolutely is NOT about beating people up, I completely agree. I say that martial arts really are an art, and would definitely continue under Communism. Though I would hope that martial arts wouldn't have such exploitatively violent connotations surrounding them under a Communist system.

However, MMA fighting IS about beating people up. As a result of capitalist investment turning it into a business, there is almost nothing "art" about it, it's just guys beating each other up for money. As such, I don't see it existing in a Communist society, at least not as a large-scale business as it is today.

[RedSunrise]

"If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution"

Anyway I'm not even a communist I just wanted to say I would be pretty damn pissed if we got rid of martial arts. I'd even go so far as to say I would actively fight against a society that takes that away from me, because it is something I care deeply about.

That's a new favorite quote, mate. Great choice.

I would have to completely agree, but on my own tastes (Soccer/Fútbol/Football).


Martial arts absolutely is NOT about beating people up, I completely agree. I say that martial arts really are an art, and would definitely continue under Communism. Though I would hope that martial arts wouldn't have such exploitatively violent connotations surrounding them under a Communist system.

However, MMA fighting IS about beating people up. As a result of capitalist investment turning it into a business, there is almost nothing "art" about it, it's just guys beating each other up for money. As such, I don't see it existing in a Communist society, at least not as a large-scale business as it is today.

Do you notice how you just contradicted yourself?

"Martial arts absolutely is NOT about beating people up"
"MMA [Mixed Martial Arts] fighting IS about beating people up"

Look at that. They are the same thing... Or perhaps you mean *only* the MMA industry/media:

"As a result of capitalist investment turning it into a business, there is almost nothing "art" about it"

Does it need to be "art"? Classify art. What is artistic about other MAs that MMA doesn't have? Seeing as it uses the same skills and ideas of all other arts (hence "mixed"). Once something is used by the bourgeoisie it is no longer artistic? If that's so, I guess there is no art...

"there is almost nothing "art" about it, it's just guys beating each other up for money. As such, I don't see it existing in a Communist society"

Why can't something exist (at a large scale) without being art? I don't think people will start hating American Football the second the revolution hits. Perhaps there will be less nationalist-like passion for a specific team, but I don't see it becoming hated or even less liked.

And I love how you are attempting to trivialize it in a manner that can easily be reversed:
"it's just guys beating each other up"

It's just dye on paper. It's just tones put together. It is just a ball being kicked. It is just hitting a ball with a stick. It is just people talking in front of a camera... Yes. It is just people physically dominating each other, but that takes just as much technical skill as any other sport or art. In fact, as someone who treads closely to pacifistic waters, I hold a lot of respect for MMA fighters. I wouldn't do it (I did for several years until I became resentful of physical confrontations which the sport emulates, and focused on my love of football/soccer), but it is a high-skill sport similar to others. Unlike football where you use agility and strength to get a ball, you need to have strength and agility to get the man. Does this make it worse than football? No. Because you have opponents in football too (who you trip/spike/pull/scratch).

On a not-responding-to-people note: Good video. I particularly enjoyed the "we aren't animals... Well... We are. But we have souls... We can choose to help each other." (paraphrase) part. Interesting guy. I'll do some research on him, if I have the time.

Shout out to the MMA comrades in this thread! You guys are pretty cool.

[The Disillusionist]

"Martial arts" is a type of activity, "MMA" and "UFC" are essentially brand names.

Also, I refer to martial "arts" as an art in the traditional sense. Using the modern definition of art, sneezing could very easily be an art form. Art in the traditional sense is a means of personal, creative, productive self-expression.

I would say that the "artistic" part of martial arts is the gentler side of it, the form and philosophy associated with it. I would say that martial arts can be artistic in the same way that dance is artistic. The MMA brand actually seems to pride itself on the elimination of those artistic aspects. You will very rarely see MMA guys performing katas, they're all about joint-locks and and how hard they can punch.

I don't know how I wouldn't trivialize MMA, I don't see anything of substance about it. Painting isn't just dye on paper, music isn't just tones in combination, they are the transmission of information that can only be processed as a whole. Punching a guy is punching a guy.

Sports might take skill, but usually, especially when they've become businesses, I wouldn't call them art. Standing in an assembly line and putting car parts together takes skill, but you don't see people claiming it is art.

[BIXX]

Eh, who gives a shit if its art? In fact yeah. I would love to pride myself on removing the art from martial arts.

Its something I love, that's what matters to me. I don't give a fuck if its art or not.

[The Disillusionist]

Eh, who gives a shit if its art? In fact yeah. I would love to pride myself on removing the art from martial arts.

Its something I love, that's what matters to me. I don't give a fuck if its art or not.

Go for it then, it makes no difference to me. I just don't like people trying to make it into something that it's not, because that leads to this whole fake culture surrounding it that is just totally shallow and exploitative.

[BIXX]

Go for it then, it makes no difference to me. I just don't like people trying to make it into something that it's not, because that leads to this whole fake culture surrounding it that is just totally shallow and exploitative.
I agree that there is a ton of bullshit surrounding MMA and whatnot. However, this is just a reflection of a fucked society. And can be said about anything else- including leftism and leftist culture.


And where did I try to make it into something its not? My entire line is this thread is about how there are people who love the sport, and who it gives something to live for, and yet you just shit on them.

[consuming negativity]

the great thing about being different people is that we are in fact different people

people who wanna fight each other for fun can do so

people who wanna watch for entertainment can do so

people who think those people are weird or stupid can think that

the rest of us can not even pay attention

and the world keeps turning

but can we talk about this jeff monson guy? because he's way more interesting than "omg why don't you like the things that i like!11!!11!one"

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, I'm not sure what more we can say about Monson's interview that hasn't been said. It's a super-introductory look into anarchism, intended for people who don't know anything about it. The footage of his classes is pretty boring. I don't know why they don't have any footage of him fighting.

At any rate, I think his fighting style is a little slow and boring, too much grappling. It's effective competitively, but I don't really enjoy him.