Code of Conduct for Radical Groupings

[Rafiq]

Again it's best just to read this on the blog: https://jrachblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/code-of-conduct-for-radical-groupings/


Many of you are more experienced with this kind of thing. I therefore say that others are free to request this to be revised, added upon, and so on, based on their diverse experiences in just 'dealing' with people in a group.

What this is meant to be is a kind of code of conduct for socialists so inclined to meet each other in real life, to - drawing from my What Should I be Doing, form intellectual, political spaces where they can discuss, and debate things. I know I am getting quite ahead of myself - few people are paying attention to this blog as of this post. But I want this to change - we as Socialists right now should struggle to organize all of these different kinds of groupings.

First and foremost, drop your pettiness and juvenile egoism - you don't have to be friends with each other.

Down with Drama and Pettiness!

You are worthless. You don't matter as an individaul. Your individuality is fake. Before you can be a Socialist, you need to get over yourself and become a universal subject. What does that mean? It means your socialism doesn't come from any particular individual interest, but how you as a particular person express a universal tradition.

It's a shame that we live in a time - our filthy consumerist epoch - where this must be clarified. But socialism must be for you more than just an identify you tie with your sense of individual self worth as an individual consumer, bourgeois-egoist. That means, that if you agree to meet with others, you must drop all pretense to being immune to criticism, and take nothing 'personally', that is, don't play with these ideas as a smokescreen for your worthless, particular sense of individuality and your consumerist ego.

If people can form fight clubs and literally beat the shit out of each other without any drama, you can do the same thing in a socialist organization. The first prerequisite is that no one matters. Everyone is equally worthless and equally entitled to participating in a common space of reason. That means: Debates and arguments must go as far as they need to, must be endured, without there being any pettiness or drama, you must ruthlessly attack each other and expose the philistinism, etc. that is among you. This ruthlessness cannot be limited for the sake of polite conventions. You don't need to all be friends and hold hands.

You must be willing to take criticism, you must be willing to be broken by another persons argument without interpreting this as this person asserting their particular individuality over you. You must understand that these debates are with regard to a universal tradition, THIS tradition must be in common.

Speaking is not a sign of a persons particular power over others.

One thing which I am told is a particularly American problem is the propensity to interpret speaking alone as signifying some particular power. What a disgusting convention! What that means effectively is that regardless of what a person is saying, the act of them saying something alone is interpreted as that person asserting some particular interest over everyone else. Leave that shit behind.

If you have nothing to say, then you don't have to speak, it doesn't make you any more worthless than anyone else. A person who speaks longer, who has more to say, and has more to share, is doing so, so as to contribute to a common tradition we are attempting revive. Instead you should pay attention to what the person is saying, and recognize that what they are saying can be subject to the fullest degree of criticism you can muster. If you cannot muster this criticism, then you ought not to protest what another person is saying.

Group discussions therefore shouldn't be rationed along the lines of 'speaking turns' and other such fake, walking-on-eggshell conventions. There is nothing wrong with people loudly arguing with each other, impassionately, there is nothing wrong with interrupting others, with doing this to its fullest extent. If each according person can get over their juvenile egoistic, personal pettiness, then they must at the onset be prepared to debate and discuss how they relate to the universality of Socialism to others, which can be subject to ruthless criticism and can be contested.

This is particularly a problem with regard to identity politics. That is to say, because a person belongs to a particular identity, what they say is elevated. Again, leave that shit as home. Socialists must be universal subjects - so your particular experiences as a 'non-white non-heterosexual non-male', must be translated into something with theoretical substance, something that can have a say in a collective space of reason. If it can't do this, then it means nothing to assert your identity. All pretensions to "As an X" must be dropped, unless they are within the context of theory - and not simply crass attempts to substitute one's relation to universal reason with a pretension to their identity.

And don't get me wrong - there are scum who can be obvious with their philistine sexism, racism, etc. that they aren't aware of out of ignorance in peritoneal to their personal experiences. But this must be a theoretical controversy, and their conduct will be reflected in their ideas. Those ideas must be attacked. Such outwardly behavior, doesn't come from not 'checking your privilege' but from a rottenness that is reflected at the level of their actual ideas. Locating this is the task, not petty, idealist, juvenile and actually fake rituals of 'checking your privilege' and whatever. Leave that shit behind.

There is nothing wrong with political, ideological shaming.

A common problem we find with Leftists today is that they're simply too soft - they don't want to hurt each others' feelings. Your particular feelings... Are worthless. They are meaningless. You are either a partisan of the tradition of the Left or you are a philistine who identities with this tradition for some other particular reason.

It is necessary to, as the Russian revolutionary social democrats used to say, regularly "bend the stick". There is nothing wrong with rigidity and conformity. This conformity and rigidity must be enforced not by blind obedience, but by actively understanding it through the medium of each particular individual, so that each particular individaul actively, by their own devices, conforms to common standards.

If that bothers you - the point must be that you must fuck off.

These standards must be definitive and set - perhaps agreed upon. Examples like:

No Fascists

No reactionaries of any kind (racists, anti-semites, etc.)

No preachers

No liberals

The common agreement that everyone is a socialist, a radical Leftist that is.

This is necessary because these common standards set the standard for debate. For example, if one is a sexist, you don't have to debate whether sexism is okay or not okay - they simply become bellow the standards of the group and must be excluded. A common agreement, one that must be universal across all cities even, must be made, about the political standards of the radical grouping. ONLY THEN can ruthless criticism of all kinds proceed, ONLY when it has been established that AT THE LEAST all are radical leftists who seek the supersession of capitalism, and so on. Without this precondition, the whole idea - for radical groupings, becomes worthless.

These spaces cannot be designed for your comfort.

For all intended purposes, these spaces can't cater to your stupidity, your ignorance and your worthless preferences. You must be able to become a universal subject insofar as at the expense of all personal, particular considerations you dedicate yourself to the tradition of socialism we are attempting to revive. Inevitably out of their philistinism and pettiness some will be exposed and some will leave. But this ruthless process is necessary.

If you're shy, and so on, well - sorry to break it to you, THIS NEEDS TO BE OVERCOME. Is your shyness, your particular personality, are you going to let that get in the way of your dedication to the cause? If you do, you have no right to call yourself a socialist in the first place. Don't be afraid to say things if you feel like they need to be said - holding in criticism and arguments against others creates tension, awkwardness and an overall poisonous climate. Let everything be let loose - for the innocent have nothing to hide. If someone has to repress their reactionary predispositions, those predispositions must be exposed in the first place.

And those who can be shown not to be innocent will be exposed, and must be. This is why it is necessary that there are leaders who are able to regulate political standards to the point where there is a zero tolerance policy toward enemy ideologues - Fascists, and reactionaries. There is nothing wrong with leaders, or people who happen to be more knowledgeable, committed and so on than others. And it's purely a provisionality - if one is a socialist, and say, the majority of their group is in fact composed of Fascists, then they ought to leave the group. These political standards must be held in place, first and foremost, by dedication to the tradition of the Left, and there will always be - no matter how few - people who are like minded as you.

Keep your group connected with others online so as to establish common, and accountable standards, (political) culture.

Finally the activities of certain groups can be scrutinized through the medium of online discussions with other potential groups, so that truly a the basis for a leftist tradition, and political culture, can be born. I do not know which website would serve best for this - though I can think of one at the top of my head. That' something we can discuss if we can get more people involved in this.

Even if you disagree with this code of conduct, recognize that it's important to have one, or nothing can get done.

Thoughts? My inspiration, by the way, and please - go ahead and laugh at me - is Revleft. Revleft is important because it has common standards that are enforced wherein all debate, criticism and discussion proceeds from with that precondition. These standards can be vague and open to interpretation, but they must exist. This allows for more diverse political discussion, why? because let's say you join a socialist organization - if you do not agree with their articulation of socialism in its particularity, you can't be there. But with these kinds of groups, so long as everyone agrees that they are radical socialists, they can take ruthless criticism to its highest conclusion, so long as it is established that one's practical inclinations are at least FORMALLY in common. This is very important. Neither 'open' political spaces nor sectarianism, but ruthless criticism, which both lack (the former, out of retaining 'openness', and the latter, out of retaining formally, uncritically accepted rules).

Think of this as a Socialist 'fight club'. Everything must be left behind, and you must be willing to get your ass kicked (not physically, of course - you all understand what I mean...).

Of course eventually, hopefully something that can be consistent and strict can come about from this. But we aren't at that point yet. What we need is to find like minded people in the first place before we can have more discussions about party building, and so on. These aren't meant to be an ends, but a basis for reinvigorating socialist politics. A beginning point for a new beginning.

[John Nada]

Revleft? I was worried you were going to say Soviet-Empire or Leftypol!:lol:

I'm reminded of the polemics the RSDLP had. They would have heated arguments and take each conclusion to the extreme(Trotsky even saying in the future the readers shouldn't read too much into it). Lenin was said to have gotten to the point of feeling physically sick from the intense debates with ad hominem attacks. He'd both attack friends and was attacked by friends. Often afterwards they'd have to apologize. I wonder if the workers thought this drama was amusing, like an early 20th century version of reality TV?
Keep your group connected with others online so as to establish common, and accountable standards, (political) culture.

Finally the activities of certain groups can be scrutinized through the medium of online discussions with other potential groups, so that truly a the basis for a leftist tradition, and political culture, can be born. I do not know which website would serve best for this - though I can think of one at the top of my head. That' something we can discuss if we can get more people involved in this.I was thinking about the internet and its potential. In the past, printing and distributing affordable pamphlets, books and newspapers was a great endeavor for underground organizations. The RSDLP would have clandestine printing presses, underground libraries and smuggle higher-quality material from abroad like it was heroin or something.:lol: Translating foreign works was especially valued. Guerrillas, such as in China, would expend resources to haul around libraries worth of books along with guns. All this was done at the risk of death.

These books, articles and pamphlets may seem dense and dry by modern standards, but often at less than a dime it was cheap entertainment for workers. It's easy to forget that most of the shit theorists wrote like on Marxists.org were for workers!

But now, you can pretty much do the same for almost free and much less risk. None of the socialist theorists' works have ever been as accessible. It's much harder to catch someone reading unpopular or even banned literature. You can download, view or print much of the older and newer socialist literature for almost nothing. The capacity to print if necessary(like for people without internet) is well within reach of a novice with access to a printer, whereas in the past you'd have to basically hide a factory. It's much easier to get translations. People from all over the world can be contacted via email, chat or message boards. And events can be taped and uploaded online.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Perhaps a bit harsher than I would have liked....but then again, that might be for the best.

Nice work.

[Armchair Partisan]

So, to sum it up in a couple words: we should all be like you?

I agree with a few passages: some paragraphs in "Speaking is not a sign of a persons particular power over others", for example. I am ambivalent about others, such as "These standards must be definitive and set - perhaps agreed upon. Examples like". (In particular, the problem is not deciding that "we must ban liberals!", but deciding who is a liberal and thus, should be banned. After all, calling a comrade "liberal" is one of the most common accusations we sling as each other, and yes, communist parties (and the societies ruled by them) do have a sour history of purging legitimate comrades with flimsy accusations of liberalism/reactionary tendencies because of petty political factionalism or the personal ambitions of certain party members.

As for much of the rest, I find it kind of disgusting. I find it abhorrent that your idea of a debate in a socialist grouping is a flamewar - ironic, especially since you campaign against drama. The problem is, it is actually good when a discussion is civilized and the participants spend their time attacking each other's arguments instead of each other. Calm and civilized discussions lead to something useful. Heated bickering just leads to reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29) - nobody's mind will be changed if you use your arguments as a cudgel while calling them an anglo-saxon degenerate philistine Lacanian Californian bourgeois child, and you can think of that as irrational but that's how humans work. Yes, I'm talking about your "debating" "style" here, Rafiq. Often you say very smart things (and at other times, very stupid things) and yet you won't convince anyone of anything, ever, because of the way you present them. That is bad enough, but please, don't encourage others to take up your inquisitorial methods.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There is nothing wrong with people loudly arguing with each other, impassionately, there is nothing wrong with interrupting others, with doing this to its fullest extent.
There absolutely is something wrong with interrupting others during a meeting and with the majority of the rest of the toxic environment you are advocating for. For one, it's annoying but it also disintegrates the discussion and is not at all conducive to a productive debating or learning environment. Any chair of a meeting worth their salt would and should shut down such arrogance immediately. Interruptions drag organisational matters out and reduce the coherence and quality of peoples' contributions. A web forum is not a replica of a meeting of activists or socialists and in no way should it be emulated.

You say 'down with drama' and then lay out a format for a meeting that caters for little else but your flair for the dramatic. In fact, I'm immediately reminded of the tactics of the Stalinists in drowning out the debate and arguments of the Left Opposition.

[Rafiq]

Ladies and gentlemen this, precisely this, is exactly what encapsulates what is being attacked here:


So, to sum it up in a couple words: we should all be like you?

Yes, in fact, 'you' should all be like Rafiq, a particular person with a particular interest, whom we are to believe wants to subjugate the particular, sacred interests of all the other special little snowflakes to be uniform in a way that is dictated by his particular, 'personal' desires. Rafiq, who is a particular individual and whose views and positions are wrought form some particular individual interest, simply wants to subjegate the sacred individualities of others in a way that conforms to his own particular, individual prerogatives.

You know it's literally fucking disgusting, how implicitly, tacitly assumed this consumerist filth is among Leftists - a pseudo-egoism that is worthy of Ayn Rand. These are precisely the demons that need to be exercised, crushed and eradicated, this is precisely the utter shit - which in my own personal experience - truly is enough to sometimes make one completely hopeless and sympathize with reactionary third-worldism, as though all 'intellectuals' in advanced capitalist states are petty bourgeois ideologues, worthless consumerist egoists and so on. Thankfully a Marxist should know that this is an all too easy position to have.

You see this is how our individualists think, everyone. What you are arguing reflects fundamentally your own weakness, that is, you are being confronted to own up to your responsibility and duty as a socialist, and you can only interpret this as an expression of the old, pre-counterculture authoritarian master, who commands blind dedication and obedience from others through means of coercion, and the exerting of a pressure that is not actively articulated by the others themselves. What you fail to understand is that I am being far more intrusive and unrespescting of your private space than that. Not only am I telling you that as a socialist you have a duty, and one that - if you do not act upon - you disgrace, I am saying this specifically as it relates to how YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, tell YOURSELF and JUSTIFY to YOURSELF your pettiness, petty bourgeois predispositiosn, and so on. I am not simply saying "Do this, be like Rafiq". I am challenging your own individuality, your own ideological presumpstions AS THEY RELATE TO YOU as an active, individaul subject.

So to sum it up, it is only incidental that the message of this is that you should 'all be like Rafiq'. The point is - Rafiq is 'like Rafiq' for reasons that do not emanate from some particular idiosyncrasy of Rafiq the individual person, but for reasons that relate to a universality that Rafiq is merely the expression of. Everyone has equal access to this universaity. When I confront others, I ask "How did they arrive at this conclusion in a way that I did not?". Because we all share a common space of collective reason. It is not because Rafiq is Rafiq that his positions are 'true' (that anyone can have), it is only incidental that 'Rafiq is Rafiq'. It is the positions that matter, nothing more. What is so despicable about this argument, about this disgusting degenerate pseudo-individualist irrationalism, is that this can apply to virtually any argument. This was EXACTLY what I was talking about!

If I were to tell you, for example, that Napoleon died on the fifth of may, and it is persmissable in our disgusting, filthy and degenerate consumerist order to respond with "Stop asserting your individuality over mine!", and that your insistence on the notion that Napoleon died some other day results from some particular aspect of your individuality. This is exactly how ones 'political views' and how ones 'ideology' works, how ones 'opinion' works. Marxists do not respect 'opinion', because ones particular opinion is always relating itself to a universality that belongs to a common space of reason, which we ALL HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO. So far from being an assertion of some particular aspect of ones individuality over another, the insistence that Napoleon died on the fifth of May, RELATES TO YOUR OWN presumption that he died on another day: The point is NOT "sacrifice yourself to my views", but that YOUR VIEWS by their OWN justification are WRONG, the way YOU YOURSELF justify your views, is wrong. This is how political debate is conducted - not a battle of fake individuals. There are no individuals as such. There are subjecst who relate themselves to a universality in a way that is totally irreducible to any arbitrary factors of their distinct occupation of physical space as individuals.


but deciding who is a liberal and thus, should be banned.

In fact you fail to understand the point. You can call Revleft member liberals all you want, and that won't get them into OI unless they explicitly admit this. In fact my point was quite simple: having the common standard that one should not tolerate liberals is what is necessary. I EXPLICITLY STATED that this is the BASIS of debate. Calling another person a liberal, will not be enough to exclude them, because the practical inclination to at the least appear as a radical socialist will have to be ingrained in the standards of the group. This is LITERALLY something I spoke of! And why get ahead of yourself? Few people have even come forward as interested here, the very ability to get this going is something that I am struggling with at this moment. Yet now we are to jump to the conclusion that there are vast swaths of willing people, of diverse political backgrounds, who want to engage such radical groupings.

In fact, these groups will be agreed upon by radical socialists who desire to meet with each other. These are radical groups. It is not permissible that enemy ideologues can be allowed, standards here must be kept in place. There is no big other. No one has more of a 'right' to set standards than others. It is a practical question - why one sets the standards, and one that is by default justified by some reason. If one sais "Everyone who wears purple pants is a liberal", this must be justified. People can stay, or they can go, for any reason they like. And it would be a totally worthless and practically stupid statement that makes no difference. And frankly what you say is simply silly: As though one can just arbitrarily define what a liberal is, or isn't, without justifying this in a theoretical context that is accessible to all subjects (which all theoretical contexts are). Any rudimentary experience with how these things work, historically, tells us that ultimately common agreement between different agents must be had, as as precondition before any debate. The course of the group, will necessarily revolve around who can hold the most sway and who can, in the eyes of the participants, hold the most correct position. This does not mean that whatever the group does is correct - as experience shows us - it simply means that this is how it works. This is why I propose that connecting them online, so as to hold each group to the scrutiny of a common political culture, is necessary for them all.

To the fierce polemical debates between the first radical socialists, from Marx's time up to Lenin's, what a laughing stock our Left is today, how fucking PATHETIC it is. So juvenile are Leftists today that they see themselves above any common political standard, they see themselves immune to all possible debate. No one feels it necessary to dish out their differences. Why is this? Because most of their positions are simply uncritically assumed.

Did you even read my post? Or, were you confident to skim over it and jump to your petty knee jerk reactions? In our day, so deeply rooted is the pathological, romantic anti-Jacobinism among the Left, that making Olympic leaps towards "Well, we don't want to re-enact the Great purges! Look what happened during hte cultural revolution! Such impassioned engagement will be the return of the guillotine!" is almost their base spontaneous inclination.

This petty bourgeois, romantic view, which is completely reactionary, that forces inside of us that we cannot control, the 'irrational', will take hold - that Oh no, the Jacobin passion has gotten out of control? This is literally a disgusting ideological cliche that is worthy of popular media, such disgusting philistinism. How could these reservations go uncritically for a self-proclaimed Leftist? The fact of the matter is that there are no 'personal ambitions', every and all kinds of 'ambitions' exist within an ideological and POLITICAL context, even if they seem purely egoistic. Thus it is the responsibility for an organization to instill discipline and conformity towards the cause, not inhibit 'personal ambitions'. The point is that if your personal ambitions are not the full, total and unconditional dedication to Socialism, your personal ambitions are already political and taking a side. It's that simple. It is not through any external authority that one 'enforces' anything. Only bourgeois ideologues can think like this. What authority did Lenin have over others? He had the authority of his arguments, because he was a universal subject. The minute you ask the question: "Who are you to say what I should do?" you identify yourself as a petty bourgeois ideologue.

In our anti-democratic epoch, one has special powers, as an 'expert' or someone else, that gives them special access to the use of universal reason. You interpet my point that I claim such special access, yet I don't. Every single position I have on the matter is a position that can only be differentiated insofar as it is confronted by other possible ones. This standard of reason is irreducible to any individual interest 'under the radar'. The precondition that there are dedicated socialists who truly can have the faith and strength to shed their superstitions, is one that is necessary to be a socialist in the first place. I have this faith. I have faith that people exist who can muster the strength, and faith, to engage consciously in universal reason, without any excuses, pretensions to "Well, I just don't know, man". And then that those who have nothing to lose, the proletariat can have faith to act upon this.


I find it abhorrent that your idea of a debate in a socialist grouping is a flamewar - ironic, especially since you campaign against drama.

And yet again you fail to understand the point. The drama that is being 'campaigned' against is the drama within the context of ordinary individuals - consumerists, and egoist subjects. There is nothing wrong with 'drama' if one fully becomes a universal subject and dedicates every aching inch of themselves to their positions and ideas - of course there is nothing wrong with this 'drama'. That kind of drama doesn't exist in the 21st century among 'socialists'. Instead, drama exists at the level of asserting ones particular consumerist identity against others, or overall general personal pettiness, anxieties that someone is trying to dominate you, revoke you of your dignity, 'step over' you, and so on.

My modest proposal is simple: YOU are worthless, you don't matter, let yourself get your ass beat, and where you are justiifed let you be ruthless in beating the ass of others. Insofar as this exists in the context of the universality of socialism, this is what is necessary, against all fears that you will 'hurt' someones feelings. Be TOTALLY ruthless in your critique of others, this is what I am saying, DISREGARD UNDER THE SURFACE PETTINESS, for this reflects FAITHLESSNESS, philistine self-worship and petty bourgeois egoism. Most 'leftists' aren't prepared to do this, becasue they are cowards and they have one foot in their consumerist, 'normal' identity, the kind that allows them to sit back and say "heh, at the end of the day, this is all one big joke".


The problem is, it is actually good when a discussion is civilized and the participants spend their time attacking each other's arguments instead of each other.

Instead of each other. Each other. It is PRECISELY this "each other" which I am attacking in this post - your individaulity is fake, it is precisely THIS aspect of you which I claim is worthless, which must be disregarded as a precondition for any debate, because this 'you' IS YOUR identity as it pertains to your ideological immersion in the social totality. I am saying that this is not a given, and it must be questioned. This is the epitome of faithlessness and blind, uncritical dedication to false idols.

It is quite simple. The Jesuit thought the French revolution was a wider Satanic conspiracy. The Fascist thinks the October revolution was a Jewish plot. This is the falsity of cynicism, one pacifies the trauma of authentic revolutionary positions, by reducing them to their own standard of what makes people 'tick'. It is not different: And a lot of the STUPID fucking implicit notions people have, is that if one is arguing loudly, if one is attacking another person, get this - they are asserting in an evolutionary way themselves over you, trying to be "alpha" and so on. My point? My point is FUCK NO, THIS CYNICISM IS TOTALLY FUCKING FAKE, and it is WHOLLY ideological. If you can't get over this - if someone can't get over this - they are not a socialist in the first place. The anxiety that ultimately, ones beliefs are a guise for some deeper particular interest, reflects faithlessness that a person truly can fully dedicate themselves to a universality - consciously - at the expense of all stupid particular considerations. It is thus faithlessness in socialism itself, and uncritical, devotion to the presumption of capitalism's natural inevitability.

Marxists recognize conversely that all people regardless of whether they do this consciously relate to a universality. In our consumerist epoch, one relates to a universality already, under the guise of it being an inevitable, natural conclusion of their particularity as an individual, in the same way that before, capitalist society itself was the inevitable, natural conclusion of other external laws. The old superstition has become atomized at the level of the individual. Thus ones partisan, ideological positions, are articulated as inevitable conclusions of their physical difference, or difference in occupying a different space, with others.


nobody's mind will be changed if you

Okay, than that proves and demonstrates their philistinism, faithlessness and the fact that they are acolytes of the class enemy. Sorry, it sounds clownish, but it is true. If you are unwilling to at the expense of all particular pseudo-egoistic considerations, totally immerse yourself in the universality, totally engage this common space of reason, THAT IS ALREADY a political position!

Let me break it down for you quite simply: Let's say that had you not been personally hurt, you'd agree with someone's arguments, had your fake 'ego' not been offended. That you put your seemingly particular ego, over the universality of the position you would otherwise agree with, means you are demonstrating your faith towards the universality of bourgeois ideology over Socialism. Your ego is not your own. It is the particular expression of something greater than you - the historical and social totality you are immersed in.

My point is quite modest: It is not that you should sacrifice your particularity for the universality of socialism, but that what you articulate as your particularity, your 'individuality' ALREADY relates itself to a universality - but not consciously. To choose this, over your dedication, your practical and spiritual dedication, to the cause of Communism, is a PARTISAN position, one that must be exposed, attacked, and rooted out!


but that's how humans work.

This is specifically and explicitly targeting those among us who can confidently proclaim our non-humanity, then!

You see I contest that this is 'how humans work' and that in fact what makes them tick doesn't exist in an ideological, partisan context. I mean what a sick thing to say, really. "That's how humans work". Excuse me? It is inevitable that humans guise their true ideological beliefs (faith in their consumer identity, in capital, in their 'individuality' which is FAKE) with pretensions to radical ideas and socialism? This is inevitable? It is not, because their 'individuality' is not inevitable, but is in fact a controversy of the social. And you bet it is something that is politically, ideologically and theoretical accountable in socialist contexts, as it was for our predecessors.

Do you think that the old Socialists could have said "Well, that's my individual opinion" and whatever? Do you think that Lenin could excuse reigning hell theoretically, in his polemics, upon the enemies of revolutionary social democracy because they hurt his feelings? And do you think that they could forsake rebuking Lenin because of this? Or with regard to the intensive debates between socialist intellectuals, that would often times result in name calling, do you think this could result in giving up becasue ones feelings are hurt, and so on? No, AT THE EXPENSE of your STUPID fake feelings (ones you struggle against, against your ego), you fight mercilessly for the cause of Communism.

Only this, I argue, can create an environment of comradeship and the minimal GENUINE civility that is necessary for a discussion. Everything bellow this is walking-on-eggshells passive aggressiveness and weakness which impedes the strength of criticism, and impedes the common discipline and sophistication of all constituents out of this fake and false respect.

If the dichotomy for you is between passive aggressiveness, and overtly releasing your anger that your fragile petty bourgeois ego has been under assault, then this simply has nothing to do with you. We don't have anything to say to you, then.


Yes, I'm talking about your "debating" "style" here, Rafiq.

And it is so strange - the idea - the idea that I actually believe the shit I'm saying, completely, and that I genuinely attack others in EXACTLY the same way I genuinely attack those same very thoughts as they come from me. A crazy and inconceivable idea for anyone who has no faith in socialism, I know. Let's use an elementary example: "The Earth is flat". What if, in fact, I attack someone who sais the Earth is flat the same way I ATTACK MY OWN thoughts that would say "the Earth is flat" using a standard of reason which is not unique to me? Crazy, I know.

And most importantly, I love how this accentuates and riles up implicit fears of 'totalitarian' conformity, I love it. Pathological fantasies straight out of Anthem, it exposes so much about a 'socialist'. The fact is - Communism does create something that is akin to a 'universal mind', the bourgeois-individualist fears of total conformity, whole peoples whose eyes burn the same color, are not unfounded. The difference is that unlike the 'conformity' of the bourgeois order, which is enforced through false notions of uniqueness and deceit, our conformity is honest. And unlike the conformity of the pre-modern era, our conformity is not enforced by means of violent coercion but by the conformity of each particular individaul, actively relating to a universality, actively, by their own devices, expressing it. That is true democracy. Not this bullshit plurality.

It is one thing to FORCE another to 'be like Rafiq', it is another to confront them with the fact that their own justification for 'not being like Rafiq' is unjustified. Ruthless criticism knows no bounds, not even that sacred island of individuality we all take for granted.


There absolutely is something wrong with interrupting others during a meeting and with the majority of the rest of the toxic environment you are advocating for.

The "toxic environment" I am advocating for, against the nice, fragile environment of a culture of walking-on-eggshells, subtle pettiness and passive aggressiveness. Holy fuck, I've seen how that works, friend - and holy shit, it is enough to warrant total despair.

The 'safe' environment, where the meekness and lack of confidence, complacency and theoretical poverty of constituents is encouraged, where occasional outbursts - passive aggressive ones - of the worst kinds of reactionary racism, sexism, and so on, totally in proportion to attempts to 'regulate language' and so on (rather than the impulse to say certain words in the first place), no, this is EXACTLY what must be attacked. Do Leftists really think they are a formidable foe to the Fascists and the reaction, what will they do? This is a tough situation, and we all need tough skin. There is nothing inherently Fascist about encouraging spiritual strength and vitality. In fact once upon a time the opposite was true - the Fascists were the ones who were weak and the Communists had tough skin. We need people with fighting spirits, not 'reasoned', 'balanced minded' gentlemen whose feelings put them above angry and impassioned debates. And my point is not that the spiritually weak ought to be cast aside, but that ones weakness is not inevitable. One must condition themselves to be strong, have the confidence that they can do this. This cannot be done if meekness and so on is encouraged.

Again, this isn't a joke. I am warning you all - we are in deep shit right now, what we face is simply unprecedented. You will fight the reaction or you will submit to it. There's no third way.


it also disintegrates the discussion and is not at all conducive to a productive debating or learning environment.

If 'productive' means where everyone goes home, and feels good about themselves, sure, it's not. There is no reason Socialist should care about this, however, on the contrary, the point is to have the dignity of being able to defend your positions, and hold them to the ruthless scrutiny of others.


Interruptions drag organisational matters out and reduce the coherence and quality of peoples' contributions.

And in my experience, and the experience of others, people find it necessary to talk literally just to not feel worthless, rather than genuinely being attached and engaged in what they are saying. If you're genuinely engaged in what you're saying, you would be able to take criticism, because the reason why you hold on to the ideas that you do, follows a reason that is accessible to anyone else. People speak, and what they are 'contributing' is mostly totally fucking worthless. And yet they do it NOT out of a genuine inclination to share something, FOR THE SAKE of what it pertains to, being totally dedicated to it, but to 'having their turn' at speaking. It's so infuriating, it's simply intolerable. Why? Because the moment you criticize what they say, for example, you are now criticizing their identity and whatever, or literally their self worth. The point is that ones self worth must be constituted in a different way.

Likewise, if one genuinely interrupts another person, it is because they have a reason to. Just as a quick example, let's say someone sais "Communism works good on paper, but" and then you interrupt them. is there something wrong with this? No, there isn't, because you know what they are going to say. If they were going to say something else, then they can simply say "Well, actually what I was going to say was" and it would be their responsibility to do this, because were you going to say something different, that is quite an exceptional thing, one that people would probably - if they were inclined - would need and want to hear. It's not just about interrupting. It's about this obsession with such things. People interrupt others all the time, in a totally casual way, say, among friends. Do you think that when the Young Hegelians were meeting up in cafe's, or bars, do you think they wouldn't interrupt each other? No, they would, and there was nothing wrong with it. You can interrupt someone without some hidden game being played under the radar - you can do this, bless you. if yo can't do this, the problem isn't the interruption but the 'hidden' game your playing in the first place, which with or without interruptions is going to be there either way.

The reason one is tempted to think there is something wrong with yelling, and interrupting, and overall boisterous conduct, is because in our stupid consumerist epoch, people argue under the pre-text of asserting their identity over other people, as INDIVIDUALS. People try and shut others up, not because they actually genuinely are attached to the ideas and arguments they put forward, but because they don't want to be 'put down', they don't want to their petty ego, so fragile, to be insulted. Yet my point is simple: Ones ego IS political and ideological whether you know it or not, so if one truly does have a Communist ego, then they are fully engaged with their positions and ideas, as it relates to a universality, understanding that "So as I can think, so others can think too". This is what it means to be a universal subject.

So I propose quite simply: Before hand, a formal, common agreement of this, must be had. Even if people can't get it right away, the fact that it is a standard, something people are conscious of, alone would be an achievement.


A web forum is not a replica of a meeting of activists or socialists and in no way should it be emulated.

And I am asserting the exact opposite - the reason no other website rivals Revleft is because of the common standards that are enforced here. This environment is why people are here, whether they want to admit it or not - it provides them with the security here that formally everyone here has to be a radical Leftist, no matter how they interpret that, and if their interpretation is bellow other standards (i.e. regarding issues a la abortion, nationalism, etc.), they are booted out like the rest.


In fact, I'm immediately reminded of the tactics of the Stalinists in drowning out the debate and arguments of the Left Opposition.

I love this, so much. This is why we're in such a shit hole. Rafiq modestly proposes a code of conduct for radical groupings, which would at first consist of little more than debates, and discussions that are theoretical, philosophical, political, book readings, and so on - and now we have taken an Olympic leap to the Soviet Union during the 1920's. Has it ever occurred to you that we don't even have the fucking privilege to re-emulate this scenario?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry it took a bit for me to reply to the OP, and that the threat has moved on a bit. I had this sitting open on my computer half typed for some time.


Many of you are more experienced with this kind of thing. I therefore say that others are free to request this to be revised, added upon, and so on, based on their diverse experiences in just 'dealing' with people in a group.

What this is meant to be is a kind of code of conduct for socialists so inclined to meet each other in real life, to - drawing from my What Should I be Doing, form intellectual, political spaces where they can discuss, and debate things. I know I am getting quite ahead of myself - few people are paying attention to this blog as of this post. But I want this to change - we as Socialists right now should struggle to organize all of these different kinds of groupings.

I think part of the problem with this is that it seems to be oriented toward the worst type of group - the socialist talk-shop. An abstract code of conduct that doesn't orient itself toward accomplishing a particular task is worse than useless.
In some regards it also mirrors the worst parts of liberal identity politics, just turned on its head. The "universal subject" being no more universal than the "racialized subject" or "transgender subject" or any other generalization of the host of factors that constitute a particular subject(ivity).

Without being rooted in a particular situation, no "code of conduct" will grapple effectively with the real tensions that inform on-the-ground organizing.


First and foremost, drop your pettiness and juvenile egoism - you don't have to be friends with each other.

Down with Drama and Pettiness!

You are worthless. You don't matter as an individaul. Your individuality is fake. Before you can be a Socialist, you need to get over yourself and become a universal subject. What does that mean? It means your socialism doesn't come from any particular individual interest, but how you as a particular person express a universal tradition.

It's a shame that we live in a time - our filthy consumerist epoch - where this must be clarified. But socialism must be for you more than just an identify you tie with your sense of individual self worth as an individual consumer, bourgeois-egoist. That means, that if you agree to meet with others, you must drop all pretense to being immune to criticism, and take nothing 'personally', that is, don't play with these ideas as a smokescreen for your worthless, particular sense of individuality and your consumerist ego.

If people can form fight clubs and literally beat the shit out of each other without any drama, you can do the same thing in a socialist organization. The first prerequisite is that no one matters. Everyone is equally worthless and equally entitled to participating in a common space of reason. That means: Debates and arguments must go as far as they need to, must be endured, without there being any pettiness or drama, you must ruthlessly attack each other and expose the philistinism, etc. that is among you. This ruthlessness cannot be limited for the sake of polite conventions. You don't need to all be friends and hold hands.

And yet, there is a political dimension to being an arsehole.This is, again, the mirror image of the tendencies it ostensibly attacking. The desire to be ruthless - to place oneself "above" the pettiness of having any emotional intelligence whatsoever is the elevation of the liberal "rational individual" to its insufferable extreme. When the group of "ruthless" would-be "universal" individuals inevitably finds themselves grumpy and alone, it's foolish to point blame at "those petty individualists!". One needs to take a properly materialist approach - if the concrete situation one finds oneself in is "all alone, and generally regarded as an arsehole", this has real implications for organizing. Rather than pining after an idealist "room of people as emotionally numb as I am", one maybe needs to adjust one's attitude to concrete organizing.

Or one could just start a fight club where the only basis of unity is a desire to hit someone, anyone, for the sake of hitting them. Or one could go enroll in University and join a debate club. Or any other number of "no drama" groups that have "no drama" precisely to the degree that they have no political commitments.


You must be willing to take criticism, you must be willing to be broken by another persons argument without interpreting this as this person asserting their particular individuality over you.

Fair enough, though this phrasology still seems avoid putting any priority on "not being a fucking dick".


You must understand that these debates are with regard to a universal tradition, THIS tradition must be in common.

But what, precisely, is the "universal tradition" without its particular applications? Is communist theory simply a matter of who is able to hit closest to the mark of "The Marxist Truth"?


Speaking is not a sign of a persons particular power over others.

One thing which I am told is a particularly American problem is the propensity to interpret speaking alone as signifying some particular power. What a disgusting convention! What that means effectively is that regardless of what a person is saying, the act of them saying something alone is interpreted as that person asserting some particular interest over everyone else. Leave that shit behind.

If you have nothing to say, then you don't have to speak, it doesn't make you any more worthless than anyone else. A person who speaks longer, who has more to say, and has more to share, is doing so, so as to contribute to a common tradition we are attempting revive. Instead you should pay attention to what the person is saying, and recognize that what they are saying can be subject to the fullest degree of criticism you can muster. If you cannot muster this criticism, then you ought not to protest what another person is saying.

Group discussions therefore shouldn't be rationed along the lines of 'speaking turns' and other such fake, walking-on-eggshell conventions. There is nothing wrong with people loudly arguing with each other, impassionately, there is nothing wrong with interrupting others, with doing this to its fullest extent. If each according person can get over their juvenile egoistic, personal pettiness, then they must at the onset be prepared to debate and discuss how they relate to the universality of Socialism to others, which can be subject to ruthless criticism and can be contested.

Again, a "Code of Conduct" that is based on the right of people to be fucking terrible company is bound to be about as appealing as, well, an invitation to spend time in terrible company. Good luck maintaining an sort of regular attendance from any capable organizers on this basis.

Though I love the occasional smart heckle, speakers lists, prioritizing the voices of those who have spoken less, etc. are actually really useful for developing plans collectively. No one person, let alone the most vocal ("An empty barrel makes the most noise"), is likely to see every side of a given idea - intentionally creating space for people to speak is just good sense.


This is particularly a problem with regard to identity politics. That is to say, because a person belongs to a particular identity, what they say is elevated. Again, leave that shit as home. Socialists must be universal subjects - so your particular experiences as a 'non-white non-heterosexual non-male', must be translated into something with theoretical substance, something that can have a say in a collective space of reason. If it can't do this, then it means nothing to assert your identity. All pretensions to "As an X" must be dropped, unless they are within the context of theory - and not simply crass attempts to substitute one's relation to universal reason with a pretension to their identity.

And don't get me wrong - there are scum who can be obvious with their philistine sexism, racism, etc. that they aren't aware of out of ignorance in peritoneal to their personal experiences. But this must be a theoretical controversy, and their conduct will be reflected in their ideas. Those ideas must be attacked. Such outwardly behavior, doesn't come from not 'checking your privilege' but from a rottenness that is reflected at the level of their actual ideas. Locating this is the task, not petty, idealist, juvenile and actually fake rituals of 'checking your privilege' and whatever. Leave that shit behind.

The thing is, these things aren't just theoretical issues. Sure, the university leftist checking-privilege-as-public-display is obnoxious, and worse than useless (a bit of "sitting in the front pew" type nonsense) - but a real awareness of the limits of one's experiences is actually pretty important for developing theory, because conditions really are a determinant of consciousness. And reference to lived experience really can be useful - if you've ever been a worker engaging with university leftists you ought to know this to be true.


There is nothing wrong with political, ideological shaming.

A common problem we find with Leftists today is that they're simply too soft - they don't want to hurt each others' feelings. Your particular feelings... Are worthless. They are meaningless. You are either a partisan of the tradition of the Left or you are a philistine who identities with this tradition for some other particular reason.

Unfortunately, you are also either an effective communicator, or a self-righteous stuck-up prick. And if you dismiss others' feelings as worthless, well . . . you're bound to be a pretty shitty organizer.

I'm sure you could argue, "Well, people don't like me, but my theory is good!" The thing is, your theory is bad if it can't be meaningfully put into practice.


It is necessary to, as the Russian revolutionary social democrats used to say, regularly "bend the stick". There is nothing wrong with rigidity and conformity. This conformity and rigidity must be enforced not by blind obedience, but by actively understanding it through the medium of each particular individual, so that each particular individaul actively, by their own devices, conforms to common standards.

If that bothers you - the point must be that you must fuck off.

And, certainly, people will fuck off. Then you'll end up with your Sparty little cult. Real useful. Very revolutionary.


These standards must be definitive and set - perhaps agreed upon. Examples like:

No Fascists

No reactionaries of any kind (racists, anti-semites, etc.)

No preachers

No liberals

The common agreement that everyone is a socialist, a radical Leftist that is.

This is necessary because these common standards set the standard for debate. For example, if one is a sexist, you don't have to debate whether sexism is okay or not okay - they simply become bellow the standards of the group and must be excluded. A common agreement, one that must be universal across all cities even, must be made, about the political standards of the radical grouping. ONLY THEN can ruthless criticism of all kinds proceed, ONLY when it has been established that AT THE LEAST all are radical leftists who seek the supersession of capitalism, and so on. Without this precondition, the whole idea - for radical groupings, becomes worthless.

This is useful. Having a functional basis of political unity is a good thing. I don't really understand the bizarre things you've drawn from this.

. . . and I really can't keep going and bother replying to the rest of this, since it's for all intents and purposes a rewording of the above.

The point ought to be, with a strong basis of political unity, one ought to be able to have amicable discussion, to criticize without self-righteousness, to condemn ideas without resorting to calling names or behaving like a schoolyard bully, and so on. Group dynamics ought to aim to elevate all in the group to a high level of leadership ability, confidence, and understanding. This code of conduct, on the contrary, is a recipe for Gerry Healys - strongman pushy demagogues capable of exercising rhetorical force, threats, and belittling to maintain ideological and practical control of organizations.

Speaking from some significant time and effort spent in on-the-ground organizing, and having had to learn the necessary humility the hard way . . . take it from me, speaking as not-the-universal-subject, but a particular organizer with particular concrete experience - this is 100% the way to fail miserably as an organizer.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Binding codes of conduct are effectively the diktat of those who make them. If there are to be rules they should be customs and traditions that emerge out of experiences and practice, not something dreamed up in one person's mind. And, if you insist on creating these diktats from the centre then you will find, as most left organisations in the world today find, that people simply don't join your club and you end up screaming from the sidelines.

And if you believe the mantra that you are what you create, then basing your code of conduct on a 'fight club' that tells people they are worthless, is just pathetic, macho, posturing bullshit.

[Rafiq]

I think part of the problem with this is that it seems to be oriented toward the worst type of group - the socialist talk-shop. An abstract code of conduct that doesn't orient itself toward accomplishing a particular task is worse than useless.

The problem is that the basis for discussing what particular tasks ought to be done is itself something the Left hasn't gotten through. IT's not like people today know what to do. They don't, because they have no concrete understanding of our present predicament. What I propose is that they sort out the plethora of theoretical - even philosophical - issues that prevent them from being able to root out precisely those particular tasks which accentuate the class antagonism.


In some regards it also mirrors the worst parts of liberal identity politics, just turned on its head. The "universal subject" being no more universal than the "racialized subject" or "transgender subject" or any other generalization of the host of factors that constitute a particular subject(ivity).

This argument simply doesn't make any sense. A universal subject is expressed through particular persons, yet all this tells us is that individual human bodies - occupy different spaces and can be physically differentiated. As far as the sphere of consciousness goes this 'difference' si the only kind of difference that which any pretension to particularities can be made. Each individual constitutes themselves as individuals by expressing something beyond themselves. In fact this is the key problem with the left today - the inability to understand universality proper, and the insistence on reducing it to some kind of other particular interests. In other words, the cliche of today is that any pretense to universality is just the assertion of some kind of particular interest over others. I claim this is a superstition, which emanates deep ideological immersion in the conception of the 'particular' within the context of the present social order. The example I used, for example, was anti-semitism: Reducing Communism to the particular interests of Jews, a 'racial' group, only works when particular interest is conceived and differentiated along 'racial' lines. The problem is that this is already relating to the universality of the social order in an ideological way (i.e. racism). This is the point.

'Particular subjectivity', is not constituted by 'particular' factors, but by how the subject relates to the universality of the social relations they find themselves in. True to our tradition, we must recognize that this is a social controversy, that is to say, the way in which one does this is SOCIAL in a society with the social antagonism, it is where they stand in this social antagonism - this is what differentiates how they relate to the universality. Only through Communism, social consciousness, can one consciously express the universality of the proletarian class struggle. That's what is meant by a 'universal subjects': ALL subjects, constitute their subjectivity by relating to a universality, but a universal subject is conscious of the universality they express through their particular existence. This is the key point: A universal subject, which all the greatest revolutionaries in history were able to become, is one who recognizes the universality of their particular, individual identity, ego, and so on - how this relates itself to a universality. This is no more a particularity than is the 'particular' interests of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie - yes the proletariat is a particular class fighting another particular class, but this particular class is embodying the universality of the social relations that which proletarians find themselves in - and therefore the universality of human society.

Universality is not the sum-total of various particular existences, but particularities only relate themselves toward the universality that constitutes them in the first place. Every story we tell ourselves is told in the same language.


Without being rooted in a particular situation, no "code of conduct" will grapple effectively with the real tensions that inform on-the-ground organizing.

The point is simple: The tensions that exist in such groups result from various uncritically accepted ideological assumptions. Having a formal code of conduct is not going to magically do away with them, but it will create a standard that which ones insistence on this egoistic pettiness, will be a theoretical controversy. That is to say, that which is private is brought to light: There is no room, no excuses, no tacit under-the-radar accepted assumptoin about how everyone conducts themselves. Let me break it down more simply: If you're on the street, and you disrespect someone, even by accident, you relate to a big other and this is what starts a fight. Even if you don't mean any malice, the point is quite simple: You think in our head "Well, HE thinks I meant malice" - and likewise, even if a person would otherwise not be offended, they will think in their head "But THIS person WANTS me to be offended" and so on. This is what is called the big other. It's like this - even if a person wants to be an atheist, that won't do away with the anxiety that 'god himself may still be convinced of his own existence'.

So to bring this back to such internal tensions, they are uncritically assumed becasue they are ideological, they are partisan ideological positions that are removed from the sphere of criticism or even conscious articulation. Having a formal code of conduct brings this to the light of day - it makes it something controversial, not simply something one can get away with. Another example I love using is - take the behavior of a male chauvinist in the 1950's, whistling at women and so on. The reason anti-feminist reactionaries are so infuriated is because feminists ruin their otherwise implicitly assumed behaviors by making them politically controversial. In order for these behaviors to 'work', sexual harassment, and so on, they must be assumed to be natural, inevitable conclusions of being in proximity with an attractive women. But the minute this is turned into something that is controversial, the magic dies, it becomes ruined, and it leaves the male chauvinist totally humiliated for their crass stupidity in thinking their behavior is totally apolitical, non-partisan, and so on.

The same thing must be done for the egoistic pettiness that we all assume is inevitable of human existence. My point is that I insist socialists must be universal subjects, at the expense of all 'particular' interests, must constitute their ego consciously on universal lines, so that one understands their ego is not their own. You do this by establishing a framework wherein ruthless criticism is encouraged at the expense of all politeness and whatever. Our socialist forefathers didn't have to do this - it was a given for them. We have to 'artificially' create the conditions that which we can do this, becasue of how deeply entangled in ideology we are in today.


And yet, there is a political dimension to being an arsehole.This is, again, the mirror image of the tendencies it ostensibly attacking. The desire to be ruthless - to place oneself "above" the pettiness of having any emotional intelligence whatsoever is the elevation of the liberal "rational individual" to its insufferable extreme.

First, let me make something clear: My point is NOT that one should go out of their way to be an asshole or to be rude, or any such pettiness. My point is that one shouldn't falter on criticism, no matter how much passion and so on it is deserving, out of 'politeness' and that furthermore, the standards that which ones defends their positions and arguments, or attacks others, ought to be totally loose as that is concerned. As a precondition all must be engaged in their positions and in the common universality of socialism. Without this prerequisite, one is being an 'asshole' for reasons outside of their dedication to this. Lenin, for example, did not 'abuse' his opponents for the sake of it.

Yes, there is a political dimension to being an arsehole, and it relates to why one is being an arsehole. Abstracting the mere propensity to be one, to ruthlessly attack others, means in effect nothing - this a 'spectrum' one cannot avoid, without dishonestly repressing it (against what you would otherwise do). There is no such thing as a desire to be ruthless, by itself, this is a meaningless abstraction - the notion that one 'desires to be ruthless' or 'desire to be the alpha dog', desires to be 'above' people at the expense of the actual context of their ruthlessness, THIS IS EXACTLY what I am attacking as an ideological superstition, a righteous insistence on ruling ideology! If the only context that which one can imagine someone is ruthless, is within the context of some abstract 'ruthlessness' in a vacuum, that is testament not to your propensity to believe in abstractions, but to your utmost dedication to the bourgeois ideological subject as the inevitable spectrum that which humans can express their 'emotions' (an abstraction).

Speaking of which, we must now draw our attention to such notions of 'emotional intelligence'. Precisely this passive aggressiveness and this internal tension, is articulated as recognizing 'emotional intelligence'. But the rationality (or lack of a conscious use of) that underlies this so-called 'intelligence', IS NOT A GIVEN, IT IS IDEOLOGICAL. Ones EMOTIONS are IDEOLOGICAL, this is my point - you don't simply have emotions which express themselves at the expense of the context they are situated in, for what really is an 'emotion'? An emotion is simply a spectrum of the expression of ones behavior, how one qualifies a something. 'Sadness', 'anger', and so on, these mean nothing in a vacuum. A husband does not get angry at his wife for not cooking and cleaning because anger is taking a hold of him. He is getting angry about this because the context of his 'emotions' is ideological. So in effect it means nothing to make pretensions to 'emotional intelligence', because underlying the context of these emotions is an ideological network, one that is uncritically assumed as 'natural' and so on. This is the point of ruthless criticism - absolutely nothing is beyond criticism, nothing, nothing is insisted on being assumed uncritically - this is why Marx also tells us that his favorite phrase is 'question everything'.

Far from repressing ones 'emotions', the point is that one must be ideologically, theoretically and politically accountable for what elicits their emotions in the first place. This is not a given. If you get angry at the expense of caring about the purported controversy, because your fragile consumerist ego was offended, this reflects your rabid, uncritical faith in the existing order and nothing more. Ideology doesn't work in terms of conscious belief - you don't say "Well I believe that my consumerist ego is justifiable". No, the point is you say "Even if I didn't care about it, HE STILL thinks he's stepping over me, asserting his consumerist identity over mine!" - that's how ideology works. What is an anti-Semite without the 'eternal Jew'? Without the Jew who, regardless of the anti-Semites purported beliefs, is still conspiring against him, is still defending his own particular 'racial' interests, is still ruthlessly struggling for world domination, and so on? ONLY THIS is something that can justify the racism of the Fascist, his purported aspirations for subjugating 'lesser races' and so on.

So the way in which one exposes this, and brings it to the light of day, is by making it something controversial, something that cannot be uncritically assumed. Insisting on assuming it is an insistence on ones dedication to the existing order. Each particular dichotomy ultimately relates itself to the universality of the world capitalist totality. So to be a universal subject is to cast aside these 'particular' considerations in favor of directly striking what they owe themselves to. This is why people engaged in identity politics fall on their feet the minute you ask them what the origin of racism, sexism, and so on is. They'll tell you complete and utter bullshit, juvenile bullshit, and this exposes them and the fakeness of their self-righteousness. That isn't to say feminism, and even black power for example is this. The black panthers WERE (their leaders at least) universal subjects. They accurately recognized the distinct social nature of the black person, which is why they were unapologetic about where they were aligned with regard to the global struggle. Clad in leather, the true horror for the bourgeois ideologue is that these were bodies ultimately possessed by the vengeful spirits of Communism, who happened to posses bodies of people with black skin. Angela Davis, for example, was a student of Marcuse!

The point is not to ignore the existence of particularities in capitalism, but to express these particularities as representing something universal. White people have the privilege of simply stepping into universality, but for non-whites - for example - they must express the same universality through their particular identity, because even if they can 'get over it', ultimately, it does mean something to be black in our society, that relates to the web of social relations, and so on. That is because particular non-white identities, are constituted by their national oppression, racism. So when the black panthers speak of black power, they aren't asserting some particular black interests. What they are doing is confronting our society, relating to the universality of this (ultimately class) oppression, as subjects who have conquered their 'blackness' by weaponizing it. When the panthers spoke of black power, they were speaking to the universality of our social relations which entail the national oppression of blacks, and thus when speaking for it they became a voice for the whole proletariat.


When the group of "ruthless" would-be "universal" individuals inevitably finds themselves grumpy and alone, it's foolish to point blame at "those petty individualists!".

It is not foolish, in fact, because there is a difference between how one approaches the masses at large, and how one constitutes the necessary basis for approaching them - among socialist intellectuals. It is possible that one socialist is correct and all the others are not, it's totally possible, that all socialists are wrong in their approach. Nowhere is it written that a small group of universal subjects, by merit of supposedly being 'alone' (in the 'left' scene, that is) are foolish for recognizing why they are different from the others. That is because this is a matter of strength and will, it is matter of having faith. This is no easy task. The only thing that separates whether one has this strength, is how much they truly have to lose, to hold on to as subjects, how deep their immersion and dedication to the ruling order goes ideologically.

But I digress - because my point on the contrary is that I am making the following assumption:

The hysterical 'Left', good only for protest, does not know what it is doing. Furthermore, there exist Leftists who recognize the abysmal state we are in, but are not prepared to give up all hope in Socialism. The hysterical pseudo-Left is not something that is difficult to challenge, furthermore, as though there is a mainstream Left hat is a formidable enemy. There is rubble and there are ashes, among whom there are dignified intellectuals who insist upon the general philistinism of the Left. These will not be difficult to confront, because these 'radicals' cannot even consistently answer for themselves. That is my point. If people see that there are individuals, no matter how few, out there committed to a fresh start, this will attract them. It rests upon the bare bones impulse - do I risk everything and give it a shot, or do I resign myself to despair. That is the choice I insist on confronting Leftists with.

My goal is to in collaboration with a few others, set up a kind of basis where Leftists can identify their proximate location with each other and from there decide to meet up, for a totally fresh start, and furthermore that this radical grouping will also be based online so that the groups can be accountable to a common political culture, much like Revleft. I would actually prefer all of this to be on Revleft to begin with, to be honest, but I haven't done anything because more needs to be sorted out.

This is my goal. This is what I commit myself towards: building a network, consisting of people no matter how few, that can through trial and error sort out what ought to be done, what works, what is successful, and so on, and furthermore, immerse itself in political controversy. This 'code of conduct' is made, simply to provide the minimal that which underlies whatever diversity of pre-conceived theoretical positions Leftists have - the insistence that they have the inclination to traverse our concrete circumstances as they are (i.e. as put in What Should I be Doing?) and that they are willing to put this inclination above all other 'particular' considerations (as elaborated in this code of conduct). The purpose of this text was not to tell Leftists that they ought to abuse each other just for the sake of it, but that they ought not to shirk on viciously tearing each other's positions apart, all the while - while being committed to this common inclination. This is why - as Juan pointed out - after all the abuse, and tiring, exhausting debates, Lenin, his friends and their adversaries would at the end of it all apologize and make sure there's no hard feelings. This must come secondary to the task of defending ones positions, ruthlessly criticizing those of others, in relation to this universality. You do not attack another position for the sake of it - you do it with the presumption that your position is better for the common prerogatives of our tradition and ultimately for the revolution.


One needs to take a properly materialist approach - if the concrete situation one finds oneself in is "all alone, and generally regarded as an arsehole", this has real implications for organizing.

It is not a 'properly materialist approach' to assume that one is inevitably 'all alone' in their positions, and that furthermore this is the result of something specifically particular to them. That one is all alone does not mean that this is because it is inevitable. My point anyway is not that I think the existing Left needs to be convinced, but that with or without the existing Left 'scene', something new must be built. Of course we welcome their resources. But the goal is to revive the Left, to build a new political discourse. With or without those who presently call themselves Leftists. Case in point, Marx and Engels WERE all alone at the very beginning, they practically WERE alone and 'generally regarded as arseholes' - the abuse they leveled against their associates was simply ruthless. And yet the world doesn't remember the Stirner's, the Hess's, Feuerbachs, Bauer's.

To add, the Young Hegelians were pretty much totally isolated themselves in their contexts, they WERE all alone - nobody cared about them! THEY WERE if anything a group of 'crazy people' all alone who were completely irrelevant. And look at the mark their offspring left upon the world.

There is nothing wrong with being all alone. Nothing. The point is to never, never resign from confronting why you are alone, why others do not share your positions, challenging those reasons TO them, in front of everyone, and so on.


Or one could just start a fight club where the only basis of unity is a desire to hit someone, anyone, for the sake of hitting them. Or one could go enroll in University and join a debate club. Or any other number of "no drama" groups that have "no drama" precisely to the degree that they have no political commitments.

I think this is a misunderstanding, one that I clarified before (which I don't blame you for not seeing - it wasn't in the initial post):

And yet again you fail to understand the point. The drama that is being 'campaigned' against is the drama within the context of ordinary individuals - consumerists, and egoist subjects. There is nothing wrong with 'drama' if one fully becomes a universal subject and dedicates every aching inch of themselves to their positions and ideas - of course there is nothing wrong with this 'drama'. That kind of drama doesn't exist in the 21st century among 'socialists'. Instead, drama exists at the level of asserting ones particular consumerist identity against others, or overall general personal pettiness, anxieties that someone is trying to dominate you, revoke you of your dignity, 'step over' you, and so on.

My modest proposal is simple: YOU are worthless, you don't matter, let yourself get your ass beat, and where you are justiifed let you be ruthless in beating the ass of others. Insofar as this exists in the context of the universality of socialism, this is what is necessary, against all fears that you will 'hurt' someones feelings. Be TOTALLY ruthless in your critique of others, this is what I am saying, DISREGARD UNDER THE SURFACE PETTINESS, for this reflects FAITHLESSNESS, philistine self-worship and petty bourgeois egoism. Most 'leftists' aren't prepared to do this, becasue they are cowards and they have one foot in their consumerist, 'normal' identity, the kind that allows them to sit back and say "heh, at the end of the day, this is all one big joke".

But for the record, there is no such thing as desiring to hit someone, for the sake of it. Even when you say "I just want the pain", this pain exists in a real context. Why does one want pain, for example? Even if this is ideological, there is no such thing as a spontaneous desire to do this or that for no reason. Case in point, Rafiq actually gets headaches from Revleft and from attacking others. It strains his eyes too. He does it, not for the sake of it, but because there is no 'smokescreen' if Rafiq attacks someone for thinking the Earth is flat, it truly is because he is dedicated to making sure it is understood that the Earth is not flat (by either the person in question, or others, and or even to affirm it to himself).

This is the key point which differentiates whether one truly does have faith in Communism, or whether Communism ultimately will be subject to some 'particular' aspect of capitalism, i.e. for some postmodernists, it is merely the expression of 'white domination', for Fascists, the Jews, masons, whatever you want. Communism is when you step into universality and disregard particularities as existing in-themselves, but as relating themselves to a universality. We oppose the bourgeoisie not because if we kill them all we will get Communism, but because their particular interests relate themselves to a universality that which we are all subject to insofar as we are immersed ideologically in the ruling order. it isn't simply that the proletariat follows the class interests of others. It's that this 'class' has no particular class interest itself, outside the abolition of classes.


Fair enough, though this phrasology still seems avoid putting any priority on "not being a fucking dick".

The reason is becasue the true way in which one truly becomes a dick is through passive aggressiveness and repressing ones propensity to ruthlessly criticize others for fear of being one. THIS inevitably opens up the space for truly being a grade-A piece of shit. What does it mean to "be a fucking dick"? For example, to loudly criticize others, bluntly and without apologizing for it, is this being a "dick"? Perhaps by most standards, but this is what is necessary. One needs to put aside their consumerist ego, at the very least, if they have not already totally replaced it with an ego that is the expression of their dedication to the cause.


But what, precisely, is the "universal tradition" without its particular applications? Is communist theory simply a matter of who is able to hit closest to the mark of "The Marxist Truth"?

Basically yes. Absolutely! Absolutely! The point is that there are no particular truths accessible only to particular persons. So as I can think, so others can think too. Why they do not is because of a relation to a universality, not because of something inside of them. To say otherwise is racist and reactionary essentialism. Truths are practical. This practicality relates itself to a universality. This truth is a practical one. It is all encompassing, and it is universal. Do you not see the point of communism as understood by Marx? So long as capitalism exists, there are 'particular applications', but this particularity is the expression of a universality. This is class struggle: The proletariat is not simply the class fighting for its class interests, it is the class of no classes, it is the class that stands for a society without class, it is the particular expression of the prerogative to do away with all particular, private class interests. The point is that all particularities relate to a universality: this universality, true, only finds it its medium through particular persons, but how those particular persons themselves relate to it has nothing to do with their particularity.


Again, a "Code of Conduct" that is based on the right of people to be fucking terrible company is bound to be about as appealing as, well, an invitation to spend time in terrible company. Good luck maintaining an sort of regular attendance from any capable organizers on this basis.

You can play this game all you want. For many, it is terrible company to be in the presence of those who want to abolish the family and religion, and private property. Socialist intellectuals have NEVER been forced to appease to the philistinism of other intellectuals. As intellectuals they used to simply have a common agreement of where they stood. They used to have to DEFEND THEMSELVES and their positions to this cause. And frankly your argument is just pathetic. Fred hampton commanded the discipline of lumpenized elements who would walk miles in the snow, in Chicago, to attend meetings, he would command of them discipline, and so on. In appeasing to the philistinism of 'socialist' intellectuals, you make the contours of what appeases them and why uncritically assumed. This is degenerate - exponentially degenerate - for eventually what's next, you appease Fascists? If everyone is a Fascist and there are only five socialists, what do you say? These five socialists, I say, are precious even if there are only five.

And I am being more modest! Am I saying YOU HAVE TO JOIN OR ELSE? Am I saying that? No, I'm saying that only if you are able to agree with my by an active means of articulating the reason put forward, should you be interested. If you don't agree, that is something that must be theoretically justified, or else we have nothing to say to you. Six people like the post. Did I force them to like it? Did I put a gun at their head? Did I pressure them to like it even indirectly? No, they actively, by their own intellectual means, were able to approximate certain aspects that attracted them to it. The only evidence I need, or any socialist needs, that their socialism can appeal to others, IS THEIR OWN EXISTENCE. Rafiq has his positions for reasons. These reasons aren't unique to Rafiq alone, they can be reasons others have too. That is the only faith one needs that there are others who will be interested in this.

Now, Leftists sit back with their arms crossed, "Hmph, convince me! Compel me! Make me WANT to join your group!" - this is a betrayal of ones dedication to Socialism, if they appease themselves to the philistinism and ignorance of Leftists. no, THEY have to prove themselves, THEY have to dedicate themselves to the cause. And you know what? I am quite confident this will work. I am, truly. Because what you fail to understand is that IT DOES mean something to these socialist intellectuals, in their ethical exsitence, to feel like they have a duty. It does. It's not like people are passive fucking animals who simply must be accommodated for. No. You call someone out, and they DO feel like they have to defend themselves, their stupidity, and their philistinism! They do!

If they don't, they are bourgeois ideologues who we have nothing to say to in the first place- who have one foot squarely in the calm, comfortable life in capitalism. Hence why university students are so insufferable to work with. Of course Bolsheviks, revolutionary social democrats (i.e. Luxemburg), early socialists, even anarchists, and countless others could have lived the good life. Could have pursued normal careers. Could have lived comfortably. Instead they risked imprisonment, exile, death, torture, and worse. Shame on the Left today, who will not even risk sparing a few hours a week becasue their 'feelings' will get hurt. Holy shit. Socialists used to be willing to die for the cause. Now they will not even sacrifice critically assessing their oh-so fragile ego. Shame. Shame!

If Leftists are so content and comfortable that we have to get on our knees and kiss their damn asses, appease them, bake them cookies and make them feel good about themselves inevitably, if no socialists exist who truly are at the edge, ready to dedicate themselves, then you should give up on socialism entirely and become some kind of third worldist. One should then give up on the prospect of socialism all together. But in fact, I contest this violently, for simple reasons: One, there are readily engaged intellectuals who come from black backgrounds who are fierce and impassionately committed, who have enough to lose to sacrifice all such pettiness. I have personally experienced this, how different they are from petty bourgeois white kids. But if not for that, the middle class is in the process of dying - people are less and less having the privilege of being able to shirk upon this ocean of normality, and when Bernie is defeated this will only greatly intensify. it is inevitable that a plethora of willing intellectuals (and I am being modest - the 'groups' I am proposing I envision for now to be composed of little more than FIVE PEOPLE, and that is in the context of big cities! You are telling me I can't get groups of around five people to organize?) exist. I don't even need to have this discussion honestly - it's so painfully ridiculous because the only evidence we need is the fact that you see this in the political controversies as they expressed on, for example, the internet! With such intensity people are entangled in these kinds of debates and discussions, people are not simply passive 'by nature' of our conditions, the social antagonism as it exists theoretically has never been this intense - never in the history of capitalism even.

Leftists who are brave enough, strong enough to do this, perhaps they are few. That doesn't matter. You resign from the struggle or you keep fighting. Perhaps many people who now call themselves 'Leftists' will get behind. We are already seeing this in some respects, with the rise of popularity of intellectuals like Zizek among people who weren't previously, otherwise, that 'radical', for example.


Though I love the occasional smart heckle, speakers lists, prioritizing the voices of those who have spoken less, etc. are actually really useful for developing plans collectively. No one person, let alone the most vocal ("An empty barrel makes the most noise"), is likely to see every side of a given idea - intentionally creating space for people to speak is just good sense.

Frankly I find it disappointing that you even make this argument. Like what? I explicitly stated that IF YOU AREN'T SPEAKING FOR GENUINE REASONS, YOU SHOULD NOT SPEAK AT ALL. Did I say that the most vocal person alone should dictate everything? No, I simply stated that it must be understood, THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO SPEAK just for the SAKE of it, but that WHAT YOU ARE SAYING is what is important.

How can you misinterpret my point this badly? "Intentionally creating space for people to speak" - sorry no, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, then you can fucking say it, if you don't, then you don't. No one should have to hold your damned hand, and if someone is running their mouth too long, just interrupt them! If what they are saying is too important not to, then don't! This generation of socially handicapped, awkward people, it's so frustrating that basic conventions must be explained - I shouldn't even have to elaborate upon this.

If you're too "shy" to say what's on your mind, or if you fear being judged, then sorry, clearly you prioritize your stupid and worthless feelings over what you want to say in relation to the practical point of saying it - in other words, if you're too shy, and therefore won't speak, then you are prioritizing this trivial thing you should already be struggling to overcome (rather than assume "well it's my personality") over your desire to meaningfully contribute to the group. This can result in only one person speaking, or it can result in everyone speaking. That's not what is important. What is important is why people are speaking in the first place. You know, what they are actually trying to say! There are no special privileges that can be granted, where if one thing comes out of the mouth of someone, that's somehow more important than if it was to come out of the mouth of another. Sorry, that is a disgusting, reactionary and ant-democratic notion.

My experience is that Leftists are like children - they take turns to 'share', wait for it, 'their' opinion. In other words they take turns, to have power regardless of what they are actually saying. "It's my turn to force my opinion upon yall! We all have to take turns, otherwise only ONE person is 'forcing their opinion'! Sorry no. The point is questioning the very notion of 'forcing ones opinion' on others, a stupid idea. The point is that: That your argument comes from 'you' IS NOT THE POINT, the point is WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS, AS it is. The substance is WHAT YOU SAY, not YOU as such. What you say is IRREDUCIBLE to anything particular to 'you'. I refuse to believe I and I alone am sick of this disgusting culture. In fact I know I am not alone. I have literally spoken to others about it, in person, who fully agree!


but a real awareness of the limits of one's experiences is actually pretty important for developing theory, because conditions really are a determinant of consciousness. And reference to lived experience really can be useful - if you've ever been a worker engaging with university leftists you ought to know this to be true.

Awareness of ones limits of experience IS JUST A THEORETICAL controversy, otherwise how do you compel others to be 'aware' of this? How does one magically be 'aware' of a purported limitation in their experience outside of theoretical contexts? This must be translated theoretically or it is WORTHLESS. Sorry, it means nothing that I'm an Arab. And yeah, sometimes that did make a difference - people have treated me different because of my name, kids were shitty to me when I as a little kid, made me feel left out culturally because of it, to say nothing of airports. Does that give me the right to tell people "YOU KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ARAB", does that give me the right to say that the fact that I am an Arab alone gives me special access to the use of reason? No, it means that if they are ignorant by merit of not having the experience of being an Arab, this is something that can be theoretically translated, to the point where I don't even have to relegate upon my direct experiences - I can justify why any person who was in my shoes would have the same experiences by merit of their Arab-ness.

The 'limit' of ones experiences alone as an individual, that's not controversial. You are not saying anything controversial by saying that white people don't know what it's like to be black, or to be women. But what you fail to understand is that THEY CAN know. They can. They don't have to have black skin either to know. It must be theoretically translated. What happened to heroes like Franz Fanon, who wrote great books like Black Skin, White Masks, which sought out to do this, informed by the HIGHEST theoretical knowledge the world had to offer (i.e. Hegel, psychoanalysis, etc.?)? And I'm not saying this is an easy thing to do. I'm saying, the inclination to do it must be there. NO pretension to ones identity is appropriate, unless it is within theoretical contexts. There's nothing wrong with saying "As a women" as long as it is understood that you are attempting to illustrate a point with theoretical meaning. To say otherwise is implicit sexism, and racism, because it is a pretension to essentialism, that there is something inside of you which cannot be translated to universal reason. A pathologically anti-democratic notion, no wonder this is such an American problem, the same place, along with the UK, that is hosting the revived interest in eugenics.

I am not saying experience does not matter, but that it's theoretically relevant or it is not relevant at all. There are reasons university leftists simply can't talk to workers. Ones they themselves can come to understand and eventually, have the ability to talk to workers. History shows as much and even then it's not like the likes of Bebel were more 'socialist' than Lenin because the former came from a worker background. Everything theoretically relevant was articulated by both, no matter that Bebel's particular experiences made it easier for him to understand or whatever.


Unfortunately, you are also either an effective communicator, or a self-righteous stuck-up prick. And if you dismiss others' feelings as worthless, well . . . you're bound to be a pretty shitty organizer.

Not only do I dismiss them as worthless, insofar as I am referring to these kinds of feelings, I am referring to them as those of petty bourgeois ideologues, directly the 'feelings' of the mouthpieces of the ruling order. And I can justify it. I don't really mind being called self-righteous or stuck up, because I am only one person. Again, this all goes back to "Who are you to say such things!" - and I am nothing. That's why i can say such things. I don't need any extra-special privileges or powers, any special access to universal reason to say what I say. I implore others to be nothing too.

Frankly what you ignore is how this relates to Rafiq himself. What if Rafiq had worthless feelings himself before, and overcame these, fought against them directly? Who was the 'stuck up prick', who was destroying his own self? I recognized my 'feelings' to be ideological, at the onset. Because I recognized this, I no longer have such 'feelings' anymore. Were my 'feelings' now, as a particular person, within me all along (superstition! Pure superstition!), or were they wrought from something else? Was the inclination to recognize their ideological nature, or context, something only Rafiq can do? If so why?


I'm sure you could argue, "Well, people don't like me, but my theory is good!" The thing is, your theory is bad if it can't be meaningfully put into practice.

To add its not even like I say I'm some great organizer. What I'm trying to organize, with others, is infinitely more modest, I am trying to help organize a meaningful basis for 'organizing' in the first place.


And, certainly, people will fuck off. Then you'll end up with your Sparty little cult. Real useful. Very revolutionary

The difference is actually quite simple. The Sparts are content in not directly confronting why they are alone, against others - they don't find it necessary to keep themselves up to date and engage in ruthless criticism against those Leftists who do manage to pull support.

Conversely, my point is simple - where it is exposed that all that separates your willingness to 'conformity' are petty bourgeois sentiments, an unjustified unwillingness, and so on, these people can fuck off, because the weight of their commitment to the existing order is too great for socialists. The point isn't that this doesn't need to be done or justified - but that you can't force others to be socialists. We are much more modest: We are not trying to compel you to join us, intellectuals, but we welcome your presence. That does not mean we need or owe you anything. 'You' properly must be justified, your positions, justified, using a collective reason we all have equal access to. If you insist on not doing this, we simply have nothing to say to you.

What makes the Sparts a cult is not simply that they are small. What makes them a cult is the fact that they do not feel the need to justify themselves in front of universal reason, in front of the concrete circumstances of our present order as they exist. In other words, they can create a 'world of their own', that which the world must conform to to justify their willingness to engage it. This is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the same way that if you don't do away with racist, sexist ideas, etc. we want nothing to do with you, if you aren't willing to abdicate upon internal superstitions we want nothing to do with you. Socialists don't owe intellectuals anything by merit of 'needing numbers'. IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST, YOU have a duty, no one owes you ANYTHING. This much must be made clear, and if 'socialists' are repulsed by it without being able to justify why, consciously, then we are doomed anyway. Thankfully that is untrue.


The point ought to be, with a strong basis of political unity, one ought to be able to have amicable discussion, to criticize without self-righteousness, to condemn ideas without resorting to calling names or behaving like a schoolyard bully, and so on.

Self-righteousness? Which means what exactly? What self is righteous is important, not the propensity for people to be impassioned and fully dedicated. That doesn't emanate from some internal desire to assert your 'self' over others. What you fail to understand is that the 'self' here is incidental - it is only incidental that a single person can be correct and assert this correctness in an impassioned and ruthless way, it doesn't come from some mysterious desire to think that you have special privileges others don't in your 'self', that your particular 'self' is, by merit of it being YOUR SELF, more 'righteous'. No, the point is - I am more 'righteous' (whatever that means) for reasons that anyone else can be. It is only incidental that - only Rafiq, hypothetically, is correct.

Where does this game end? What if I called YOU self-righteous for being committed to opposing self-righteousness as an individual? The logical conclusion, with our predominant western Buddhism, is to passively shut ones mouth and keep their chin down, not have any worldly attachments, and so on. Convenient for the bloodsuckers. But not going to work.

Name calling is probably inevitable and there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's properly contextual. If it isn't. THAT IS A BIGGER problem about the people in question. If you call someone a name, i.e. a philistine, for reasons that solely relate to what they are saying, who cares? Keep in mind I don't even imagine this, 'name-calling', my point is that the ultra-sensitive attitude needs to be left behind. Fuck, people start hissing at you if you literally are just challenging their ideas in a totally polite manner, and so on, SOLELY BECAUSE of their stupid and worthless ego!

As if (this is not a direct quote - but this is the atttidue) "Shut up, stop trying to get attention! You're not important, stop trying to assert yourself over everyone else!". You don't need name-calling to foster this reaction. As though just by speaking alone you're playing some kind of different, hidden game than trying to express the ideas you're conveying.

Personally I remember I was pretty adamant in criticizing the ideas of others in one group I was engaging. Only I was literally so polite it was a joke. I would literally clarify that "While I see where you're coming from", and so on, I was very, very polite and civil. I went out of my way to be. And you know what? The passive aggressiveness ON THEIR PART ensued anyway, dirty looks, rolling eyes, until they would explode - simply because I was too willing to open my mouth, for TOTALLY genuine reasons. It's like walking on eggshells - and its not just me who experiences this problem. There is nothing wrong with demanding an environment wherein you can engage in ruthless criticism without this kind of pettiness. Zizek is totally right here - this kind of political correctness only represses resentments, solidifies them. Like there was a fucking layer I had to get passed even before I could simply insist on the conscious use of reason.


Group dynamics ought to aim to elevate all in the group to a high level of leadership ability, confidence, and understanding. This code of conduct, on the contrary, is a recipe for Gerry Healys - strongman pushy demagogues capable of exercising rhetorical force, threats, and belittling to maintain ideological and practical control of organizations.

And as I've said before - it is the responsibility of each person to muster up the courage to challenge such 'strong men', and if they don't have this courage, what does that say about their priorities with regard to CARING in the first place? I'm not saying you shouldn't encourage this kind of confidence, you should. But you don't do this by encouraging people's shyness, timidness, and fear of being judged, and whatever. You do it by not hissing at them the minute they actually do have something meaningful to say, because it's "not their turn" and so on. You honestly must know - from your own experiences - the most anarchist group always has this secret kind of master, who everyone acknowledges to be THE leader, before all petty rituals of giving people turns.

It is more democratic that each person assumes the responsibility of saying what they believe must be said, regardless of rationing or paying particular attention to who is speaking more and who isn't. If you aren't speaking, you shouldn't be repressing anything you would otherwise say. If you're speaking, you shouldn't be speaking where you would otherwise have nothing to say. Of course this should be encouraged. If it's abundantly clear that someone is suppressing their own speech, there's nothing wrong with saying "What's on your mind?" and whatever. That's just common sense. You don't need any formal rules to enforce that, it's literally just a common sense convention that was never a problem for our socialist forefathers. Only today where we are knee deep in consumerist filth is this a problem.

No internal mechanisms of holding others hands, will ever be genuine, because ultimately there will always be a master who gauruntees that this ritual goes smoothly. What therefore must be necessary is the DOING AWAY WITH ALL OF THESE PETTY GAMES and prioritizing an environment of ruthless criticism where everyone is equally worthless and where there is no dissonance between what they are saying, and who is saying it. A socialist must be accountable for himself as a socialist, responsible for his ethical duty as an individual. Discipline, uniformity, rigidity, that is what we ultimately aim at. Like I said - this is not are turn to the old traditional master that ruled by obedience, but by each person becoming a self-sufficient vehicle for Socialism.

[Rafiq]

Binding codes of conduct are effectively the diktat of those who make them. If there are to be rules they should be customs and traditions that emerge out of experiences and practice, not something dreamed up in one person's mind.

Luckily for Vladimir he isn't being forced at gunpoint to accept such 'rules'. No one is. As I stated before, drop this bullshit, please:

You see this is how our individualists think, everyone. What you are arguing reflects fundamentally your own weakness, that is, you are being confronted to own up to your responsibility and duty as a socialist, and you can only interpret this as an expression of the old, pre-counterculture authoritarian master, who commands blind dedication and obedience from others through means of coercion, and the exerting of a pressure that is not actively articulated by the others themselves. What you fail to understand is that I am being far more intrusive and unrespescting of your private space than that. Not only am I telling you that as a socialist you have a duty, and one that - if you do not act upon - you disgrace, I am saying this specifically as it relates to how YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, tell YOURSELF and JUSTIFY to YOURSELF your pettiness, petty bourgeois predispositiosn, and so on. I am not simply saying "Do this, be like Rafiq". I am challenging your own individuality, your own ideological presumpstions AS THEY RELATE TO YOU as an active, individaul subject.

It is only incidental that Rafiq is 'dictating' this. That is irrealivent and fucking meaningless to point out. What is important it s: Why is the product of Rafiq's 'dictations' different than mine, or someone else? This is where theoretical debate begins, and such juvenile, over-exhausted 68' pettiness ends.

If this is about Rafiq's dictations, that means Rafiq somehow made this "Code of Conduct" with he pretension that he can 'enforce' it without others, by their own active use of reason, agreeing with it. I made this so as to make an impression on others, who may find it convincing. If I was simply able to force people to do my bidding, if I saw everyone as thralls to be manipulated by me, why would I bother trying to justify my 'code of conduct'?

Holy shit. Again people are literally so willing to make these Olympic leaps so as to live out their petty bourgeois fantasies about "Huh, fuck U bro, what right do U have to tell ME what to do", re-enacting the spirit of may 68'. This is the easy position. It's easy, becasue this is the kind of cliche you see on TV or a movie. It's conventional, philistine logic to think this way. That's because 68' has been co-opted and most socialists understood that long ago. So if you think this is a subversive, rebellious, or even controversial position, it's not - it is a cliche properly.


And, if you insist on creating these diktats from the centre then you will find, as most left organisations in the world today find, that people simply don't join your club and you end up screaming from the sidelines.

I'm not here to appease to people, first, I'm here to challenge them and what makes them people in the first place, insfoar as they choose to call themselves socialists. It's like how Lacan simply pointed out to the radical students - he didn't "force" anything upon them, he simply explained to them that even by their own logic they are wrong, they are simply seeking a new master, etc. So I am telling you, if you call yourself a socialist, even by your own logic, etc. you cannot consistently do this if X and so on.

There will always be willing partisans of Socialism, who are intellectuals. No matter how few, they can always exist. And the Left is dead as we speak - FOR A REASON. I claim that I know why it is dead. I am confident enough that this could work. If I fail, I'll get up and keep trying. If you don't want to try, I don't really have anything to say to you. is that so hard to understand?

The way in which this is done is pretty arbitrary too. Friends convert friends. And so on. We have a whole Bernie Sanders momentum right in front of us, with countless Bernie activists volunteering, and whatever. Again I don't even have to have this conversation. It's a given for anyone who just... Actually thinks.


And if you believe the mantra that you are what you create, then basing your code of conduct on a 'fight club' that tells people they are worthless, is just pathetic, macho, posturing bullshit.

It never ceases to amaze me how right Zizek was - Zizek said that among his friends, he can differentiate a liberal from a radical based on how they interpret this movie. That's why I used it as an example in the first place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I mean, all I got from that essay Rafiq is that you are still calling me worthless and you have a very high opinion of your own self-importance. I suggest this is a by-product of being able to write such rants on the internet, because if you talked at me like that in person we would have an argument.

And again, if you use that manner with people and tell people they are worthless then your revolution will be a dinner party with yourself and a load of empty chairs.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

3dKk. I'm not going to go through point by point, but I'm going to offer a few quick suggestions:

1. The solution to the real problems of passive-aggressive hipsters and "non-violent communication" speaking hippies (and I concede that these are problems) isn't to enshrine "man up or shut up" in a code of conduct.

2. Brevity. If you can't say it before everyone is dying of boredom, you're saying it wrong. You know what's great in a code of conduct? Suggested time limits. You know what would bee great on RevLeft? A word-counter. Not to, like, actively cut anyone off, but so they could ask themselves "will anyone actually read all of this?"

3. Some of your ideas about the particular and the universal hold water . . . but I think the concrete application you propose fails to. The BPP, however, are a really interesting example - they certainly challenged the totality of American capitalism, but they took the specificity of their shared position (ie blackness) as a point to organize from.

4. I think a lot of this still comes around to practical efficacy . . . but, also, I think we're interested in very different types of work. I'm more interested in a code of conduct for, say, a tenants union than a Socialist Group. I think one embedded militant is worth a thousand position papers.

[Rafiq]

The fact of the matter is that no one understands the context of this 'code of conduct'. This was not made to say: "HERE IS THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EVERY GROUP OF SOCIALISTS".

In the spirit of a previous blog piece, which was What Should I be Doing, Rafiq made a code of conduct. If one thought that they were in any position to simply declare rules that everyone should follow because I said so (?) then why would I even publish such a code of conduct?

In fact what is happening is that a Code of Conduct has been proposed. This was directly related to the 'intellectual spaces' in question that was mentioned in What Should I be Doing.


I mean, all I got from that essay Rafiq is that you are still calling me worthless and you have a very high opinion of your own self-importance.

What crass immaturity: "Bro, so u saying YOUR ego more important THAN MIEN? Yur basically saying u BETTER than me? ME? Who r U? What right do U have?".

In fact, what you don't understand is that. The only context that which the phrase "You are worthless" was used was that it applies to Rafiq too - Rafiq is just as worthless as you are. The point is that ALL individuals are worthless, they don't have any special qualities to them outside what they bring to a discussion or a group. This is what you fail to understand - everyone is worthless, the point is that the 'individuality' and the 'opinions' of everyone are equally worthless. What if you were told, in fact, that every single individual has the right to be as "self-important" as Rafiq? That you CAN in fact be confident enough to have access to universality (which many people, intellectuals, already do, who in fact are not Rafiq, etc.)?

This is the problem. You are simply offended by the fact that Rafiq would have the audacity to even speak in these terms - to even make a pretension to something that is so far beyond rafiq's purported place in the hierarchy of special access to collective reason. Surely for Rafiq to even speak this way, he would have to think he is self important. But nothing is further than the truth - on the contrary, it is precisely recognizing the contingency of ones individuality, JUST HOW worthless and disposable they are, that one truly attains intellectual freedom. You are incapable of thinking past this hierarchy of special access to truth - if Rafiq speaks toward universal reason, he must think he is an expert, must think he has special access where others do not. But out of your own lack of confidence in your own abilities, as a subject, you are wrong - it is precisely DISREGARDING and stomping upon this 'hierarchy' of special access to truth (where you have to be a 'somebody' to gain access) that one can have the confidence to recognize one doesn't need any special qualities outside of their very conscious existence to engage the space of universal reason.

But still, you cannot see past this, because you are a petty bourgeois ideologue, you will see everything ultimately in terms of one individual asserting their consumerist identity over other individuals. Ultimately, for all the talk of 'universals', you simply close your ears - ultimately, no matter what Rafiq sais, Rafiq is simpy an individual who at the end of the day - we might cynically assume - wants to use HIS individuality over YOUR individuality, wants to assert HIS own particular interests over YOUR particular interests.

And the way ideology works is that this is not up for debate. For you it is simply something that cannot be contested - you uncritically accept this as a given, and anything otherwise is again a cynical attempt at deceiving you. It is no different from paranoid conspiracy theories - fighting against them doesn't work directly, because then one is just a pawn of the illuminati, etc. This is where the conscious use of reason is dispensed with in favor of a big other.

There is nothing particular about Rafiq. Rafiq is what he posts on the internet. That's it. Rafiq, in other words, is composed of words. So if you say that Rafiq has a sense of elevated 'self-importance', you have to identify this self, this 'particular' self that is being elevated that somehow no one else has access to themselves.


And again, if you use that manner with people and tell people they are worthless then your revolution will be a dinner party with yourself and a load of empty chairs.

"You revolution". Rafiq proposes a code of conduct for radical groupings, modest intellectual spaces, and now everything is his, it's all traced to him, the expression of his particular interests - but not only this, but that this is somehow preparation for an impending revolution he plans to orchestrate himself.

Again, this is what was being referred to with the propensity to make Olympic leaps - you speak about modest groupings of maybe five people, and we are brought to the 1920's soviet union, and so on. Maybe that is because this modest proposal is in fact striking at a chord with people, accentuating their own guilt, sense of despair, in having no faith in doing anything whatsoever (including thinking)?

Or are users so naive as to think the revolution is coming, and that they are socialists because they so generously proclaim that "If it does, I MAY consider supporting it".

Many of you including Vladimir have this attitude, constituting your entire political stance, and RAFIQ is self important, when you all think it fucking matters what your arbitrary 'opinion' is? But worst of all, it's not simply this. You all know very well how worthless your 'opinions' are, because YOU LACK CONFIDENCE in yourselves. "Who am I to say such things" and so on. If one is a socialist, one must do away with such a filthy anti-democratic attitude.


1. The solution to the real problems of passive-aggressive hipsters and "non-violent communication" speaking hippies (and I concede that these are problems) isn't to enshrine "man up or shut up" in a code of conduct.

This is one of the examples which point to the problems of identity politics and 'hipster' feminism. Ultimately it is a rabid kind of sexism, because it is uncritically assumed that the ability to be strong, to have confidence, to muster up the strength to speak, requires the precondition of having a dick between your legs, and that we men ought to repress this. It is true that what is being stated in general would otherwise be seen as 'masculine'.

It is precisely the problem that it is assumed inevitable that women cannot possess strength, sacrifice, will, confidence, discipline. This is what is despicable about bourgeois feminism - it reinforces the passivity of people, because it elevates the subjugation of women, to have application to all people. Timidness, shyness and so on, are not the inevitable product of female sexuality, they represent precisely the sexual enslavement of women.

To return to the black panthers, how they approached this was the empowerment of women, encouraging among them militancy, discipline, strength, women became soldierly, and so on. Today we have quite a different approach - men should be more 'sensitive', and so on. Communists ought to reject this. And this is a universal problem in identity politics. Before, black intellectuals fought to become universal subjects, and successfully became these. Today, we have white guilt - where universality is reserved only for white people, and that white people ought to be guilty and repress this aspect.

This is the origin of this problem. It is weakness. Hillary-Clinton feminism reproduces the passivity and timidness, lack of confidence, sexual subjugation of women, and demands men keep their 'manliness', 'in check' inevitably entailing passive aggressiveness and bursts of this 'masculinity' which are by nature sexist, and chauvinistic. Men in turn, the scum among them that is, will explain this in terms of "It's just my nature". All of this, while the bourgoiesie is protected by cops, private militaries, all the while the bourgoeisie, the sadistic motherfuckers, ARE allowed to in practice be strong and hold power. Passivity, meekness is encouraged while the bourgeoisie's power, THE real power, is unchallenged. It's just as disgusting as how certain liberals criticized the South African EFF's 'militarist' facade.

We DO need power and strength, violence. We do! This is why the test of whether one is a radical is how they approach that movie - as Zizek said - fight club.

So yes, everyone ought to 'man up', women included, because they can, their genitalia does not prevent them from it. Men who discourage women from doing this, or are hostile to them for it, ought to be exposed and attacked for it ruthlessly. That is quite different from so-called 'non-violent' behavior. And guising ones weakness (not you, but in general), lack of strength, laziness and cowardice in terms of speaking of 'hype-masculinity' simply demonstrates your subservience to THE aristocratic-masculine bourgeoisie, who are indeed not overly 'manly' (like a construction worker might be), but none the less assert their aristocratic masculinity, surrounded by real 'tough' men with guns, drones, etc.

If you abdicate upon your duty to have strength, you prostrate yourself to the strength of those already in power, the techies in Silicon Valley, who call themselves 'alpha males', and it works! Hillary Clinton feminism doesn't challenge this male subject, but plays this precise game. No wonder working people largely despise identity politics, and no wonder you can't pass with this shit - say - in a ghetto. Sorry but we are in no position to be 'sensitive', THERE ARE REAL POWERS and relations of domination which you will not wish away, or cry away. They must be fought, with strength. Bourgeois feminists, buzzfeed feminists are fine with these relations of power - "Welp, weather, that's just how the world is, but we can all try to repress our micro-aggression'. "Be sensitive, be non-violent, be more gentle". It's fake and it's disgusting. The real relations of power remain intact this way.

Communists, don't be gentle! Don't be sensitive! Be ruthless! Only the guilty blush! Repress nothing if you are truly a partisan of our cause!


Not to, like, actively cut anyone off, but so they could ask themselves "will anyone actually read all of this?"

If people are speaking too long, and people aren't digging what is being said, or don't care, then they can interrupt and interject why they think what is being said is either unnecessary or wrong. This doesn't have to be tightly regulated, you just use basic conventional common sense. Put it this way - if someone is engaging in brevity, while speaking, and someone interrupts and sais that what they are saying is unnecessary, if this person gets mad, they weren't actually committed to what they were saying in the first place, because if they were they would be able to explain and address the protest and then move on. If they couldn't address it, then their ego was offended, or that they simply liked hearing their own voice to begin with.

That's why I emphasized - speak only if you have something meaningful to say. You shouldn't speak for the sake of it - which is why it was clarified that you don't need to speak to be an important part of the group. Some people are in fact just listeners and humbly have nothing to offer. Certainly Rafiq in the right context is this way. There is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't make you any less powerless, it simply means you're mature enough to recognize you have nothing important to say (if you don't).


I think a lot of this still comes around to practical efficacy . . . but, also, I think we're interested in very different types of work. I'm more interested in a code of conduct for, say, a tenants union than a Socialist Group. I think one embedded militant is worth a thousand position papers.

Which is respectable, I didn't make this as a law for everyone that everyone must follow, I proposed one for the groupings that were mentioned in What Should I be Doing, groups that probably wouldn't start at the outset with organizing but would have to resolve various issues first, like locating the constellations of our concrete conditions. That's what the Russian Marxists did in the universities and in smaller clubs before they started to organize. We are much more privileged than they are.

[#FF0000]

I'm a-okay with Codes of Conduct for groups. I think they're absolutely necessary, even.

I don't think this particular "code of conduct" is especially useful or conducive to a productive environment, though.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I've been in meetings with people with severe depression, who are on the autism spectrum, who suffer from anxiety or any number of mental health issues, I've organised meetings with people without any formal education at all, and the idea of approaching that meeting with a stance of dismissing them and their opinions as worthless because they haven't formed as clear an understanding of Marxism as I might have, of 'ruthlessly' attacking them because of the stage of their political development, would be frankly unthinkable. I'd much prefer to organise a meeting where those involved can leave thinking that they've A. finally found a place where they don't feel so alienated and can comfortably discuss and learn about politics and B. a place where they feel comfortable organising and participating in coming struggles.

Rafiq, you're not Tyler Durdan. Frankly, if your internet persona is anything to go by, you lack the charisma and thank fucking god.

[Rafiq]

Monkeyman why the FUCK do you talk out of your ass? No tell me, what gives you the confidence to literally say this shit? What compels you, sitting where you are, to talk out of your ass like this? Did I - ANYWHERE, FUCKING say that people are to be told they are worthless becasue they don't have a proper understanding or whatever? Did you even fucking READ ANYTHING I've written? I SAID EVERY SINGLE PERSON, INCLUDING RAFIQ, IS WORTHLESS> did you even READ The context that which "worthless" was used? Why are you so quick and eager to live out your petty bourgeois, liberal fantasies? Why do you make up argumentative contexts so that you can fulfill the role of being the good liberal?

People go out of hteir way to explicitly reject teh substance of my post, not because they misunderstand it, but because they do understand it and must articulate their revulsion to what I am saying by qualifying it in incorrect ways. It's just like the ecology thread - where people guised their sensitivity toward nature in the practical concern of our survival. You ARE repulsed by what I am saying, you lack the necessary language to articulate this repulsion, and thus now speak UTTER BULLSHIT, SHIT like this: I've organised meetings with people without any formal education at all, and the idea of approaching that meeting with a stance of dismissing them and their opinions as worthless because they haven't formed as clear an understanding of Marxism

Hone in on this "becaues". Did I FUCKING say this? Did I say people are worthless BECAUSE they lack education? Did I say OTHERS are worthless and Rafiq is not? No, I said that EVERYONE is worthless, and everyone in their worthlessness has equal access to the use of reason. If people lack knowledge and are unedcuated, first and foremost, they should have the modesty to come into terms with this. And for the record, what's criminal is that ruthless criticism is not about hurling insults, but ruthlessly criticizing the positions of others, subjecting them to critique without fear of hurting their feelings. Case in point, one can be totally polite while engaging in ruthless criticism, and it will still offend people because people don't like to, out of their egoism, be 'wrong'. Ruthless criticism means you won't shirk on pointing out the errors in others positions and arguments because you fear hurting their feelings. That's what it means. It doesn't mean you suspend all basic conventions of politeness and civility, it means that you don't use these as an excuse to shirk on the responsibility of ruthlessly criticizing the arguments and positions of others. You don't need to criticize THEM, you criticize WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ruthlessly. Case in point, I don't have to hate a PERSON particularly to HATE what they are saying, and people need to get over themselves so we can allow a space wherein we truly can RUTHLESSLY CRITICIZE and HATE certain ideas and positions, without them attaching their worthless consumerist ego with positions and ideas that were likely chosen arbitrarily anyway.

FROM THEN impassioned debates, and yes, perhaps even insults can ensue, OUT OF PEOPLE PASSIONATELY and GENUINELY defending their positions. You simply haven't experienced this, the point where "Fuck me, my stupid face, I don't care about my worthless body, I MUST get this point across! I MUST get this argument across!" - this is why, as Juan pointed out, Lenin & co would go home completely exhausted and tired from such impassioned debates. AT THE EXPENSE of their own comfort, they would RUTHELSSLY engage in debate and discussion, where it would even wear them out. You haven't experienced this, clearly, and Leftists are too cowardly to do this because they want to feel 'comfortable' and 'safe.

Safe? Sorry, WE AREN'T safe, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND FEELING SAFE RIGHT NOW, because WE AREN'T. It's like demanding to feel safe and comfortable while in an abjectly life threatening situation. Damn your feelings, we aren't safe! We aren't! We want to be, sure, but we aren't.

But what is particuarlly fucking stupid, and criminal, about what you are saying, is the fact that THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT EDUCATING ORDINARY PEOPLE - I HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN TO THAT. This was about FORMING INTELLECTUAL SPACES BY WILLING SOCIALIST INTELLECTUALS so as to create the BASIS that which we can talk and discuss organizing poorly educated people. Do you fucking understand this? Do you understand that THIS IS NOT ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE MASSES but about SOCIALIST INTELLECTUALS forming spaces that can form the basis of ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE: HOW does one even do this, WHICH demographics, WHICH masses do we approach and in what way? Why the FUCK do you jump to all of these conclusions.

Honestly, I will say it: I truly DESPISE this. I do, I DESPISE these philistine petty bourgeois, pseudo-intellectuals, these self-righteous egoists, rightoeus 'individualists', I fucking despise them with all my heart. A hudnred years ago Socialist intellectuals never even had to DEAL with this shit, only today are we burdened with ACTUALLY HAVING TO ORGANIZE INTELLECTUALS. Only in our philistine, Shit, disgusting epoch DO WE NOW HAVE TO ORGANIZE the socialist intelligentsia, now who are a bunch of cowards who want others to hold their hands. They used to fucking walk miles and miles in freezing cold, on fragile ice lakes across Europe, now these socialist intellectuals want to dictate the terms that which their feelings won't be hurt. Holy shit, I can't even handle this.

Holy shit, I can't fucking handle this. This is why it's disgusting and it's criminal, becasue users will stumble upon this thread, they'll see the last post made, a few sentances and a paragraph: "Rafiq, no one will listen to u if u call them worthless and if u abuse the autistic".

The knee jerk reaction by users watching this thread is: "While I don't have the time to actually READ what Rafiq wrote, I can now come to the conclusion that this is actually what he was saying".

I cannot even put to words the fucking RIDICULE you deserve, without being infracted. I truly cannot. Even if I wouldn't be infracted, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for conducting yourself so dishonestly and so despicably. Shame on you. Shame! And shame on the next user to reply to this thread who builds off of this criminal slander and blatant, conscious misrepresentation of the arguments put forward. It's insufferable how immature users are, they will literally build off of complete and utter bullshit, and for what? For what? How heroic of you to proclaim that you find it wrong that people should be abused for not being as knowledgable as others. How heroic of you for saying that the autistic shouldn't be abused. How heroic. You really told that Rafiq.

No, i'll admit, you have angered me. Because I'm too stupid to understand: HOW THE FUCK DID YOU ARRIVE AT SUCH CONCLUSIONS GIVEN WHAT I HAVE OFFERED IN THIS DISCUSSION? I LITERALLY CANNOT EVEN FUCKING MAP OUT, FROM A - TO - B, HOW SOMEONE CAN EVEN FUCKING SAY THIS, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION. The fact is that you TALK OUT OF YOUR ASS and you accuse me of saying something that, to your own standards of ignorance, you are capable of addressing. You accuse me of saying something that you THINK I WOULD be saying, you aren't even SKIMMING through my arguments - you're just fucking ignoring them and attributing to me positions which have nothing to do with this thread.

Hoenstly, users, before you fucking post, before you even reply to this thread, READ IT. Don't FUCKING build off of the momentum of misinterpretation upon misinterpration. ACTUALLY DECIPHER YOURESLVES the substance of this thread as put forward, not as certain users are trying to portray it.

THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT A CONTROVERSY REGARDING WHETHER THOSE WHO ARE UNKNOWLEDGABLE, OR EVEN LACK CONFIDENCE, OUGHT TO BE PARTICULARLY QUALIFIED AS WORTHLESS. In fact I EXPLICITLY STATED that there is nothing wrong iwth encouraging confidence when it is abundantly clear that people are too nervous or shy to say something they would otherwise want to say. FOR FUCK'S SAKE! FUCK this thread, so far.

No, FUCK this FUCKING thread.


Rafiq, you're not Tyler Durdan. Frankly, if your internet persona is anything to go by, you lack the charisma and thank fucking god.

Excuse me? For fucks' sake, why is this even allowed?

"Rafiq, ur not tyler durden, lol bro, who r u even? Ur trying to be like a movie, lul, ur not, ur not in a movie lul".

You see ladies and gentlemn, becasue Monkeyman is incapable of actually articulating the points being conveyed, he wants to play the "Oh, I'm such a normal guy, Rafiq, you're being ridicuous!" - without any consideration for what is being said whatsoever, he is very eager to simply assume this role - WHEN IT HAS NOWEHRE BEEN FUCKING JUSTIFIED BY ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID. NOWHERE did I FUCKING make a pretension to being ANYTHING of that sort, nowhere did I even make a pretension to ANYTHING.

The fucking CRIMINAL and DESPICABLE part of all of this is that I USED THE REFERENCE TO FIGHT CLUB IRONICALLY. IN FACT, IF YOU ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO PAY FUCKING ATTENTION TO HOW THIS REFERENCE WAS USED, it was that I SAID it is "like" this or that, I didn't FUCKING say that I'm trying to renact a fucking movie, but that it is possible - god forbid - that, that which is portrayed in movies... God forbid! Sometimes has a concrete relavence in real life. IT's like FUCKING saying that Zizek things he's King Leonidas because of his praise of 300 as - and I quote - portraying a spirit of collective solidarity, self sacrifice, which is both communistic and pro-enlightenment (i.e. because it speaks against mysticism). It's so FUCKING stupid, holy shit, I can't even bear this.

I'm not even fucking strong enough to bear the utter stupidity here. No, I admit, THIS IS a weakness on my part. God damn me to hell, I am TOO FUCKING WEAK for this, I simply cannot tolerate this kind of stupidity, because unlike those who innocently simply lack knowledge, you ACTIVELY insist on your ignorance, perpetuate it, justify it, and are righteous about it. Here I yield - I simply yield on my knees, I cannot civilly deal with such kinds of people. Someone who knows how to work with THIS particular righteous stupidity - in a group context - must do so, because I sure as hell can't. it is simply an affront to the use of reason - shakes the very core of my own sense of confidence. Of course, actually, it's harder to talk shit like you do in real life contexts. Unlike Revleft, where you make stupid, heroic declarations of your positions, in real life I would simply say "What are you even talking about?" and you wouldn't get away with it.

Here, on Revleft, you can so heroically post about how "Sorry Rafiq, I'm going to take a stand and say that people shouldn't be abused for being less knowledgeable and too shy" and you can expect other, stupid and ignorant people, to clap their hands, and applaud your heroism. In real life this doesn't work, because you have to actively be accountable for what you say in relation to, and in proximity to a lively discussion. On revleft, your post speaks for itself.

"Rafiq, ur not tyler durden".

No, I am not. Your point? Please make it, I cannot even see how you can redeem yourself at this point, short of an apology. Shame on you.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm going to really stick my neck out on this one, but stuff like


You are worthless. You don't matter as an individaul. Your individuality is fake. Before you can be a Socialist, you need to get over yourself and become a universal subject. What does that mean? It means your socialism doesn't come from any particular individual interest, but how you as a particular person express a universal tradition.

...is an equivalent of a little entitled prick spewing shit they got to accept as the most edgy goddamn thing ever.
And oh boy is this not only edgy, it's actually a way to preserve a sacred tradition. So that



There is nothing wrong with people loudly arguing with each other, impassionately, there is nothing wrong with interrupting others, with doing this to its fullest extent.
...isn't really a situation of aggessive cacophony where all debate and discussion had already gone down the drain, it's actually a precondition of debate. That you shut down the person you're arguing with and make it as loud as possible. So that debate, if there's such a thing left, is settled by whoever is the most obnoxious little prick who can intimidate other folks.

So much for lack of drama; though, it is true that you won't have drama when you got a little fucking Napoleon bossing clueless folks around. And sure, a prerequisite for our little Napoleon is that people really do get they're fucking worthless. More than that, the little Napoleon-theoretician ought to drill this lesson in their heads by means of extensive philsophical rendering of the problems of juvenile bourgeois individualism.

Or some shit like that.

Now, I'm gonna go ahead and summarize some of the stuff I came to believe to be a good, though rough sort of guideline for communists' interaction, stemming from actual group debate with ICC folks and some other folks.

First thing, don't be a little obnoxious shit and listen to what others have to say. It's a no brainer, but yeah people have problems with it. Don't interrupt, listen. And if you're lucky you'll find yourself in a social environment of relatively mature people so you'll be taken seriously in any criticism you might have re: a comrade's view.

Second thing, you don't do ideological shaming. Because, ironically, you're not that full of yourself so that only your ideas seem like the ones which a decent human being would have (also, you don't have to discard the notion of basic human decency). And especially given the fact that tactical and strategic disagreements among revolutionaries can't be settled by clinging to your precious views like a little brat who's ready to stomp on other folks for particular disagreement of that kind.

The common refrain to this one is: don't be an obnoxious little fuck. The particular kind of little obnoxious fuck who is entitled to spew crap like this:


Is your shyness, your particular personality, are you going to let that get in the way of your dedication to the cause? If you do, you have no right to call yourself a socialist in the first place.

[#FF0000]

rafiq do you actually do anything other than post on here

[Rafiq]

I'm going to really stick my neck out on this one, but stuff like

The irony is simply unbearable:

And shame on the next user to reply to this thread who builds off of this criminal slander and blatant, conscious misrepresentation of the arguments put forward

That's you. So, shame on you, Thirsty. Shame on you for so crassly, in such a juvenile way, completely and TOTALLY shooting past the fucking point at hand.

Holy fuck it's so exhausting. It's so exhausting dealing with this shit, I might just have a heart attack. My god! After EVERYTHING I've FUCKING said. Is it any concern to you that 99% of EVERYTHING you say here, "sticking out your neck", so heroically, HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY? no, you don't care, clearly. So leave! Leave Rafiq to his ramblings, the "edgy obnoxious little fuck", and to those who are so "stupid" so as to follow what he sais. I'm not FUCKING forcing you to engage me honestly. I'm not. I'm not FORCING you to do anything in fact.

So if at the onset you're so committed to your blatant misrepresentation of my post, if it repulses you so much, then leave! No one forces you to pay attention to me and my threads. Can't you feel confident, now, thinking "Well, I sure demonstrated how stupid Rafiq's code of conduct was, now I can move on". If you feel this confident, then just shut the fuck up, really. If there's no ifs or buts about it, if you can't even approach the matter critically - if it's not up for debate, JUST. LEAVE!


So that debate, if there's such a thing left, is settled by whoever is the most obnoxious little prick who can intimidate other folks.

Excuse me? Fucking no, excuse me? If feeling intimidated trumps your propensity to critically evaluate others' arguments, then fuck you, you can fuck off. Frankly ANYONE who has experienced a radical setting knows that EVEN POLITELY CRITICIZING THE ARGUMENTS OF OTHERS, in a convincing and through way, is grounds for 'intimidating' others. You can't fucking set the limit for what does, and does't "intimidate" others.

Rafiq, who we are by Thirsty's logic is extra-ordinarily "tough", isn't fucking going to be intimidated by anyone because he is committed to evaluating critically what they are saying and demonstrating this. Is Rafiq simply too tough? Is he so special? Can others not be like this?

In fact, you fail twice, utterly and despicably, in your little argument. THAT ONE IS LOUD, that one is being "rude" would be INCIDENTAL and a TRIVIALITY compared to the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of the controversy that the loudness pertains to, which in my experience is the point of any real argument. Let's see how thirsty evaluates this basic argument:


Or some shit like that.

Cry about it. If this little Napoleon has something to offer where others don't, he can fucking offer it. If people find it problematic, they can speak up and criticize him right back. And that's how you have a fucking argument. You don't like this, no one is fucking begging you to engage us. We don't want you, and we don't need you. You say that no one will engage this, that no one, absolutely no one will be interested in? K, thanks for your great wisdom, but that's our problem, those of us who are committed to this. You don't have to worry about that, so sit back, and wallow in your philistinism and worthlessness. Problem? No? You know where the door is.


First thing, don't be a little obnoxious shit and listen to what others have to say. It's a no brainer, but yeah people have problems with it. Don't interrupt, listen. And if you're lucky you'll find yourself in a social environment of relatively mature people so you'll be taken seriously in any criticism you might have re: a comrade's view.

Likewise, if one genuinely interrupts another person, it is because they have a reason to. Just as a quick example, let's say someone sais "Communism works good on paper, but" and then you interrupt them. is there something wrong with this? No, there isn't, because you know what they are going to say. If they were going to say something else, then they can simply say "Well, actually what I was going to say was" and it would be their responsibility to do this, because were you going to say something different, that is quite an exceptional thing, one that people would probably - if they were inclined - would need and want to hear. It's not just about interrupting. It's about this obsession with such things. People interrupt others all the time, in a totally casual way, say, among friends. Do you think that when the Young Hegelians were meeting up in cafe's, or bars, do you think they wouldn't interrupt each other? No, they would, and there was nothing wrong with it. You can interrupt someone without some hidden game being played under the radar - you can do this, bless you. if yo can't do this, the problem isn't the interruption but the 'hidden' game your playing in the first place, which with or without interruptions is going to be there either way.

The reason one is tempted to think there is something wrong with yelling, and interrupting, and overall boisterous conduct, is because in our stupid consumerist epoch, people argue under the pre-text of asserting their identity over other people, as INDIVIDUALS. People try and shut others up, not because they actually genuinely are attached to the ideas and arguments they put forward, but because they don't want to be 'put down', they don't want to their petty ego, so fragile, to be insulted. Yet my point is simple: Ones ego IS political and ideological whether you know it or not, so if one truly does have a Communist ego, then they are fully engaged with their positions and ideas, as it relates to a universality, understanding that "So as I can think, so others can think too". This is what it means to be a universal subject.

So I propose quite simply: Before hand, a formal, common agreement of this, must be had. Even if people can't get it right away, the fact that it is a standard, something people are conscious of, alone would be an achievement.

And to elaborate, if everyone consciously understands the necessity of placing the cause before their stupid, worthless consumerist ego, then there wouldn't be a shouting match: IF SOMEONE interrupts you immaturely without ALLOWING you to clarify yourself, THAT IS a problem. if people are engaged in a contest to see who can suppress the others' propensity to say something, that reflects their lack of commitment and a sheer lack of maturity on their part to actually engage in ruthless criticism (but to instead 'appear' as the person who is correct for the sake of not having their fragile ego offended). You shouldn't HAVE to have fucking rules for this - these are unwritten rules for people who actually care about solving real problems together.

THAT was my point. If people lack the basic self-discipline for this basic convention, that shows their lack of seriousness regarding Socialism in the first place. That is different from Left culture today, where interuppting someone offends them even if they had nothing imoprtant to say and they knew it.

Let's say, for example, someone is going to say "The bananas are the color yellow". If someone interrupts you mid-sentence and sais "I know which color they are", THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT. Today, people will GET MAD just out of the FACT that you interrupted them. That's my fucking point. If you were going to say "orange" instead of yellow, you would reply "No, I wasn't going to say yellow", and so on. THAT'S how a basic discussion works. To act otherwise, again, is to factor in your worthless consumerist ego into the equation, emanating a lack of seriousness about the ACTUAL IDEAS in question (i.e. the color of a banana) but the fact that "WHO ARE U TO INTERRUPT ME UR NOT MORE IMPORTANT" and so on.

Holy fucking shit. He gives me a lecture about the importance of listening to what others have to say. As though he's making a fucking point not already addressed.


Second thing, you don't do ideological shaming. Because, ironically, you're not that full of yourself so that only your ideas seem like the ones which a decent human being would have (also, you don't have to discard the notion of basic human decency).

Okay, so if someone argues for eugenics, claims that blacks are by nature stupid, and so on, has explicitly Fascist views, what say you then? You can't fucking consistently draw the line, you simply cannot. It's that simple. Just shut up with these stupidities: "Oh who R U to say what humans should think is decent?" - fuck humans, nevermind humans, the point is that ideological shaming occurs within the context of teh actual, you know, cause and Socialist prerogative, not any pretense to some uncritically assumed "decent standard for what it is to be a human being" (?), this has nothing to do with that, but in relation to ones ethical existence as a socialist. So THERE IS nothing wrong with ideological and political shaming. If someone fucking comes to one of these groups and talks about evolutionary psychology, sorry yes, THEY OUGHT to be shamed ideologically.

That is because if they were truly committed to being universal subjects, they'd be able to recognize: To ideologically shame another position, shames their position, not necessarily their inevitable existence, but positions they hold as particular persons which are accountable before a universal space of reason.

In my particular experience, which others have told me they share, merely making people critically accountable for their uncritically accepted positions, without even attacking them, is something they find offensive, as though you're calling them out. Sorry, this cannot do.


And especially given the fact that tactical and strategic disagreements among revolutionaries can't be settled by clinging to your precious views like a little brat

What if, god forbid, someone cling to their views if they did not genuinely believe them? What is the problem with that? You say that OUT OF MERE POLITENESS, people should abdicate upon their positions, just becasue it's polite? Sorry no, fuck that.

Disagreements must take into account the basis of the disagreement. Why others have the positions they do must be assesed critically. Like you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. It is precisely this "brattiness" that was the object of this posts ridicule. If you split just becasue others disagree iwth you and it hurts your ego, if you disagree just because you don't want to worng (rather than actually believe what you're saying) then that is THE PROBLEM I am talking about!


The particular kind of little obnoxious fuck who is entitled to spew crap like this:

"Entitled" he sais. Rafiq needs special privileges to say this. Privileges that are purported to exist for, for who? Experts? Individuals of worthy repute?

You see thirsty I don't seek legitimacy in your eyes. Rafiq doesn't fucking need any entitlement to say such things. None. That is the point. You have simply shown what a vile, sick petty bourgeois ideologue you are. As though saying this:

Is your shyness, your particular personality, are you going to let that get in the way of your dedication to the cause? If you do, you have no right to call yourself a socialist in the first place.

Entails that Rafiq gives himself special privileges, must elevate himself to have the 'right' to say this. Sorry no. Overcome your fucking shyness and your timidness. Others can help with this. You don't overcome this by encouraging this, having 'speaking turns' and other such formal conventions. Some people genuinely don't have anything to say. Basic body language can elicit the response: "What's on your mind? You seem like you have something to say" and whatever. The irony is simple: You all attack Rafiq because he is not a worthy master. But he isn't being a master. He is telling you that you all ought to be resposnible for yourselves. NO ONE is going to hold your hand. People can help, but ultimately, this is a weight that is on YOUR shoulders too, as socialist intellectuals. As an individual, an engaged and conscious subject, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for your views, you cannot be like a slave who is simply pressured in this or that direction. YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE for your positions.

Rafiq doesn't want to be your fucking master, so stop being so fucking petty and juvenile about it. I don't WANT to fucking hold all of your hands, it is a fucking OBNOXIOUS and PAINFUL thing to have to THINK FOR others. You see it is a burdensome responsibility to have that kind of power over others - that kind of responsibility. And I don't fucking want it. I don't have to prove that to anyone. I simply demand that you either relate to this using your own EQUAL access to the conscious use of reason, or you leave.

That you attack me for being an unworthy master means you all want, demand and desire a worthy master. You are scared of your own ability to actively, consciously relate to such ideas, and be able to defend them yourself as an unbound subject!

[Guardia Rossa]

Down with Drama and Pettiness!

“Down with Drama and Pettiness”….

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that this individualism shit is annoying, as in some anarchists here. As if Rafiq would ruthlessly criticize others because of some innate psychological characteristic instead of a political position developed on ideas and practical understanding of how to build a successful movement. This is the most distasteful shit, like in our comrade Armchair Partisan. I mostly agree with the criticism of everyone, but really, is this the level we are in today?

I supposed that Communism should DESTROY the dichotomies that arise in a class system, not pick a fucking side in it. We are still individuals, and not some fucking form of “Universality”, AND we are also still inside Capitalism, we aren’t living in a fucking Communist-Rousseauist society where the dichotomy between individual and group has been resolved. I don’t recall Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa, Bukharin, Kautsky, Trotsky, Bordiga or anyone else saying that “We are a fucking Universality so you can offend yourselves and then go home as if you pleased the Revolutionary Big Other”

Speaking is not a sign of a person’s particular power over others.

Agreed and disagreed. The speakers are the ones that mostly understand, and as long as they understand more, they influence the ideas of the ones that understand less. This is inevitable.

There is nothing wrong with political, ideological shaming.

There is nothing wrong in attacking self-assumed bourgeois ideologues and show their falseness for everyone, insofar as you don’t give a shit for the bourgeois ideologue, but if you personally attack your socialista revolutionary comrades, the first you will gain is their hatred. Congrats. The second thing you will gain is the disruption of normal conditions in the group. If you don’t have a good reason (As of, a tendency of decay in quality due to the infiltration of bourgeois ideology), most of the time is negative. Congrats. Third, you will convince many persons that what you attacked is really a bourgeois ideology, mainly the ones that are initially neutral, and you big-ass texts will gain the attention of those who cannot write such a big-ass text. However, you won’t end up convincing the person you attacked, unless such person has some degree of respect for you. Well, surprise, you are no Vladmir Lenin.

It would be far more effective realizing that we have a particular bourgeois ideology rolling and make a thread denouncing this bourgeois ideology, and only include individuals as examples of this ideology. Refute, destroy such ideology, and we, as REVOLUTIONARY LEFTISTS that we are, insofar as we are ACTIVELY ACTING AGAINST CAPITALISM AND THE BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY will think on it and change our opinions.

You know, since I first saw and read some of Zizek, I realized that he had a feet inside Marxism and another in Post-modernism. Now, have YOU superseded Zizek and fully brought Lacan into (And therefore subservient to) Marxism or do you still hold them in a degree of equality?

I realize something akin to what post-modernists defend in your argument, as if we, individuals in a Capitalist society, can liberate ourselves fully from such society. As if by believing in it, we can free ourselves from our individualism, even if we daily practice it. There is something disturbingly close in post-modern political correctness, insofar as both speeches attempt to modify our ideas without modifying the material conditions.
Now you will argue that this is not post-modernism, that it’s communism because communism is consciousness. Communism is the self-consciousness of the people, yes, but you already confused many with such speech. Communism is not ONLY the self-consciousness, Communism is self-consciousness PRACTICALLY, insofar as we live in Capitalist society, insofar as we are daily bombarded with bourgeois ideologies and we cannot be totally free from them, and insofar as I still study and work 8 hours a day and then study more to understand Marxism and Philosophy, insofar as there are no material conditions for the perseveration of this consciousness, I cannot be totally self-conscious. I can still FIGHT FOR IT CONSCIOUSLY but the material conditions impede me from having the benefits of living in a Communist society while still being alienated, ideologified, repressed and oppressed.

These standards must be definitive and set - perhaps agreed upon. Examples like:

Bourgeois ideologues, for short. Anyone that in any way support the continuity of Capitalism. I totally agree with attacking them as ruthlessly as you do, because then the objective is to reveal, to show, to destroy the bourgeois ideologue. However, as long as one is a Revolutionary Socialist the tactic should be radically different insofar as if one is a Revolutionary Socialist he already is against Bourgeois Ideology and insofar as you work as a group (And insofar as he is not a fucking 100% intelligentsia know-it-all I-don’t-relate-with-bourgeois-society type of guy) he will be affected by Bourgeois Ideologies.

These spaces cannot be designed for your comfort.

And, again, we should SUPERSEDE the common class-society dichotomies, not pick a side in them. The space must be designed for the self-developing of all the persons and their solidification as a group with common interests. And that doesn’t means turning it into a Fight Club, that means turning it into a community of people. Bourgeois Ideologies must be daily denounced but not through flaming and attacking but only through exposition, explanation and refutation of the Bourgeois Ideology itself. I'm sure you can do it.

Just remember how ZIZEK does it: Teaching Lacan with the occasional Jokes and etc... he doesn't attempt to force the reader out of the hedonistic society first to then teach him how to fight it, he understands that by allowing a person in an hedonistic society to be able to fight against hedonism itself, he is doing better than forcing the person to first be a Communist Bolchevik Masterming Intellectual and then teach him how to be a Communist Bolchevik Mastermind Intellectual... If the person had the red ink, there would be no need for giving him the red ink. As long as we are in a capitalist society we will always be somewhat affected by hedonistic postmodern bourgeois ideology.

Keep your group connected with others online so as to establish common, and accountable standards, (political) culture.

"KAUTASQUEIST! LEFTISTIS KENNOT YOUNITE!"

Agreed. We must always remain in contact and together, this way a set of generally unified ideas can emerge. Without this we will not be able to even work together.

Even if you disagree with this code of conduct, recognize that it's important to have one, or nothing can get done

Yes.


Very well, you ASKED for it with this post. Here you have it, more and more criticism, in the pile of criticism WHICH IS AS RUTHLESS AS IT CAN BE, and that you should use to learn something new.

Something in the like: WE ARE NOT IN FUCKING COMMUNISM AND WE ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE REVOLUTIONARY BIG OTHER. If you want to attack bourgeois ideologies, DO IT, but attach THE BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGIES.

NO ONE will take you seriously if you keep battering people as if it is their personal fault for that they were born in fucking Capitalism and while they are attempting to cleanse themselves of bourgeois filth (Otherwise THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE) you attack them because they don’t do it enough because they simply cannot. Give them the red ink, don’t throw them in an ink-filled tub and hold their head in there.

Firstly, I know I'm not a fucking demi-god of Marxism and Lacan. I was seriously going to write more and better BUT THE FUCKING WEBSITE DELETED MY FUCKING TEXT, FUCKING FUCK YOU FOR FUCKS SAKE. Now don't reject all of our ideas just because OH YOU BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALIST BASTARD.

Best regards, Guardia Rossa.

[Alet]

Interrupting someone in a discussion is not in any way dickish or obnoxious - at least not as long as it is done with the common agreement that "if you have nothing to say, don't say anything at all". This is not about arbitrary interruptions for the sake of it. It should be needless to say this. If an interruption was unjustified, it can be attacked on this level because the general premise that everyone (even the one interrupting) questions not only the arguments at hand but also themselves is still there. The right to interrupt someone stems from one's willingness to critically assess their opponent's arguments. If all share the inclination to genuinely criticize everything and everyone - which Rafiq presupposes here -, and one starts to talk shit - it is perfectly fine to expose them immediately. I speak from personal experience, interruptions are often times necessary in a "ruthless" debate.

[Rafiq]

I supposed that Communism should DESTROY the dichotomies that arise in a class system, not pick a fucking side in it.

What you fail to understand is that you are taking a side by doing this. THAT IS a partisan position. That is the point of proletarian class struggle - to seek to destroy the class antagonism is to accentuate the already existing class antaognism. Hence the proletariat is the class that is not even a class, it is the class with no particular interests, it is the class whose particular interests are universal. But alas, this still means taking a side.

the postmodern, western buddhist notion of not taking sides, of being 'balanced', of placing oneself above controversies is anti-Communist, reactionary and almost Fascistic. WE DO take a side. Shamelessly. You can't "destroy" the class antagonism standing outside of it - that is impossible. You cannot be outside the social antagonism so long as it exists:


We are still individuals, and not some fucking form of “Universality”, AND we are also still inside Capitalism, we aren’t living in a fucking Communist-Rousseauist society where the dichotomy between individual and group has been resolved.

I simply think you are confused. We don't embody conscious access to universality, that is the point of Communism. No society is magically going to bring forth this: This is why Communism is nothing more than the real existing movement. Post-capitalist society comes from teh antagonisms WITHIN capitalism.

Finally, as individuals we are solely constituted in relation to the universality of capitalist social relations. That's all it means to be an 'individual' - the particular expression of something universal. We don't consciously know this insofar as we are ideological subjects. So we are already relating ourselves to a universality. To consciously do so, that is what it means to be a Communist.

I do not know how you arrive at the arguments you do. Yes we are not living in a Communist society. The point? We also aren't living in a society free from a class antagonism. Does that mean we give up the class struggle, because "WE aren't living in a society where there are no classes". What?


I don’t recall Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa, Bukharin, Kautsky, Trotsky, Bordiga or anyone else saying that “We are a fucking Universality so you can offend yourselves and then go home as if you pleased the Revolutionary Big Other”

That doesn't make any sense. You cannot "be" a universality, you can be a universal subject, which they indeed were. To quote Bertrand Russel on Lenin:

Lenin's room is very bare; it contains a big desk, some maps on the walls, two book-cases, and one comfortable chair for visitors in addition to two or three hard chairs. It is obvious that he has no love of luxury or even comfort. He is very friendly, and apparently simple, entirely without a trace of hauteur.

If one met him without knowing who he was, one would not guess that he is possessed of great power or even that he is in any way eminent. I have never met a personage so destitute of self-importance. He looks at his visitors very closely, and screws up one eye, which seems to increase alarmingly the penetrating power of the other. He laughs a great deal; at first his laugh seems merely friendly and jolly, but gradually I came to feel it rather grim. He is dictatorial, calm, incapable of fear, extraordinarily devoid of self-seeking, an embodied theory. The materialist conception of history, one feels, is his life-blood. He resembles a professor in his desire to have the theory understood and in his fury with those who misunderstand or disagree, as also in his love of expounding, I got the impression that he despises a great many people and is an intellectual aristocrat.

Lenin was both accused of lacking self-importance and accused of being an intellectual aristocrat.

But I digress. You simply misunderstand the point. No one had to conscoiusly say "I am au niversal subject" - this was a given of their existence. Lenin, who famously stated "One can only be a Communist when they enrich themselves with all the treasures of mankind" the list truly goes on, for every single person you mention. I don't think you think I',m bluffing, so I won't list off more examples.

You don't become a universal subject by simply proclaiming it. You do so by consciously articulating the universality of your individuality and criticizing it from then on, to be come the expression of the universal proletarian subject, in theory or otherwise, as a Communist. Felix Dzerzhinsky:

... It would not be worthwhile living if the star of socialism, the star of the future were not shining down on mankind. For the “ego” cannot live if in itself it does not contain the rest of the world and the people. Such is the nature of this “ego.”...

[...]

... I have matured in prison in torments of solitude, in torments of longing for the world and for life. And, in spite of this, doubt in the justness of our cause has never risen in my heart. And now, when perhaps for many years all hope is buried in torrents of blood, when they have been crucified on the gallows, when many thousands of fighters for freedom are languishing in dungeons or thrown out into snowbound Siberia – I feel proud. Already I see tremendous masses set in motion shattering the old system, masses among whom new forces are being trained for fresh struggles. I feel proud that I am with them, that 1 see, feel and understand them, and that I, too, have suffered much together with them. It is sometimes hard, at times even terrible, here in prison.... Yet, if I had to begin life all over again, I would begin it in the same way. And not out of a sense of duty, not because I had to. For me, it is an organic necessity.

...I curse neither my fate nor the many years in prison, for I know that all this is necessary in order to destroy the other vast prison which lies outside the walls of this horrible “pavilion.” This is not idle philosophising, not cold calculation, but the result of an indomitable desire for freedom, for a full life. Out there, comrades and | friends are drinking our health, and I, alone in my cell, am thinking of them: may they live on, may they forge the weapons and be worthy of the cause for which the struggle is being waged....

[...]

And if here we long for flowers, we have also here learned to love people as we love flowers; and precisely here, where there is no desperate struggle for a crust of bread, and where there floats to the surface that which out there was of necessity concealed in the depths of the human heart. And for this reason we love this place of our execution, for here we made clear to ourselves that the struggle which brought us here is also the struggle for our personal happiness, for emancipation from the violence imposed on us, from the chains that drag us down.


Now, have YOU superseded Zizek and fully brought Lacan into (And therefore subservient to) Marxism or do you still hold them in a degree of equality?

My understanding of Lacan is informed by Zizek. And Zizek is thoroughly an anti-postmodernist. He is for a return of modernity.

Postmodernism as it is used is a slur, used by anglo-saxon philistines to describe arguments which can't be condensed in 8 words.


NO ONE will take you seriously if you keep battering people as if it is their personal fault for that they were born in fucking Capitalism and while they are attempting to cleanse themselves of bourgeois filth (Otherwise THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE) you attack them because they don’t do it enough because they simply cannot

I attack people who, upon being presented with the ability to supersede capitalism (I.e. socialist intellectuals) fall back on excuses. It isn't our personal fault we are born in capitalism. It is our fault if we, with the necessary will to abolish it, and accrued knowledge, make excuses for inability to criticize it both practically and theoretically.

[Thirsty Crow]

The irony is simply unbearable:

And shame on the next user to reply to this thread who builds off of this criminal slander and blatant, conscious misrepresentation of the arguments put forwardI hear there's a branch of IC for particularly nasty criminal slander in revolutionary communities, you may wanna try your luck by forwarding them this grievance of yours.


That's you. So, shame on you, Thirsty. Shame on you for so crassly, in such a juvenile way, completely and TOTALLY shooting past the fucking point at hand.
Aye.

My sin, thrice my greatest sin.

Is there an altar-like structure where I can repent, on my bloody knees to be sure?


Holy fuck it's so exhausting. It's so exhausting dealing with this shit, I might just have a heart attack. My god! After EVERYTHING I've FUCKING said. Is it any concern to you that 99% of EVERYTHING you say here, "sticking out your neck", so heroically, HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY? no, you don't care, clearly. So leave! Leave Rafiq to his ramblings, the "edgy obnoxious little fuck", and to those who are so "stupid" so as to follow what he sais. I'm not FUCKING forcing you to engage me honestly. I'm not. I'm not FORCING you to do anything in fact.


Tell me about it.

I mean, I'm a simpleton really but great minds who're so unlucky to interact with me have hammered this point home - it's so damn exhausting. Dealing with us folk after scripture and scripture written (not to mention actual sermons delivered).

I might as well leave, yes, leave poor old wise heads to their ramblings - on a public forum, eh?



So if at the onset you're so committed to your blatant misrepresentation of my post, if it repulses you so much, then leave! No one forces you to pay attention to me and my threads. Can't you feel confident, now, thinking "Well, I sure demonstrated how stupid Rafiq's code of conduct was, now I can move on". If you feel this confident, then just shut the fuck up, really. If there's no ifs or buts about it, if you can't even approach the matter critically - if it's not up for debate, JUST. LEAVE!

There's a problem here sunshine.

You demand attention. We all do when we post a thread here, 'cause we think we got something worthwhile to say.

On the other hand, your ramblings would be toxic if there ever happened to be a group of people foolish enough to heed your advice.

Since drilling the idea that people are worthless - doesn't always make for better militants. Contrary to that, for some people it would drive them closer to suicidal thoughts.

But then they wouldn't have the right to call themselves socialists, poor bastards?

But in the best of all possible of worlds, people dropping dead by their own hand would just confirm they weren't real socialists.

And that's the underlying tragicomic idiocy of these rants. That you seem unable to see some possible, and very real ramifications of the pattern of human interaction you set out here to defend as productive.

[Thirsty Crow]

And if we're just collectively ranting our heads off.

Unemployment office. And job applications - sending in mail after mail, and it just so happens that the work you did do, illegally to be sure (meaning - didn't pay taxes while freelancing), turns out you don't get a dime from it since the person doesn't return your phone calls. And all the while mail in mail out, no reponse or sorry we don't hire - guess what champ, you'd be feeling pretty much worthless, so damn worthless that you don't need a goddamn reminder that socialists' organizing isn't there to coddle you and make it that you're a some kind of hero.

But if that shit keeps on hammering home the basic message of bourgeois society YOU'RE WORTHLESS - don't expect any actual productive outcomes. I got the fucking memo yeah, so move on.

[Guardia Rossa]

What you fail to understand is that you are taking a side by doing this. THAT IS a partisan position. That is the point of proletarian class struggle - to seek to destroy the class antagonism is to accentuate the already existing class antaognism. Hence the proletariat is the class that is not even a class, it is the class with no particular interests, it is the class whose particular interests are universal. But alas, this still means taking a side.

the postmodern, western buddhist notion of not taking sides, of being 'balanced', of placing oneself above controversies is anti-Communist, reactionary and almost Fascistic. WE DO take a side. Shamelessly. You can't "destroy" the class antagonism standing outside of it - that is impossible. You cannot be outside the social antagonism so long as it exists:

Insofar as taking a side here is taking a side in a dichotomy between group and individual, it is simply anti-marxist. You are simply "taking a side" in an unexisting false dichotomy that should be eliminated in communism. Do I need to write a book with a fancy title for you to understand?


I do not know how you arrive at the arguments you do. Yes we are not living in a Communist society. The point?

Your 'ruthless criticism' is fucking stupid. That's the point. And it still stands, you didn't rebate my arguments, just asked me kindly to learn the Lacanian phraseology as if magically the content would chage. I don't give a shit to particular terms. If you can't understand you can descend from the golden throne of lacanian dictionary.

[Rafiq]

You demand attention. We all do when we post a thread here, 'cause we think we got something worthwhile to say.

Okay, but you sound convinced I - in fact - don't. So it is simple. You are either giving into my 'demands', or in fact I do not demand attention from anyone.

I post, and those who are so inclined engage me. I cannot demand or force this inclination. It's that simple. So you can exit out of the thread if you like. No one's begging you to use your head. If it were that way, I would be all over the internet, but I'm not - I am posting on Revleft because there are people here who read what I post and find such posts useful and informative. If they didn't, I would have declared this a lost cause and left long ago.

But I even have random people come and message me, who aren't even active, that they appreciate my posts, and I hear people who are not even on this website like them. So clearly this isn't a wasted effort. And that is not to say this makes me so great - it simply means, I don't have to beg anyone to read my posts. I don't. People, by their own devices, for their own reasons, find them useful and informative. They exist, god forbid, they do.


On the other hand, your ramblings would be toxic if there ever happened to be a group of people foolish enough to heed your advice.

Okay, that's Rafiq's problem. Not yours. You know where the door is. If you're so convinced no one cares about what Rafiq sais, and that what he seeks to do with others (and what others seek to do with him) is foolish and pointless, what's the problem? Sit back, relax, and enjoy your life.


Since drilling the idea that people are worthless

After everything, he still sais this. Frankly everyone sees that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY SPEAKING OF WORTHLESSNESS.


Contrary to that, for some people it would drive them closer to suicidal thoughts.

Worthlessness opens up the space for freedom. If you kill yourself, before abdicating upon your faith to the gods of capital, to being worth something, that isn't Rafiq's fault, because people do this regularly. People, out of feeling worthless, kill themselves.

Instead of killing themselves, or denying their worthlessness with their fragile egoisms, Rafiq claims they should accept their worthlessness as freedom, as Marx, as all who succeeded him did. To be a nothing, to have no roots, to have nothing to lose, to have no special privileges, to be a ZERO, to be WORTHLESS, THAT is what it means to be a Communist.

I AM WORTHLESS. I am a NOBODY. And this is what inspires all of my 'confidence' and sense of 'entitlement'. I have nothing to fucking lose. I don't have special access to the hierarchy of legitimized truth - because I INSIST on equal access to it by ALL subjects. Rafiq is thus a Communist.

That's why ZIZEK mentions fight club (and I mention Zizek mentioning it). You have to beat the shit out of yourself before you can become free as a subject, to have socialist consciousness. Rafiq surely beat the living shit out of himself for the past five years. Don't need to prove that to you or anyone else. And faith in socialism, faith in our cause, alone, is why Rafiq did not have to kill himself.


But if that shit keeps on hammering home the basic message of bourgeois society YOU'RE WORTHLESS - don't expect any actual productive outcomes.

What if I told you that under capitalism workers are worthless, their egos ARE worthless and that this is precisely the key to their worthlessness? But we are dealing with different 'worthlessnesses'. Bill Gates' ego is just as worthless as anyone elses. The ego of the experts and big men are worthless too in the same way.

You don't coddle ordinary people and tell them they're worth something. Because that reinforces the same anxiety that tells them they HAVE to be a somebody, not just a worker, but a future billionaire, (and their inability to have the basic dignity that comes with being a capitalist, in their own bourgeois consciousness, is why they kill themselves) etc. But furthermore, just to utterly fucking SHIT on this argument even further:

But what is particuarlly fucking stupid, and criminal, about what you are saying, is the fact that THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT EDUCATING ORDINARY PEOPLE - I HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN TO THAT. This was about FORMING INTELLECTUAL SPACES BY WILLING SOCIALIST INTELLECTUALS so as to create the BASIS that which we can talk and discuss organizing poorly educated people. Do you fucking understand this? Do you understand that THIS IS NOT ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE MASSES but about SOCIALIST INTELLECTUALS forming spaces that can form the basis of ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE: HOW does one even do this, WHICH demographics, WHICH masses do we approach and in what way? Why the FUCK do you jump to all of these conclusions.

Honestly, I will say it: I truly DESPISE this. I do, I DESPISE these philistine petty bourgeois, pseudo-intellectuals, these self-righteous egoists, rightoeus 'individualists', I fucking despise them with all my heart. A hudnred years ago Socialist intellectuals never even had to DEAL with this shit, only today are we burdened with ACTUALLY HAVING TO ORGANIZE INTELLECTUALS. Only in our philistine, Shit, disgusting epoch DO WE NOW HAVE TO ORGANIZE the socialist intelligentsia, now who are a bunch of cowards who want others to hold their hands. They used to fucking walk miles and miles in freezing cold, on fragile ice lakes across Europe, now these socialist intellectuals want to dictate the terms that which their feelings won't be hurt. Holy shit, I can't even handle this.

This isn't fucking about jumping to "talking to workers", this pertains to INTELLECTUAL spaces. And yes, your ego IS worthless. Your identity IS worthless. What matters is what comes out of your mouth, not the mouth itself. That's the attitude that is being encouraged here.

You simply righteously insist on your fucking ignorance of my arguments. Just leave, please, we don't want you here if you act like this.

[Guardia Rossa]

My understanding of Lacan is informed by Zizek. And Zizek is thoroughly an anti-postmodernist. He is for a return of modernity.

Just as Frankfurt school is throughly postmodern and an abandon of Modernity


Postmodernism as it is used is a slur, used by anglo-saxon philistines to describe arguments which can't be condensed in 8 words.


I attack people who, upon being presented with the ability to supersede capitalism (I.e. socialist intellectuals) fall back on excuses. It isn't our personal fault we are born in capitalism. It is our fault if we, with the necessary will to abolish it, and accrued knowledge, make excuses for inability to criticize it both practically and theoretically.

And yet you ignore my argument. You are treating the matter just as the post-moderns do. You criticize everyone as anti-communist, as if you lordly are the only Communist here, because oh you Rafiq lacanian edgelord can know how to make the revolution.

If you know, well, show it to us, Lord Rafiq.

[Guardia Rossa]

I'm tired of your repeating and annoying "ruthless criticism" as correct as you can be you are just wreaking havoc. Either criticize the fucking B.I. or shut up. Otherwise you are doing nothing more than flaming others, such as 870 and other Revolutionary Socialists here and brewing yourself equally RUTHLESS, PERSONAL opposition.

[Rafiq]

Holy shit, what a fucking onslaught of stupidity I am faced. Every response I have two more to fucking deal with. Very well, I can do this all night, you all are not going to overwhelm me. I will stand my ground and own up to what I say. I vow it.


Insofar as taking a side here is taking a side in a dichotomy between group and individual, it is simply anti-marxist. You are simply "taking a side" in an unexisting false dichotomy that should be eliminated in communism. Do I need to write a book with a fancy title for you to understand?

What dichotomy between group and individual? You don't know what you're talking about. I hope you can muster the modesty to understand this: The point is the socially controversial nature of such a dichotomy surrounding individualism.

The fact of the matter is that individuals only exist insofar as they relate to a universality. So individuals take a side with regard to that universality. There is no such thing as taking a side vis a vis 'individuality' and 'the group'. Are you literally talking out of your ass? Where did I state this? The point is that individuality was false, was already relating itself to a universality. Re-read the fucking argument at hand, will you. You simply, schizophrenically abuse the contours of logic and misunderstand categorically what phrases and words are argumentatively relevant. You have no notion of Communism - it's that simple - "a dichotomy which will be eliminated in Communism". A difficult argument to support considering that this so-called 'dichotomy' WAS OVERCOME BY VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE MARXIST IN OUR TRADITION". You're just fucking abusing words.


Your 'ruthless criticism' is fucking stupid. That's the point. And it still stands, you didn't rebate my arguments,

I respectfully didn't address your 'arguments' becasue they were re-hashed misinterpretating in this thread. I did this out of the politeness that you would understand in the following threads: You don't fucking know what ruthless criticism means, how this phrase is used. If you were actually interested in engaging this disucssion, instead of living out weird masochistic fantasies (Previously, you PM'd me asking me to 'critiicize you') you would know this. Case in point:

but if you personally attack your socialista revolutionary comrades, the first you will gain is their hatred

Congrats right the fuck back at you, becasue I explicitly stated that putting such pettiness aside is a prerequisite for these spaces in the first place. Hence why I proposed a code of conduct to begin with. "Congrats". Socialist revolutionary comrades in your mind are passive animals who simply must be hearded in this or that direction, I suppose.

Third, you will convince many persons that what you attacked is really a bourgeois ideology, mainly the ones that are initially neutral, and you big-ass texts will gain the attention of those who cannot write such a big-ass text.

In fact I shit on your pretension to neutrality. There is no such thing as unideological neutrality. Someone can think they are neutral but be a bourgeois ideologue. If they are mature enough to put aside their worthless ego, they can come into terms with the fact that they did not fully understand the complete implications of their position.

However, you won’t end up convincing the person you attacked, unless such person has some degree of respect for you. Well, surprise, you are no Vladmir Lenin.

And Vladmir Lenin was no Karl Marx. Your point? The point is that everyone is equally worthless. That was my FUCKING point. You don't fucking need any respect for Rafiq, but respect for what he is saying IN RELATION to YOUR OWN ideas, for so as Rafiq sais, so others can say, so Rafiq thinks, so others can. There is ntohing particular about Rafiq that makes his arguments accessible only to him. This relates to the propensity that which one insists on THEIR OWN EQUAL ACCESS to the conscious use of reason. In other words, RESPECT MUST BE GIVEN NOT ON THE BAIS OF ANYTHING EXTERNAL FROM ONES OWN CONSCIOUS USE OF REASON. What an expert sais is no more commanding of 'respect' than what a homeless person sais. What matters is what they say - not who is saying it. Incidentally an expert can say something more substantial. But not because they can be uncritically accrued, by merit of their identity, a special access to the use of reason.

It's kind of cute actually that you somehow think these constitute substantive arguments.

I realize something akin to what post-modernists defend in your argument, as if we, individuals in a Capitalist society, can liberate ourselves fully from such society. As if by believing in it, we can free ourselves from our individualism, even if we daily practice it. There is something disturbingly close in post-modern political correctness, insofar as both speeches attempt to modify our ideas without modifying the material conditions.

And again, I addressed this - this is just as stupid as saying that unless we change capitalism, we cannot change capitalism. Communism is nothing more than social self-consciousness. The POINT of communism is that material conditions aren't some external force from men and women but are constituted solely by men and women. That means that to be conscious of them is already to have the capacity to determine them - Communism is where consciousness becomes areal material force. I've been over this so many fucking times, it's actually fucking painful to say this on and on. You should KNOW this, for someone who makes pretensions to being so familiar with Rafiq's positions. In fact I cannot even begin to elucidate upon how utterly anti-Marxist and reactionary the position put forward is. Nobody FUCKING sais that speech alone gives one the capacity to be a universal subject, but that yes - changing our consciousness IS what is the prerequisite for being able to traverse and change material conditions. Otherwise, what the fuck are you even saying? In fact, the point is simple: YOU CAN be fully liberated within capitalism, insofar as you are actively struggling against it. Otherwise, what defines the contours of your non-liberation? There is no communist society. YOU ONLY LIVE in capitalism. Communism DERIVES from the antagonisms SOLELY WITHIN capitalism, it doesn't exist "out there", it's not something capitalism is repressing.

Your arguments, frankly, are simply superstitious. One CAN BE A COMMUNIST SUBJECT WITHIN CAPITALISM. End of story. Because Communism is nothing more than the real movement which SEEKS, not which results AFTER, the supersession of our present circumstances. The notion that "Oh, I will resign to my egoism before Communism" is fucking stupid, because Communism is not inevitable in the first place - if you resign to egoism, there will never be a Communism. But surely, Lenin, and others, surely they shared your attitude. Imprisonment, exile, facing death, yeah, they sat back and said "Welp, I'm just going to make fucking excuses". To be aware of something is already to be beyond it, the first step to conquering it. If you don't take the step, you are a coward and a philistine. It's that simple. You simply have no notion of Communism.


just asked me kindly to learn the Lacanian phraseology as if magically the content would chage. I don't give a shit to particular terms. If you can't understand you can descend from the golden throne of lacanian dictionary.

Maybe, child, you should elaborate on what specific terms you find confusing instead of righteously jumping to the conclusion that they are meaningless jargon. Did i fucking say you should 'kindly learn' Lacanian phraseology, child? I didn't. My god, this one. Is this a joke?

The tyranny of Rafiq has come to an end! What a drama! A rebellion! Oh no! Finally, even Guardia Rossa has had enough! What will I do!


Just as Frankfurt school is throughly postmodern and an abandon of Modernity

Which is simply an abuse of fucking words. Nowhere can it be justified, saying that the Fankfurt school was "thoroughly" postmodern, becasue the Frankfurt school preceded any intellectual current which can be designated as postmodern. Finally, I have in the past differentiated postmodernism as an intellectual phenomena as well as a societal one. The latter is that which is elaborated by Frederic Jameson. The former is quite different, but the Frankfurt school belongs to neither tradition. The Frankfurt school was not an abandonment of modernity but a commitment to it (are you FUCKING stupid? Do you even know anything about, say, Adorno's views on art?) what the Frankfurt school sought out to do was capture the internal contradictions within modernity that led to - for example - Fascism.

It's so cute. You have to find some 'thing' to ground Zizek in. Zizek, who said Marcuse's one-dimensional man should be burned in the fire, who is very critical of the Frankfurt school which has culminated in Habermas, not Zizek. He still is a 'part' of that, because the frankfurt school belongs to the broad theoretical tradition of western Marxism, which Zizek engages in. So for the former Fascist Guardia Rossa, who is confronted with notions of "cultural Marxism" by Fascists, most likely, and who is only aware of the Frankfurt school becasue of this, everything short of traditional formalism, edgy "meme" culture, pseudo-Marxism-Leninism is "oh, the frankfurt school" or "Oh, that POSTMODERNISM".

You simply talk out of your ass. What confidence you have from nothing. What if I told you, you literally sound fucking stupid? You sound so stupid it hurts. Aye, aye, what a day this has been.


You criticize everyone as anti-communist, as if you lordly are the only Communist here,

Incidentally this is possible. But it is not true. But even if it was true that I was the only Communist, so what? This is an incidental fact. Nowhere is it written that there must at all times be more than one Marxist. Even if I criticzed each and every person as an anti-Communist, I JUSTIFY This. Do you answer for this justification instead of hurling... Frankly... a hysterical abuse of phraseology like a fucking screaming, wailing child? How fucking infantile can you be, child? Have you literally stooped this low upon being confronted with the abyss of your own complacency in the present failure of the Left?


because oh you Rafiq lacanian edgelord can know how to make the revolution.

If you know, well, show it to us, Lord Rafiq.

What is particularly amusing is how I've fucking struck such a chord in this child. Ultimtaely, it's cutting to the chase: "TELL ME, TELL ME HOW I CAN MAKE THE REVOLUTION!"

As I stated, Guardia Rossa, like the others, wants a master. Rafiq is an unworthy master to them, thus, "U THINK UR DA ONLY COMMUNIST" and os o. He wants a worthy master. Rafiq is modestly telling everyone that they have no right to one - that they are responsible for such things.

I proposed both in What Should I be Doing? And this, that clearly committed socialists need to form intellectual spaces to discuss our concrete predicament, among other things. And Guardia Rossa, as already pointed out, is now jumping to "TELL ME WHAT TO DO TO MAKE REVOLUTION". Child your very insistence on Revolution is false. What a revolution means for you is pathological - that means, your desire for one is clearly in genuine. Had you a genuine desire for a revolution, you would recognize that communism is a process, not simply a fucking blueprint for a revolution, but a process that will ultimately culminate in willfully overthrowing politically the existing order. This won't happen before the class antagonism is consciously accentuated. "Make" the revolution he sais. What kind of child sais this?


Otherwise you are doing nothing more than flaming others, such as 870 and other Revolutionary Socialists here and brewing yourself equally RUTHLESS, PERSONAL opposition.

Well, I welcome their hatred. I don't particularly care what others think of me in relation to their personality. I don't. truly, in fact, I would rather have willing listeners who personally despise me but understand my works, than people who want to be friendly with me personally but are philistines in relation to my posts.

What urgency you instill! Fuck, I better change! I really am harnessing the personal hatred of others! How can I sleep knowing Guardia Rossa, who has mustered up the courage to finally admit his disdain for Rafiq, doesn't like me! The agony!

[Thirsty Crow]

Okay, but you sound convinced I - in fact - don't. So it is simple. You are either giving into my 'demands', or in fact I do not demand attention from anyone.

Of course I do give in - since I think you are a muddleheaded fool whose rants may actually prove to be destructive (even though I think this is unlikely).

I give in verily.


But I even have random people come and message me, who aren't even active, that they appreciate my posts, and I hear people who are not even on this website like them. So clearly this isn't a wasted effort. And that is not to say this makes me so great - it simply means, I don't have to beg anyone to read my posts. I don't. People, by their own devices, for their own reasons, find them useful and informative. They exist, god forbid, they do.

Good for you. It must be that the existential-worthless position of yours was much bolstered by random people appreciating your posts.

It's outstanding.


Okay, that's Rafiq's problem. Not yours. You know where the door is. If you're so convinced no one cares about what Rafiq sais, and that what he seeks to do with others (and what others seek to do with him) is foolish and pointless, what's the problem? Sit back, relax, and enjoy your life.
Not really. It's not your problem because you're a moron who wouldn't face consequences in this case.

So here's a public forum and here are people trying to make sure no gullible people are at the mercy of a veritable fool.


After everything, he still sais this. Frankly everyone sees that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY SPEAKING OF WORTHLESSNESS.

Do you, maybe, want to hang on until one of those random people actually does make the complaint - that I don't understand what you mean by that same term?

That would make it much more legitimate, 'cause you know the rhetorical device of "EVERYONE SEES x" is actually cowardly to the bone.


Worthlessness opens up the space for freedom. If you kill yourself, before abdicating upon your faith to the gods of capital, to being worth something, that isn't Rafiq's fault, because people do this regularly. People, out of feeling worthless, kill themselves.

Nah. Forget about that bullshit. It's not like people can't act relatively freely in the absence of that crippling sense. People do kill themselves regularly, that's true but once you take the mighty high ground and pose as the socialist priest, you're responsible for attentuating that same crippling feeling which it would seem you think is actually a precondition of free action.

Since you do stress this in your writing. Or is it maybe that you're writing isn't to be taken seriously (serious = guiding people's thinking and actions)?


Instead of killing themselves, or denying their worthlessness with their fragile egoisms, Rafiq claims they should accept their worthlessness as freedom, as Marx, as all who succeeded him did. To be a nothing, to have no roots, to have nothing to lose, to have no special privileges, to be a ZERO, to be WORTHLESS, THAT is what it means to be a Communist.

It's not a matter of fragile egoism; it's a matter of our communities and how we fare in these communal affairs.

My simple judgement is that forcing the nominally philosophical point, you effectively cut off the potential routes of meaningful - i.e. mutually bolstering, since we're not worthless pieces of shit - interaction among specific communities; like the one comprised of communists.

Who are actual human beings. With roots - we do remember were we grew up and some of us do have our family to take care of (since other members are unable to). And with certain needs that can't be taken to be illusory effects of a "consumerism"; like the need of basic acknowledging, and in-group status, irrespective of harsh criticism of certain views.

Speaking of which, you won't get far ahead in legitimizing heated debate with this notion. Nor will you get far ahead by failing to recognize that mutual respect - in the case of revolutionary minorities, i.e. groups of communists - is the very basis for that debate being productive. For that, we don't need either to 1) have nothing to lose (which we do, most of us) or 2) accept enforced depersonalization which could result in people shouting over one another. Then it's a matter of who is the best embodiment of tradition - and that cannot possibly enable fruitful debate (and this tradition isn't universal; it's pretty much dependent on actual formulation across time and space, and it varied wildly).

[Rafiq]

The lessson to draw form this thread: Rafiq took to much for granted in such a modest proposal. It takes and musters a lot, it seems, to offer something so modest. People start talking about the revolution, the mass movement and 1920's Soviet Union, far exceeding the practical bounds of the initial post, as though they have too many demons to resolve before they can engage in such modest, practical action. Fascinating, really!

It's like Zizek said: When universal healthcare was proposed in the US, a modest thing, it elicited accusations that Obama was the next Pol Pot. The point is: "Cut the bullshit, this is the logical conclusion of this universal healthcare, the end of ideological individualism!" and so on. It is fascinating really. Much has been learned from this thread.

I know Thirsty's game: He basically formulates, as a 'reasoned' person, an identity of a socialist that is fully compatible with basic conventional philistinism. He brings us at a full circle: using socialist phraseology, we passively accept our present circumstances and that is it.


Of course I do give in - since I think you are a muddleheaded fool whose rants may actually prove to be destructive (even though I think this is unlikely).

Well you aren't doing a good job of preventing this "unlikely" outcome. Thanks for trying though.


Good for you. It must be that the existential-worthless position of yours was much bolstered by random people appreciating your posts.

In fact the point is that it proves that people by their own devices find my posts useful, UNLIKE what you argue - that it's totally a futility, my posts, and that I need to 'demand attention' to get people to listen. I DON'T, people read my posts becasue THEY find them useful, themselves, I don't have to convince them. That doesn't fucking make me any less worthless, because you fail to understand what worthlessness was in relation to - which is precisely the consumerist ego that ought to be done away with, which IS ruthless in relation to the prerogative of socialism. So hard to understand, I know. he keeps fucking mentioning worthlessness while clearly and obviously having no notion of what this word means in relation to how Rafiq initially used it.

He argues like a fucking child, "LUL, u prolly think ur not worthless cuz people aprpeciate ur posts lulululu so ironic". Keep in mind everyone for all the accusations that Rafiq starts flamewars, is a piece of shit, THIRSTY started this discussion with such crass hostility. Because what my post exposed was a sensitivity within him. I am proud of it.


Not really. It's not your problem because you're a moron who wouldn't face consequences in this case.

So here's a public forum and here are people trying to make sure no gullible people are at the mercy of a veritable fool.

So in fact, the prospect that Rafiq may make an impression on 'gullible people' is in fact possible. Which directly contradicts the argument taht "you aren't going to get anywhere" or "you're going to be all alone" and so on. You see, you cannot sustain both of tehse arguments. So no, it isn't your fucking problem.

It's so fucking cute that you attempt to worm your way out of this, because what is clear is that you can't confront the basic point: WHAT IF PEOPLE AGREED WITH RAFIQ FOR THE SAME REASONS RAFIQ AGREES WITH HIS POSITIONS? What if, in other words, by your qualifications for what constitutes "rafiq" here, or his positions, there was more of him? Can't you just say "Whatever, these types of people will never get anywhere". Why do you fucking care? It's not your problem. No one is forcing you to do anything. If you are so confident that I fail, leave, and enjoy your life! It's that simple. Why would people be at my mercy, if in fact I am just a veritable fool? Surely this proves THEY are, by your qualifications, also fools. So what's your problem that fools want to meet up? By merit of being fools, surely they won't get anything done.


That would make it much more legitimate, 'cause you know the rhetorical device of "EVERYONE SEES x" is actually cowardly to the bone.

Okay, "everyone can" see. It doesn't matter. If someone said the exact same thing I am saying to you, why should that make a difference? Why should the name on top of the post make a difference as far as conveying the actual fucking argument?


People do kill themselves regularly, that's true but once you take the mighty high ground and pose as the socialist priest, you're responsible for attentuating that same crippling feeling which it would seem you think is actually a precondition of free action.

That's like fucking saying you're accentuating people's despair by telling them that they are, in fact, not free as they think they are. That's the point: You have to accept that you are a slave before you can free yourself from slavery. Freedom from this bondage, is worth the possibility that some will simply cling too hard on their fantasies that they will kill themselves. The point is that this same crippling feeling can be turned into something authentic, revolutionary and empowering. "Proletarians, you're all just great, you're free, great special little snowflakes, you do you" said the Marxists of the past. No, the point is, YOU ARE nothing, you ARE worthless in this system. To recognize one is a slave, one is worthless, does not mean you have to remain one. Are you literally daft? That's like saying Feminism is immoral because, in fact, telling women that they are not in fact sexually free, equal, may lead to their suicide (and women do commit suicide for reasons that relate to their sexual oppression).In fact my suspciion is that Thirsty is using "other people" for a pretext of himself. He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility. Surely Rafiq can relate to this, because it isn't fucking easy, I never said it was. IF YOU DON'T HAVE FAITH THAT THAT "CRIPPLING FEELING" CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO SOMETHING ELSE, you are NOT a socialist, it's THAT simple! In other words, to INSIST upon this 'crippling feeling' is to insist upon the inevitability of our present order and present relations of power. It is to have faith in the very contour, the very dichotomy that which one evaluates their own sense of worthiness, in its legitimacy and inevitability.

This is the point in demanding faith - faith in ones own potential freedom. It is true that confronting people with this abyss can lead to their suicide. But that ISN'T our fucking fault, it is the fault of a system which instills in them such a lack of confidence. Insisting on being confident cannot be responsible for their suicide, but the context of their inability to have this confidence in the first place. That is why your argument is fucking pathetic. This ISN'T a game. This DOES challenge the very CORE of ones individuality and ones sense of identity, living, to the point where the transition from being an ordinary person to an engaged socialist, IS in a certain way like dying and being reborn - one becomes a new ethical subject, as though their previous one died, as though what was previously "only under conditions of death can I accept this" is actualized, and upon accepting it their previous subjective-ethical existence dies.

You will not dissuade Rafiq with such cheap sentimentality to "Oh, they may kill themselves". I may kill myself if I have no faith. And I insist on it all the same. Many will die in this process, the revolution. Many, many will suffer fates worse than suicide. Own up to this reality or get the fuck out of here.

But this whole argument is fucking POINTLESS here, because such groups aren't made to reach out to ordinary people, but to socialist intellectuals who want to meet up and discuss our circumstances.


It's not a matter of fragile egoism; it's a matter of our communities and how we fare in these communal affairs.

You are responsible for how you fare in your community insofar as you are conscious of your place in it. Rafiq hasn't killed himself. You don't have to either. case fucking closed. There's nothing inside me which makes me special, that allows me to do this where you can't.

Frankly what a stupid and tautological argument. It is precisely a matter of fragile egoism, because you use this egoism to 'fare' in such 'communal affairs'. The point is: This fragile egosim is a way for people to cope with their very real worthlessness in our society. They fight for, like hounds, scraps of being able to feel like fully constituted, dignified human beings under the logic that their 'communal affairs' demand. IT IS THIS LOGIC which is attacked by socialists - THAT ONE IS NOT A BILLIONAIRE DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE TO REMAIN WORTHLESS, that one ISN'T a 'somebody' insofar as one is a 'somebody' to the logic of capital DOES NOT MEAN one must remain undignified. "How they fare in these communal affairs", well that is what is criticized - if you accept how they fare as an inevitability, then you deny socialism. If black people fare in their communities by joining gangs and becoming addicted to heroin (i.e. 70's,), does that mean you accept this as an inevitability of their existence?

Communism, consciousness, is the bridge between is and ought.


My simple judgement is that forcing the nominally philosophical point, you effectively cut off the potential routes of meaningful - i.e. mutually bolstering, since we're not worthless pieces of shit - interaction among specific communities; like the one comprised of communists.

No, an authentic bolstering of confidence happens only when one completely kills their consumerist-ego and replaces it with an ego that consciously expresses the universality of the class struggle. You don't understand the fucking point. You can't have your bourgeois-subjective individuality, ego bolstered and flattered while being true to your socialist identity. The former must die. So yes, we are worthless pieces of shit - recognizing this opens up the space that which what we contribute (and not 'us') as such can be worth something.


Who are actual human beings. With roots - we do remember were we grew up and some of us do have our family to take care of (since other members are unable to).

This is just as fucking pathetic as saying "We rae actual human beings - I can't help sexually harassing a women, it's my instinct". To make a pretension to something YOU CLAIM YOU ARE CONSCIOUS OF, that directly controls you, means you insist on your unfreedom and your ideological subjugation. There is nothing restraining you but the contours of your own ideological commitments, which are superstitious, which you guise in the form of your 'memories', which SIMPLY AREN'T ENOUGH TO ATTACH YOU TO YOUR "ROOTS". To CUT your roots, and assume universality does not regard how many memories you have, but what you do with them and how you articulate them.

"Human beings" he said - literally so fucking pathetic. As though physiologically being a 'human' is grounds enough to sustain all of this - ideological - dimensions. Your humanity does not justify your ideological devotion to the idols of capital. YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE, especially since you claim to be aware of this limitation. Any limitation YOU ARE AWARE OF, is a CONTINGENCY, not an inevitability. That means it is possible you can overcome it, even if for contingent reasons you lack the means. In this case you do possess the means - your own subjective existence and nothing more. "Human beings" who are willing to cut their roots and foresake their consumerist egoism, these are the human beings that which my post was directd towards. If you INSIST upon it righteously, this has nothing to do with you - we have nothing to say to you, for you are then a class enemy in theory. The same way I don't seek to organize Fascists, I don't seek to help organize righteous egoists.


Nor will you get far ahead by failing to recognize that mutual respect - in the case of revolutionary minorities, i.e. groups of communists - is the very basis for that debate being productive.

Still he doesn't even fucking read the arguments I ADDRESSED AT HIM. Do you FUCKING UNDERSTAND that the qualificaitons for respect being put ont he lines of: IF YOU EVEN POLITELY criticize me, you are disrespecting me? To EVEN MAKE PEOPLE ACCOUTABLE FOR THEIR VIEWS IN A POLITE WAY, is INTERPRETED as disrespect under-the-radar. That's the fucking point. I am saying: At the expense of your identity and your stupid individuality, BE IMMERSED and BE COMMITTED to the ACTUAL arguments in relation to the collective prerogatives that which each individual must relate to actively.

It's not that you are ignoring this argument - it's that YOU ARE INCAPABLE of articulating it. You are IDEOLOGICALLY responding by attempting to guise your REAL revulsion, a petty bourgeois and superstitious one, that cannot be consciously articulated, with something that seems basically a truism: "Be respectful or no one will have a productive debate with you". What interests us is not what you are outwardly saying, but what is indirectly being insinuated by this. That's how ideology works.


For that, we don't need either

We simply will never agree on the qualifications for a 'constructive debate'. It's that simple. That is because as I pointed out before, OUR PRACTICAL prerogatives differ. You are a bourgeois ideologue. Rafiq is a Communist. You simply do not have the same inclination as Rafiq and actively justify this differing inclination with socialist phraseology. But all the same, we will do it. We will. Rafiq will do it anyway and you will not stop him or any of those like him. We will PRACTICALLY do this without your permission.


have nothing to lose (which we do, most of us)

Then "most of us" know where the door is. You don't have to use your head - you don't HAVE to pay attention to Rafiq. You don't, bless you. You are free. Freely sink yourself in that which you treasure, which you have to lose. Go ahead. No one's really stopping you. No one's forcing you. So you have nothing to lose. Okay, stay with your attachments in this order. Your sense of guarantee and comfort. Enjoy it. You shouldn't have to worry about us "Crazy' morons, for we won't be able to make a difference anyway. So enjoy yourself and have a nice life.

To have something to lose in this context means to have something to lose insofar as you have a foot placed squarely in the existing order. That is what it means to have something to lose - to have something to lose insofar as your subjectivity is attached to the sustenance of the existing order of things. If you have something to lose in this network of social relations, you are not a socialist.


accept enforced depersonalization

Enforced how? Are you stupid? How can such a thing be forced? It cannot. The point is that OUT OF THE INCLINATION, in THEIR OWN HEARTS they do this, because they simply find our present situation intolerable and have nothing to lose, are willing to sacrifice everything for the victory of the damned and the worthless. The only way this could be 'enforced' is if one forces people to participate in such groups at gunpoint. But no one is. People will have to accept a code of conduct before meeting up in such a group. They will accept this without anyone forcing it. If they can't accept it, no one is forcing them to pay attention or to join.


Then it's a matter of who is the best embodiment of tradition - and that cannot possibly enable fruitful debate

And what is being contested is the notion that these are mutually exclusive - PREICSELY ALL DEBATE NECESSARILY REVOLVES AROUND ITS RELAITON TO A COMMON UNIVERSALITY, WHO CAN BEST AND MOST ACCURATELY EMBODY IT. Whether one is CONSCIOUS of this or not is irrelavent. Thirsty thinks he is best embodying the proper use of universal reason than Rafiq, is best embodying the universal impulse of how a socialist ought to approach the situation, and so on. Consciously acknowledging this has always made it: THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO BEST EMBODY the tradition WERE The ones who led. That's the whole fucking point. As if a debate is between particular individuals who exist in a vacuum - THEIR INDIVIDUALITY is constituted toward a UNIVERSALITY they relate to, IN THE FIRST place. That is the axiom of any and all use of language, conscious or non conscious. You can't even be a fucking subject otherwise. Who wins a debate is always about who accruatley embodies a tradition the best way. It has always been this way not only for us, it is an inevitable fact of any debate - for debates are constituted SOLELY on these lines. THE ONLY REASON there are debates is because people argue over THIS, over common things. I mean what you fucking say is worthy of Ayn Rand. Truly.


(and this tradition isn't universal; it's pretty much dependent on actual formulation across time and space, and it varied wildly).

It is universal, because it is irreducible to anything particular. It relates to the universality of our common social totality itself consciously. That is what makes the tradition universal. For something to be universal doesn't mean it's fucking trans-historic, holy shit, you simply don't understand what I am saying.

[Thirsty Crow]

I know Thirsty's game: He basically formulates, as a 'reasoned' person, an identity of a socialist that is fully compatible with basic conventional philistinism. He brings us at a full circle: using socialist phraseology, we passively accept our present circumstances and that is it.

So...I'm confused. Hell this doesn't even work as a high-brow insult really.

Basic conventional philistine-being, that would be me right?

But at the same time I'm using socialist phraseology perhaps so deceptively so no single person would no I'm a philistine?

Is that it?


Well you aren't doing a good job of preventing this "unlikely" outcome. Thanks for trying though.
Shame on me. I can't break through the sheer fortitude of your views which makes random people contact you and express their appreciation for your ideas.




In fact the point is that it proves that people by their own devices find my posts useful, UNLIKE what you argue - that it's totally a futility, my posts, and that I need to 'demand attention' to get people to listen. I DON'T, people read my posts becasue THEY find them useful, themselves, I don't have to convince them. That doesn't fucking make me any less worthless, because you fail to understand what worthlessness was in relation to - which is precisely the consumerist ego that ought to be done away with, which IS ruthless in relation to the prerogative of socialism. So hard to understand, I know. he keeps fucking mentioning worthlessness while clearly and obviously having no notion of what this word means in relation to how Rafiq initially used it.
I'm not arguing that all you say is futile.

In fact, I think there's a likelihood that some people might take up this mighty fine writing and act upon it. It's not really that likely, but hell it's possible. That's why I'm responding to this thread, as I've already said.


He argues like a fucking child, "LUL, u prolly think ur not worthless cuz people aprpeciate ur posts lulululu so ironic". Keep in mind everyone for all the accusations that Rafiq starts flamewars, is a piece of shit, THIRSTY started this discussion with such crass hostility. Because what my post exposed was a sensitivity within him. I am proud of it.

Do you really want to go there?

Do you want quotes from you, directed at for instance GiantMonkeyMan?

Fuck I can play this game all day long, no problem.


It's so fucking cute that you attempt to worm your way out of this, because what is clear is that you can't confront the basic point: WHAT IF PEOPLE AGREED WITH RAFIQ FOR THE SAME REASONS RAFIQ AGREES WITH HIS POSITIONS? What if, in other words, by your qualifications for what constitutes "rafiq" here, or his positions, there was more of him? Can't you just say "Whatever, these types of people will never get anywhere". Why do you fucking care? It's not your problem. No one is forcing you to do anything. If you are so confident that I fail, leave, and enjoy your life! It's that simple. Why would people be at my mercy, if in fact I am just a veritable fool? Surely this proves THEY are, by your qualifications, also fools. So what's your problem that fools want to meet up? By merit of being fools, surely they won't get anything done.


Sunshine, what I am worming out of actually?

As far as I'm concerned I'm calling a spade a spade - and in this case it amounts to calling a fool a fool.



Okay, "everyone can" see. It doesn't matter. If someone said the exact same thing I am saying to you, why should that make a difference? Why should the name on top of the post make a difference as far as conveying the actual fucking argument?
It wouldn't make a difference. Because it's a profoundly stupid position, no matter who expresses it.

Wow hey, does that make me in line with your code or something?


In fact my suspciion is that Thirsty is using "other people" for a pretext of himself. He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility.

Okay, gloves of you little scum.

Yes, I've been close to ending my life. However, I do know people in a similar position have also been close to that end (the only point being my oh so sad a tale isn't exceptional).

Now. Tell me again that I'm a coward who "confronted with the abyss of his own freedom", would rather "kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility".

So no more abstractions between you and your target. Go on.

[Guardia Rossa]

Lol.

[Rafiq]

Shame on me. I can't break through the sheer fortitude of your views which makes random people contact you and express their appreciation for your ideas.

He still mentions this as though Rafiq said this in order to gloat, or in order to talk about how great he is. the fact of the matter, child, is that I was justifying that I don't have to fucking force anyone to read my posts, incluidng you - I don't need to force you to do anything. I siply said: You can get the fuck out, because there are enough people who by their own devices find practical use in what is written by someone who happens to be Rafiq. No one is begging you to stay. No one forces you to pay attention to Rafiq's threads, so why do they matter in your mind? If you can't prevent other individuals inevitably agreeing with me, how do you even justify your engagement? The point is that it is clear that every human subject is volatile and unstable with regard to the stories they tell themselves, you included. What Rafiq has successfully done, is instill you a basic sense of anxiety that I may in fact be correct. If this anxiety didn't exist, you wouldn't find it necessary to participate in the thread.


In fact, I think there's a likelihood that some people might take up this mighty fine writing and act upon it. It's not really that likely, but hell it's possible. That's why I'm responding to this thread, as I've already said.

But the same way that others may be convinced by my arguments, the same way they will be able to see the utter stupidity in yours. What you fail to understand is that people are simply not 'gullible' as it concerns these complex theoretical matters. If people agree with me, it is because they themselves relate to it actively as independent subjects, they aren't being 'misled' by Rafiq (because I am not pealing to their common sense philistinism, I am in fact confronting them with the CHOICE to think critically, if they take it, I didn't force them - something IN THEIR OWN HEARTS allowed them to do it).

So you are in fact not fulfilling your intended justification for response - what you are saying is not going to convince anyone who was not otherwise convinced that Rafiq is full of shit, a crazy person, an asshole, and whatever you want. Nobody is going to be convinced of your arguments where they weren't already disagreeing with me, that's what you fail to understand: That is because none of your arguments are that profound - they are cheap, misrepresentating of the arguments at hand, and basically derived from conventional philistine logic.


Do you want quotes from you, directed at for instance GiantMonkeyMan?

And the 'hostility' was perfectly justified. You don't have to directly call someone names to dismiss them, to insult them, to 'flame' them and to behave discussions in a totally dishonest, groundlessly dismissive and righteously ignorant matter.


Sunshine, what I am worming out of actually?

If Rafiq is a fool, so are people who agree with him for hte same reasons that Rafiq agrees with himself. So the same way you dismiss and attack Rafiq, why not dismiss and attack them? That's the fucking point: You are worming your way out of justifying your 'participation' in this discussion with your pretensions to: "I'm actually scared people will take seriously this fool". You cannot justify this. You cannot justify why Rafiq has special powers of compulsion over others, while also being a fool. You cannot justify how rafiq can 'force' others to agree with him. If others, by their own devices agree with Rafiq, then how do you justify attacking them? Why do you care? Again, it's not like the viewers are the plebs we're competing over. they can think for themselves, so stop fucking using them as an excuse.

If you are so convinced that this will end up an abysmal failure, sit back, relax, enjoy your life, and fuck off. You aren't contributing to the context of this thread, because this was made with the precondtiion of those actually engaged and willing, people who want to do this but who may be lost, may not have a good idea of how to set things up, and so on. If you're not willing, I am not here to force you. So enjoy your life, you know where the door is.

Keep in mind I KNOW VERY WELL this won't work. Because you CAN'T enjoy your life. Your subjective ethical exsitence is just as volatile as anyoen elses (including mine). This kind of thing torments your mind and your soul, it induces a sense of anxiety and so on. My point is: THIS IS WHY people are willing, Rafiq doesn't have to instill this willfullness, it is already in the hearts of most socialist intellectuals, they simply haven't worked it out correctly.

This is why it is justified: Socialism owes you nothing, because you yourself already feel obligated in some way to it, even if you justify this with pretensions that IT OUGHT to owe you something. That is why at the onset of attacking this feeling of entitlement, people like you explode. They aren't simply rational individuals following rational self interest. No, their ego and identity is quite volatile.


It wouldn't make a difference. Because it's a profoundly stupid position, no matter who expresses it.

Yet you just stated that "Why don't you wait for someone else to agree with you" and whatever. You're right, it wouldn't make a difference. That is the FUCKING point. You don't understand what you're talking about, consciously that is, and it's that simple. Anyone else can see this if they are so inclined to see it. You are blatantly misrepresenting the arguments as they have been put forward.


Yes, I've been close to ending my life. However, I do know people in a similar position have also been close to that end

Join the club. It's cute that you attempt to throw this in, as though we are going to dispense with the use of reason, as though this is supposed to scare us into shirking from the argument, because of this. The fact of the matter is that - how do you factor in the fact that Rafiq, in fact, was at a time also very close, exactly for this reason, that only by chance this did not happen?

But in fact, I did not even 'predict' this was something you were confronted with. I said that I suspected you would rather do this than be confronted with the harrowing responsibility of your own freedom, not that you have attempted it before, but that in your own mind, you were thinking "I'd rather die than muster up the courage to do this" and so on. I never fucking said that you were a 'coward' for having previously been suicidal (?), I never said anything CLOSE to this!

You are far from the only person who has been close to ending their life, that IS NOT AN EXCUSE, is my point, for being able to recognize ones 'worthlessness', the 'fear' that someone may commit suicide. This is a cheap excuse and an appeal to philistine sentimentality - it is the last ditch effort precisely to encourage passivity and complacency with a pretension to "PEOPLE MIGHT KILL THEMELVES, U MONSTER". You are simpy wrong anyway, because the result of people recognizing, truly, their worthlessness in that context, and being offended by it would never be suicide but a righteous insistence on their ego. The possibility of suicide is not an excuse, if one is so attached to their faith in the idols of capital that this is the only choice, that is not Rafiq's fault, it is a much deeper problem, as I stated.

My point is that the only reason one would commit suicide is the anxiety that derives from their faith in the existing order - that if they are nothing in this existing order, they are inevitably nothing and ought to die, so that all that keeps one alive is their faith that they are a somebody as it concerns the logic of what it means to be worth something in our present order. The point is rather than commit suicide, one ought to embrace having nothing to lose, absolutely nothing to ground you in this existing order - or your faith in it. The point is I am pointing out that you are PATHETICALLY, in a cheap-sentimental way, using this as a pre-text to justify your rabid fear of socialism. "Oh, don't! Don't take your ideas that seriously! It may push people to suicide" and so on.

Nowhere was it stated you were exceptional, because I didn't even include you into the 'suicidal people' in question. In fact I ACKNOWLEDGED that many people do consider suicide when confronted with this abyss. Many people do contemplate it. My point wasn't that it is irrelevant - my point is that what it represents is faithlessness, literally, hopelessness. It is quite disgusting that you have interpreted this in terms of attacking people who are suicidal - far from this, my point is that the source of this propensity to suicide is faithlessness.


Now. Tell me again that I'm a coward who "confronted with the abyss of his own freedom", would rather "kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility".

Here's what I told you:

Surely Rafiq can relate to this, because it isn't fucking easy, I never said it was. IF YOU DON'T HAVE FAITH THAT THAT "CRIPPLING FEELING" CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO SOMETHING ELSE, you are NOT a socialist, it's THAT simple! In other words, to INSIST upon this 'crippling feeling' is to insist upon the inevitability of our present order and present relations of power. It is to have faith in the very contour, the very dichotomy that which one evaluates their own sense of worthiness, in its legitimacy and inevitability.

So in fact, I acknowledged actually that this is not an easy matter, to place ones faith in Socialism, therefore themselves. I did not say you are a 'coward' so to speak, for wanting to choose suicide over assuming the harrowing responsibility of assuming your own freedom, I told you that you are a coward that you do not recognize that this is the basis of speaking of 'suicide' as such, you are a coward for insisting on your ignorance, not for the 'feeling' itself, but for refusing to understand and properly articulate it. My point is not a pretension to any attempted suicide on anyone's part meaning they are a coward, but that your pretension to the idea that "this will cause people to commit suicide" ITSELF emanated from your own rabid fear. It came from your own insistence on your faith in the existing order, where if one cannot fulfill what it is to be a human being in capitalism, one should simply die.

I welcome your hatred, Thirsty. And no matter your hatred, I will hold you to a higher standard. Because you are responsible for your ethical existence. You are. No excuses. You are. This bothers you, I know. It elicits your total outrage, because I have clearly hit a nerve. The difference is that there is nothing wrong with being weak, so long as you recognize it. You don't, you insist righteously upon your own weakness.

You demand a master, and you attack Rafiq because he isn't a good one. It's easy to have a master. It's not easy to own up to this yourself, to have ones faith in socialism not placed in anything outside of them.

[Thirsty Crow]

Join the club. It's cute that you attempt to throw this in, as though we are going to dispense with the use of reason, as though this is supposed to scare us into shirking from the argument, because of this.
Now it's neither here nor there if I were honest in saying that (90% of this crap is definitely neither here nor there but nowhere at all) . However, the reason I wrote that was the unsolicited speculation on your behalf


In fact my suspciion is that Thirsty is using "other people" for a pretext of himself. He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility.

Post number 31.

So to get things straight. You think it's okay to speculate on a person's history with regard to suicidal thoughts, and to claim at the same time that it is a pretext, an alibi, which is meant to cover their immersion in ideology?

And a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

[Rafiq]

So to get things straight. You think it's okay to speculate on a person's history with regard to suicidal thoughts, and to claim at the same time that it is a pretext, an alibi, which is meant to cover their immersion in ideology?

And a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

No, it wouldn't.

I did not speculate about your history.

I said that it is possible that you would rather, ethically, consider it better to die than to, upon being confronted with the abyss of your own freedom, assume the harrowing responsibility of it. I did not say that you attempted suicide before, or that you ever considered dying.

I said that ethically speaking you may rather choose death. I didn't say you actually do feel worthless, truly recognize your 'worthlessness' in our society, I said:

He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility.

I did not say the only choice is between death and assuming this harrowing responsibility, but that if it came down to it - which I am not assuming it does, or did, you would rather die. It is that simple. That doesn't mean you feel like you HAVE to assume this responsibility with the only way out being death, but that if it were true, this would be the case (as was my suspicion).

One, would not have to choose death, because as you stated you have something to lose in our existing order that you can 'rely' on, find a sense of guarantee and comfort in. This is why people do not kill themselves inevitably. If someone would rather choose death over eating an apple, that doesn't mean that they must eat an apple or die, but that if it came down to being forced to eat an apple. Clearly, you have a foot in the existing order, have faith in it - so if anything you could have (wrongfully) used the fact that you attempted suicide as DISPROVING my 'speculation', that in fact, "No, you're wrong, I did try before" and so on. This would have been wrong, but it would have at least made more sense than what you are saying.

Often times one IS NOT confronted with the abyss of their own freedom and out of pure faithlessness and hopelessness commits suicide precisely becasue they don't even have the option otherwise, or feel like there is another option (a scary one).


to claim at the same time that it is a pretext, an alibi, which is meant to cover their immersion in ideology?

No, you may be 'genuine' in this excuse, that does not change the fact: It's no different than making a pretension to "What about the kids!" with regard to homophobia. Someone might actually truly be worried about "the kids" in their homophobia, it doesn't change the fact that this is an ideological retreat.

[Thirsty Crow]

Good. You evade the question.

You know something about a code of conduct I'd cling to? It's to get rid of public forums of people like you.

Which is precisely what I want to do, and no sunshine I've no problems with saying this out in the open.

[Rafiq]

Good. You evade the question.

"You're an asshole. I'm going to uncritically assert this

Now,

Do you think it's okay to be an asshole? Yes or no please, nothing else".

Great question, but clearly one doesn't have to agree they are an asshole. Likewise it is unjustified to assume uncritically that Rafiq was 'speculating' about your history at all. The reality is that in a paranoiac way, you think I in fact have magical predictive powers regarding your past, and this threaten you - which is simply juvenile to the point of being embarrassing.


Which is precisely what I want to do, and no sunshine I've no problems with saying this out in the open.

Please, go ahead. This forum has rules, set in place. If the administration, which runs Revleft, finds it necessary to remove me, it is for reasons that pertain to the rules that are set in place, and I would - regardless of whether Thirsty tried his best to flame that fire - respect the decision. No really, I would.

So please, give it your best shot, try and get me removed. You might succeed, really. It won't, unfortunately for you, make my position any less correct and your positions any less totally fucking demolished. I can have that dignity long after I'm banned from Revleft, if it ever comes to that.

[Thirsty Crow]

Great question, but clearly one doesn't have to agree they are an asshole. Likewise it is unjustified to assume uncritically that Rafiq was 'speculating' about your history at all. The reality is that in a paranoiac way, you think I in fact have magical predictive powers regarding your past, and this threaten you - which is simply juvenile to the point of being embarrassing.

Really.


In fact my suspciion is that Thirsty is using "other people" for a pretext of himself. He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility.

Do I need to break this down for your puny mind to be able to actually get what is going on?

You're suspecting - speculating - that I'm using "other people" as pretext for my own actual case. And my own actual case is that I "may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom", I "would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility."

You know what pretext is? When someone is using folks as pretext, it's basically dishonest posturing on that same person's behalf and bullshit reason to actually invoke other people in the first place.


So please, give it your best shot, try and get me removed. You might succeed, really. It won't, unfortunately for you, make my position any less correct and your positions any less totally fucking demolished.
You simply don't get it, do you?

It's not okay to engage people like this. Worst of all, this is what you seem to views as desirable as part of your idea of positive conduct. Which includes ideological shaming, of which this particular episode can really serve you well as "how-to 101".


I can have that dignity long after I'm banned from Revleft, if it ever comes to that.Fuck your dignity.

We're all worthless, remember?

[Rafiq]

You're suspecting - speculating - that I'm using "other people" as pretext for my own actual case. And my own actual case is that I "may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom", I "would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility."

I said you're referring to others to guise your own views on the matter. This is not a particularly uncommon argument I use. For example, in threads regarding religion, family and nature, when people say "You're going to scare others off", I always confront them by responding: "No, YOU are scared off, it repulses YOU, ideas of the abolition of the family, etc.". That doesn't mean other people aren't scared off to - but that ones assumption that all others will be scared off inevitably resides in their own repulsion that they cannot get over. Understand? So as one can think, so others can think. So as one feels, others can feel.

This is how, in line with the spirit of my posts, the big other works. One never simply assumes an identity, one has an idea of what the others think (which may or may not be true - in this case, other people do share these feelings), and this is how they themselves think. Case in point, as I elaborated, it is like antisemitism: Even if you tell yourself you do not care about white power and are against racism - does the Jew know it? is the Jew against racism (or actually exerting their particular racial interests anyway)? That is my point. My point was that people's propensity to suicide relates to how they themselves actively relate to something far beyond them, and that ultimately, it is not inevitable that they must be driven to suicide - that there is another option, namely, faith. My point was that others are just like you, Thirsty. They are just like you. So I'm holding you accountable and responsible, not them, because you yourself are an example of why they are faithless, you encapsulate this.

So if the argument is: "Nevermind me, what about the others?" - if others were able to get over it in the same way, there would be no "others". I therefore hold YOU accountable in the same way I would hold them accountable as individuals. I'm not talking to 'them' though, I'm talking to you.

So when I say:

In fact my suspciion is that Thirsty is using "other people" for a pretext of himself. He speaks of suicide, becasue he may be so immersed in ideology that upon being confronted with the abyss of his own freedom, he would rather kill himself than assume this harrowing responsibility.

If this was to say anything about your own particular predisposition to suicide, or a pst of it, then the point of my argument would be that "Thirsty is now going to commit suicide, upon being confronted", not that you did it in the past. Thankfully this had ntohing to do with your particular predisposition to suicide as such, but how you particularly relate to the point:

The point is that rather than JUST emanating some genuine concern about other people, this was about how you yourself see this radical abyss. I did not fucking say you were poised with the choice of killing yourself or assuming the responisbiliyt of it, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. What I said is that IF YOU WERE confronted with this choice, truly, to the point where you HAVE to act upon this confonrtation, you would ethically think it is better to die. This has nothing to do with you IN PARTICULAR but what YOU THINK it is normal, ethically, what is to be 'expected' for others to do.

This is what you fail to understand, and for all pretensions to 'simple-mindedness', it's actually pretty pathetic that at this point you are so uncritically confident in your interpretation of my argument that no matter what I say - unless its' a "yes or no" it's "avoiding the argument".

So you fail to justify how this has anything to do with any kind of past. Clearly, as I state,d you aren't forced to act upon being confronted with the radical choice, but instead are offended by it and it strikes a sensitivity. It doesn't have to compel action unless you truly have nothing to lose and have no stake in the existing order, which I claim qualifies you as a bourgeois ideologue - in that YOU DO attach your identity, have something to lose as it pertains to your consciousness - an insistence on the sense of guarantee the existing order provides, and so on.


You know what pretext is? When someone is using folks as pretext

The significance of you using others was only to emphasize that this relates to your own positions which you are not consciously articulating. That is my point. You uncritically assume this because you yourself think this is the only, inevitably way you approach the matter. that was my point: My suspciion was that, is that, ethically speaking your faith in the existing order is so great that you would rather die than have the responsibility of having no sense of external guarantee, and so on. I didn't say you feel it necessary that either death or this responsibility are the only two options - but that if they were, you would rather choose death.

Do you not understand basic logic?


It's not okay to engage people like this. Worst of all, this is what you seem to views as desirable as part of your idea of positive conduct. Which includes ideological shaming, of which this particular episode can really serve you well as "how-to 101".

It's not okay to engage Fascists, bourgeois ideologues, evangelicals and so on in certain ways, no. Thankfully the standards of engaging committed and dedicated socialists are different from engaging them.

At least Rafiq is ethically consistent. I don't really care if someone wants me dead, hates my guts, and so on. Hence why Rafiq isn't going to, for example, return the favor and try to get Thirsty banned or whatever. I simply don't care. Likewise, Rafiq doesn't hold grudges either, and never has. Insofar as he attacks someone (like 870) it was owed to their persistent errors. Even then, I would like their posts regarding the natural sciences.


Fuck your dignity.

We're all worthless, remember?

Yes, I remember what I said. What does this have to do with dignity?

Precisely nothing. If one's dignity is inevitably tied to their sense of worthiness in serving the idols of capital, this is not the same kind of dignity.

In fact acknowledging ones worthlessness is a precondition of any real dignity. The kind of dignity where you save yourself from fighting over what little scraps the bourgeoisie leaves the egoistic subjects in capitalism, scraps that make them feel like they're worth something, including the ability to command respect of others uncritically. No, precisely denouncing this game is what is truly dignified - precisely putting aside ones petty ego and recognizing their worthlessness is the most dignified thing one can do.

[Lord Testicles]

At least Rafiq is ethically consistent. I don't really care if someone wants me dead, hates my guts, and so on. Hence why Rafiq isn't going to, for example, return the favor and try to get Thirsty banned or whatever. I simply don't care. Likewise, Rafiq doesn't hold grudges either, and never has. Insofar as he attacks someone (like 870) it was owed to their persistent errors. Even then, I would like their posts regarding the natural sciences.

Talking about yourself in the third person is a sure sign you need to get out more. Makes me think:


rafiq do you actually do anything other than post on here

[Ele'ill]

"If you're shy, get over it!" is not really a healthy analysis of how to engage within social groupings or of social groupings itself and seems to be based off participation for the sake of itself which isn't useful. It overlooks mental health among other things, imo.

[Rafiq]

"If you're shy, get over it!" is not really a healthy analysis of how to engage within social groupings or of social groupings itself and seems to be based off participation for the sake of itself which isn't useful. It overlooks mental health among other things, imo.

Is having speaking turns not participation for the sake of it? Of course confidence ought to be encouraged by others - say, when it is clear someone has something to say and is too shy. And to add, what should be clarified is that people should not fear speaking, and so on. That is different from rationing speaking turns, which creates a tension between speaking as a sign of particular power in the group, and the substance of what you are actually saying.

[#FF0000]

I think what would help is if you had any actual experience in working with other people, because it's clear that you have less than none.

[Rudolf]

So feelings aren't worthless nor meaningless they often have a political basis. I'm not surrounded by paragons of mental and physical health i'm surrounded by people who have been brutalised on a daily basis. Shit can be triggering and turning round implying someone's weak or how they feel lacks worth and meaning is bordering on dismissing the everyday effects of exploitation and oppression on individual's physical and mental health. It doesn't help and it leans towards victim blaming.

Oh and there is something wrong with interrupting people, it's gendered and communists are not immune.

[odysseus]

Tl;dr

If you want to facilitate a genuine debate, a battle of ideas, then just adopt the debate rules for Speech and Debate classes. For example, in the US, we have the nfl, aka National Forensics League.

And as a helpful guide in logical fallacies, this is user friendly https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Also I believe turns are good for letting people make their argument. Then you get a turn to refute. That sort of thing.

[Rafiq]

There re two Rafiq's engaging in this thread. There is one Rafiq who is exactly what he posts, and there is another Rafiq, an imaginray punching bag for our resident liberals, so they can play the hero, the Rafiq who advocates abusing the weak, calling others exceptionally worthless (while he is apparently not), and who advocates for unconditionally interrupting people just for the fucking sake of it.

Everyone has this fucking disugsting attitude which is completely reactionary and anti-socialist - namely, that people can only be herded like animals, that they lack the capacity for conscious, active agency, that their actions, 'behavior' is ecological and in fact does not relate to complex, volatile and unstable dimensions in their own consciousness which they actively relate to, but are the product of either their 'enviroment' (i.e. rules set up) or something innate inside of them. This sacred individual space is what is violated and disrespected in socialism. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to this UNCRITICAL island of 'normality', of 'bro, thats just how it is". RUTHLESS CRITICISM KNOWS NO BOUNDS, THERE IS NO PRIVATE SPACE WHICH YOU RESPECT, "That's just them, bro, how humans are". Communism is nothing mroe than social self-consciousness - NOTHING more. There is nothing that you can insist upon that is going to compel you in this or that direction - upon consciousnesses, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for your ethical exsitence.

NO. FUCKING. EXCUSES! Your existence is purely a contingency, you have a duty and a responsibility towards it in the same way that the socialist a hundred years ago, who did not with such pettiness make a pretension to "Well that's just how people are"! You either assume this responsibility, or stop pretending to be a socialist.

You see people don't want to use their heads. They want to think "OH, so in this abstract scenerio, we can just FREELY interrupt people for no reason? You think that is morally correct?". It is no different from saying: "In socialism, what is going to stop me from raping 1000 babies if there is no police?".

They do not want to think critically, think about why someone would do such a thing, why people would be able to prevent such a thing, and why people, with the precondition that they are all engaged and committed solely to the cause of Socialism, would interrupt people FOR ANY OTHER REASON that this is justified in the context OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY being said.

The problem with socialist intellectuals today is simple: It's not that our conditions disallow this or that - it's that they insist on their excuses and their fear of actually taking their self-proclaimed ideas seriously.

The greatest obstacle is the fact that the true ideological constellations which underlie the pathology of people who call themselves "socialists' is not confronted or touched upon by the conscious implications of their 'socialist' identity, it's simply unaccounted for, assumed.

That is our obstacle, and that is why what this has taught me is that it is more and more likely that those who presently identify as radicals must be left behind, for they are largely irredeemable. We have a fresh, new generation which is more and more politically conscious. These are our future socialists, this young, fresh new generation who are not yet righteous partisans of ruling ideology.


I think what would help is if you had any actual experience in working with other people, because it's clear that you have less than none.

You are simply wrong. How's that for clarity, then?

And frankly, what you say is pure vomit. "Working with other people". Are other people fucking animals and Rafiq simply has to master them? Tame them? You see nowhere has it been implied that AT THE ONSET we are trying to attract people who are not already consiocusly engaged and inclined in the ideas of Socialism who simply lack direction, want something to do and are dissatisfied with the Left today. "Other people" - sorry, WE HAVEN'T EVEN got to dealing with the state of consciousens in "other people".

Socialist intelligentsia, potential activists, partisans of our cause, ARE FULLY AND COMPLETELY responsible for themselves. They have no fucking excuses. If you say that "other people can't put aside their pettiness", WHAT are you really saying? That they are animals and that it's inevitable? That they can't take serious the ideas they make a pretension to? That their pettiness is an inevitability of their genetic, biological existence? WHAT are you saying? That this is a sacred island of private space that cannot be subject to ruthless criticism?

People need to question every single fucking thing about them, because we are so immersed in ideology today that nothing can be taken for granted. To be responsible for ones ethical existence means - YOU CANNOT UNCRITICALLY assume ANYTHING about yourself. You can't fucking say "i'm this way because" - you become RESPONSIBLE for everything about you, if you are a committed radical. There is no pretension to something outside of you. If you are aware of something that 'influences' your existence, this awareness is a practical one, that potentially becomes under your control. Not the external thing itself necessarily, BUT HOW IT purportedly 'influences' you.

What I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY was that people should be scolded for not being able to do this by default, I DIDNT SAY THAT IF PEOPLE ARE NOT AS KNOWLEDGEABLE OR AS IDEOLOGICALLY DISCIPLINED THEY SHOULD BE KICKED OUT. What I said is that IF THEY RIGHTEOUSLY INSIST upon it, we have nothing to say to them. if they are willing to engage in ruthless criticism, then there is no problem - this would be an environment of learning for them where they can question such things. If they have no practical inclination in the first place to question the core of their being, we have nothing to say to them.


So feelings aren't worthless nor meaningless they often have a political basis. I'm not surrounded by paragons of mental and physical health i'm surrounded by people who have been brutalised on a daily basis.

The context of "your feelings are worthless, they are meaningless" was precisely an acknowledgement, recognition of their basic contingency. Which means that ones feelings are totally arbitrary, contingent, cannot be used so as to make excuses for real theoretical, political, ideological engagement. Hence my point:

Your particular feelings... Are worthless. They are meaningless. You are either a partisan of the tradition of the Left or you are a philistine who identities with this tradition for some other particular reason.

The point being that the way in which one articulates their feelings alone as meaning anything is wrong - feelings are contingent, and are socially controversial, that is, ideologically partisan in nature. The context was quite simple: Shirking on criticizing the positions of others, for fear of hurting their feelings, is a betrayal of ones commitment to Socialism, because these particular feelings are meaningless and worthless - there is no reason Socialists ought to value them.

Case in point, if your feelings get hurt because someone criticizes what you say, or demonstrates its erroneous nature, the contours of your 'feelings' that which you would get offended is worthless, because your feelings are CONTINGENT, do not exist unto themselves, are partisan and already immersed in the context of ideologically taking a side. The point is - ones ego and ones feelings are not their own, but result from how they relate to something greater than them. When they lack consciousness of such processes, ones feelings are totally fucking arbitrary and worthless - one is totally worthless, not special, but an immersed subject within capitalism. THIS was my point. THAT EVEN AS PEOPLE RELATE to THEIR OWN feelings, IF they were conscious about them, THEY THEMSELVES would see that they were worthless.


Shit can be triggering and turning round implying someone's weak or how they feel lacks worth and meaning is bordering on dismissing the everyday effects of exploitation and oppression on individual's physical and mental health. It doesn't help and it leans towards victim blaming.

In fact this is weakness. This is exactly weakness - this stupid 'triggering' culture IS ABJECTLY weakness. And recognizing it is weakness is the precondition to overcoming it. Do you understand? There is nothing wrong with weakness so long as one recognizes it - but to insist upon its inevitability reproduces the weakness. The fact that words alone must be suppressed, because they may trigger this or that, HOW is this not weakness? HOW? IT IS weakness, the very mundane qualification for weakness, because where words would otherwise simply be articulated consciously, rationally, and so on, they resurface traumas which are suppressed, rather than confronted - becasue people lack the means to properly confront their traumas. People want to be normal, ordinary people, while at the same time do not want to be haunted by such traumas. The point is - you cannot have it both ways. What traumas do is that they ruin the mundaneness, otherwise ordinary life, the ability to feel like what a normal person should feel like. It is like, for example, discovering that all trees are made of plastic, the ability to simply see trees and not think about it is ruined.

It is one thing to lend your support to victims - which often times is an assertion of your own dominance over them. It is another thing to strive to relate to victims in such a way that you recognize their ability to no longer be victims. In other words Rudolf, it's easy to condescendingly approach people as victims - it's another thing to recognize that these victims have the potential to conquer their victimhood and move towards self-empowerment. And sorry, THIS IS NOT A FUCKING EASY AND SMOOTH PROCESS, IT ISN'T. You don't FUCKING move out of this victimhood by denying what hell our world is, insisting on the normality of life, you recognize, YES, this IS life in our present order (but that it doesn't have to be) and so on. What a simply disgusting fucking attitude you have - no, Rudolf, NOT BEING A VICTIM necessary entails a kind of power over victims which should not be celebrated, but strived against.

In fact, this is not about victim blaming, especially in our epoch where teens are so keen to insist on their 'mental health' problems. I've elaborated upon this before - the cult of mental health is totally anti-democratic and reactionary, because it assumes there are things inside of you which are beyond your control, and so on. Ones inabilty to properly conform, be 'normal', is interpreted as some kind of abject physiological defect, rather than a controversy that relates to ones consciousness, subjectivity, and so on. It is not about victims being to blamed, it is often times people insist on their victim-hood (i.e. their sense of self-confidence regularly being eroded, people making fun of them, whatever you want) as precisely a means for avoiding serious engagement and confrontation with their own demons. It is the product of a fundamentally anti-democratic society, where enlightenment values are regularly being eroded, that which people can make excuses by making a pretension to something inside of them: "It's my mental health". The point isn't that they are making it up - no, the purported effects are very real, and they do articulate it as something that is external from them, beyond their control. But iti s not inevitably beyond their control, and the insistence upon its externality from them, is totally ideological, pathological even.

The very phrase mental health is essentialist, reactionary, and is the same kind of ideological barbarism as renewed scientific racism and sexism. It is simply fucking disgusting. Mental health is articulated in ecologicla terms - as though one has a 'mental health' in the same way they have bodily health, and so on, as though there is an uncriticlaly accepted, pre-conceived means that which the mind is exercized. What does it actually fucking mean to be healthy, mentally? To be 'happy'? To be 'content'? To, in other words, be fucking passive. Sorry, your disgusting attempts to guise what is an utterly reactionary exaltation of passivity toward those in power, toward the existing order, this disgusting western buddhist notion of not being truly engaged in ones subjectivity and so on - by making pretenses to "Oh, the poor, poor victims" is simply FUCKING DISGUSTING. It is the most vile, dishonest and contemptible retreat, as though we're all supposed to fucking shut up, becasue "Well, people's mental health, man". Imagine if some of the first Socialists acted this way. "Mental health". Sorry, THIS ISN'T beyond the control of people, and their inability to get over their demons resides IN NOTHING MORE THAN THEIR LACK OF FAITH not only in socialism but THEMSELVES, they cling to the existing order, righteously stick a foot in it. They want the cake and they want to eat it too - they want something which is impossible within the confines of our existing order, and refuse to truly confront and attack this existing order.

But just to add insult to injury, what a simply disgusting fucking attitude - we ought to respect people's delusions and fantasies, because there is a fragility behind it which they are too weak, inevitably, to handle such a confrontation. What you are effectively saying is that people INEVITABLY are incapable of self-empowerment and becoming strong. That someone is weak does not mean they are inevitably weak. This is what you fail to understand. Again your message is simple: Shut up, don't think, people's lives are at stake. You are making a pretension to some kind of sacred, which is supposed to be beyond rational, critical engagement - as though the mere image of the tortured souls of our existing order is supposed to make us be SENSITIVE, rather than filled with fire and indignation.But no, this is a responsibility, as I've stated before, which simply disgusts you - you fear it, so while innocent victims who do not know how to empower themselves can be forgiven, the Rudolf's of the world who encourage their despair and powerlessness cannot. It comes to a point where YES, the choice DOES arise: You either confront the abyss of your own freedom, or you have no right to be upset about your predicament.

I despise your pretension to a 'right' to safety and comfort. You have no right to feel safe and comfortable, in fact if you feel safe and comfortable you should feel sick to your stomach. "I just wanna feel normal" - YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT. You sit passively and insist upon your passivity, in the name of 'mental health' while the Fascists and the reaction grow exponentially, while REAL POWERS that ACTUALLY fucking exist become more and more powerful, you know, engaged partisans of the Fascist reaction WHO ARE willing to break skulls, use their POWER, fear and terror to subjugate, humiliate others, and so on. And you sit idly by and celebrate peoples passivity because it's somehow an inevitability of their neurological constitution? Get the FUCK out of here with that.


Oh and there is something wrong with interrupting people, it's gendered and communists are not immune.

You know I'm simply so FUCKING sick of people thinking they can decide what it means to "cut to the chase". As though everything I'm fucking saying can be condensed in a more simple sentance like all of this is simply a means to guise a very simple position.

I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT I FUCKING SAY, YOU AREN'T POISING YOURSELF ABOVE RAFIQ BY EXTRACTING SIMPLE MEANINGS, YOU JUST LOOK FUCKING STUPID! It's just like the fucking nature thread: "Oh Rafiq, you LITERALLY want to at the expense of all considerations for our survival, pave the Earth in concrete" and so on. They did this to guise their fundamentally ideological aversion toward the fundamental point, which they could not represent consciously (their aversion to it).

Hence, "All I'm getting from your post is" - YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASSUME UNCRITICALLY that I'm GUISING SOME FUCKING banal and conventional point, that relates to your own standards of having a position on a matter.

"Oh and there is something wrong with interrupting people" - yet what you are not critically evaluating is: WHY people interrupt others. THIS is what is being critically challenged, if all have the precondition that they are worthless, that their consumerist identities do not matter and are truly immersed and dedicated IN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, rather than the ramifications of saying things in relation to their identity, then no, interrupting people could not and cannot be gendered.

The fact of the matter is that it is simply common sense that if you interrupt someone who clearly has something to say, which is disallowed from being said, this reflects that one isn't fucking serious about engaging the group to begin with, but the ramifications this has for their identity: "Oh, yeah, I'm an activist, I feel good, I can go home and drink lemonade". If one actually fucking cares about what they are saying, what is being said, and what the group is discussing, then no, they won't fucking interupt people for any such reasons, 'gendered' or otherwise. If they don't properly care, THIS IS A DEEPER PROBLEM, if simply no one cares.

That is the problem with socialist groups today - they want to sustain an identity, they don't actually want to fucking do anything. They don't give a fuck about doing anything concrete, and in fact, they make excuses for doing precisely nothing concrete. These organizations are a competition to see whose consumerist identity is better than the others. This 'code of conduct', which is A code of conduct, made no pretensions to being "The" code of conduct (?), was not made for those groups, but for socialists who are sick and tired of our disgusting fucking left and want something new.

This is literally the only people Rafiq cares to work with, cares to help bring together, THOSE WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF OUR DISGUSTING AND INFANTILE fucking Left. And if you're fine with the Left as it is right now, simply leave - because this has nothing to do with you.

But you know what, thanks, Rudolf, thank you so much for heroically pointing out that as an abstract moral principle with no regard for context, it is 'wrong' to interrupt people, because this is inevitably sexist, it is inevitably an assertion of ones ego over another person, and their particular power. Inevitably. Critical thought? What's that? U can't change human nature111!!!!!

[Rafiq]

Everyone, come on, more!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Rafiq, it's not okay to abuse people! Rafiq, don't abuse the mentally disabled! Rafiq, if you interrupt people, they'll get mad! Rafiq, it's not productive, people will have their feelings hurt and kill themselves! Rafiq, you're going to upset people!

Come on, keep at it! A symphony of stupidity! Come on, sing it with me! Keep it going!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

Rafiq thinks calling people worthless is good, I'm such a hero for telling him it's wrong and abusive!

PLEASE, just ONE MORE user who can skip through this whole fucking discussion and not even read what Rafiq is playing, keep it going, before it dies down! COME ON, ONE MORE user, come repeat the same fucking thing that's been addressed thousands of times! Keep this song going, we have to feel like heroes today!

Say shit just for the sake of it, so you can say "I was correct on Revleft today" to yourself, what a treasure! Burn that straw man down, come on, more users!

Rafiq is saying something which is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY stoopid and wrong, didn't put much thought in it, didn't even think it through, clearly!! EVERYTHING YOU ARE ALL SAYING profoundly evaded his consideration beforehand!

Had only he thought of what you are saying! Had only he factored in that "calling people worthless is wrong, it will hurt their feelings" and didn't already address this in the initial post! Come on! Point it out, CLEARLY he is incapable of having thought of that before!

Absolve yourselves of the duty of thinking critically! Don't think! Just jump to conclusions because that's what you think ordinary people do!


Tl;dr

He admits he doesn't even fucking read the post and feels confident enough to have a say about it.


If you want to facilitate a genuine debate, a battle of ideas, then just adopt the debate rules

No, that's EXACTLY HOW YOU DON'T FUCKING foster actual genuine debate, because you create an antagonism between the formal rules set in place and the actual ideas whose expression are subject to those formal rules. You can fuck off with that, plain and simple, simply because you admit you didn't even read the initial POINT of the post. The point is EXACTLY that there should be no formal rationing, that the IDEAS should have unrestrained power os long as people are genuinely committed to them.

What a better fucking example of what should be avoided than debate - a sport, where winning or losing has nothing to do with your genuine engagement in the topic but, in accords with pre-defined standards, how well you can argue for it. What a disgusting postmodern convention: "Heh, I'm above this partisan issue, I'm a debate moderator. The real truth is somewhere in the middle, outside the contours of conscious human articulation, cuz humans r too biased, debate! Debate! Convince me with your techniques that signify legitimacy, regardless of what is being said and how I actively relate to it critically!"

Debate teams, where even if you disagree with something you argue for it so as to "win". THIS IS THE DIMENSION which must be destroyed, actually, you must be FULLY engaged and responsible to the CORE of your exsitence, with what you argue and say - you do not do so, so as to guise some other fucking game, whether that's winning the debate game, or asserting your ego and identity over others.


And as a helpful guide in logical fallacies, this is user friendly https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

What vomit. Yes, let's just fucking shove that down our throats! Formal rules! Instead of thinking why something is logically erroneous critically, we can just accept pre-defined rules, trust them, and qualify arguments on those lines. This is disgusting and at odds with ruthless criticism. What a fucking train wreck our 'Left' is: yourlogicalfallacyis.com, as if there was a more passive aggressive website.

Not only is it anti-Marxist, it is anti-democratic. You cannot fucking oppose something because it is a 'logical fallacy', you have to oppose it precisely while being engaged in why it specifically is fallacious, using critical reason - no pretense to some formal, pre-defined set of rules can suffice for a fucking debate. In fact this destroys any capacity for critical thinking, has people passively accept things because "Well, it's a logical fallacy!". How sick these bourgeois ideologues are - they simply cannot even think as independent subjects. Like has it ever occurred to you that logic itself is something that can be subject to critical evaluation?

Can you fucking imagine a more insufferable enviroment, where if you say something, a mouthpiece of all that is legitimate and holy in our order, responds "That's a logical fallacy, you get an F!" - what? THAT is acceptable in your mind? We are dealing with something practical, theoretical, not playing with metaphysics. There is no uncriitaclly accepted substrate that which ones arguments can be evaluated - AS IT RELATES TO YOUR OWN consciousness and existence, you must be able to criticize others, not by making a pretension to rules made by someone else!

Do people even know how to... How to think? Was it my false assumption that people at the onset are even engaged in their ideas?

[Rafiq]

You know, it's hard to justify anger if people simply at first misinterpret you. It is too much to ask that people fucking read your post without drawing any unjustiifed assumptions already.

It is criminal that they keep insisting on their dishonesty. People simply cannot be forgiven and deserve the utmost ridicule - if you confidently keep this up, yes - you are worthy of ridicule and even abuse. You are. You don't even consider you may be incorrectly representing the arguments at hand - you just do it, so baselessly confident in your ignorance.

Why, you all, why do you all do this? Tell me, you cannot say "Well we didn't understand", because I have CLARIFIED this at least fifty times over. So you have no excuse. Either READ what is being said, or stop.

The archetypal individuals you all speak of... Are not committed and engaged radical socialist. These must be extraordinary people, not people with one foot in 'normal' life and one foot in the radical struggle, but people who are truly committed or are ready to be. Only after some kind of group basis can be sorted out, can the ideas be diffused to people otherwise less inclined and engaged but who still are attracted to organizing. This first precondition has not been done.

If the question on your mind is "Why should I do anything", please go away, respectfully. This was not made to convert people into socialists. This is for people who already have the question: "What should I be doing? In the face of all the dangers impending, what can I do to fight them?".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Talking about yourself in the third person is a sure sign you need to get out more. Makes me think:

Mod hat:
That's mighty close to flaming. Let's try to keep this respectful, please.

[#FF0000]

What I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY was that people should be scolded for not being able to do this by default, I DIDNT SAY THAT IF PEOPLE ARE NOT AS KNOWLEDGEABLE OR AS IDEOLOGICALLY DISCIPLINED THEY SHOULD BE KICKED OUT.

yea you didn't say that but your code of conduct here would lead to this end, which is, I would think, obvious.

[Rafiq]

yea you didn't say that but your code of conduct here would lead to this end, which is, I would think, obvious.

Obvious to people who are blatantly misrepresenting the point being made, perhaps. The only thing which is obvious is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

But again, this just relates back to my point about the pathology of 'dats just how people are', that people inevitably must be herded in this or that direction - even though this was SOLELY MADE, as I've repeated thousands of times already, for people who already have the practical inclination as Socialists - it's not meant to fucking convincing everyone at the outset when radicals don't even know what the fuck to do or what they're doing. This sin't made for fucking children who need to have their hands held - it's made for adults, who are ready to assume responsibility for themselves as individual socialists who are willing and committed to the practical cause.

As I said: it is fucking disgusting that we have to even talk about organizing fucking intellectuals today, who should already know better. So committed to lacking any rudimentary self control, even radical intellectuals today insist upon, like children, excuses. Fuck. "Well this is going to hurt my feelings, I can't control them, and I won't critically assess why I have them in the first place. Waa waa." - what an utterly despicable and infantile attitude.

Rafiq is not creating rules for a fucking human zoo. End of story. Convenient that you ignore:

What I said is that IF THEY RIGHTEOUSLY INSIST upon it, we have nothing to say to them. if they are willing to engage in ruthless criticism, then there is no problem - this would be an environment of learning for them where they can question such things. If they have no practical inclination in the first place to question the core of their being, we have nothing to say to them.

If you fucking articulate having your positions being attacked as being scolded and abuse, that's your problem. The whole fucking point of this proposed code of conduct is that you fucking get over yourself and stop being a god damned fucking child about it - that you don't assume that criticism is some pretext for something else. What that means is: IF PEOPLE lack knowledge and ideological discipline, they should be honest about it both with themselves and the group.

It's like I can't fucking believe how people think. Literally, you don't use your head. How? How do you lack rudimentary critical thinking? Do you think that this was made to ATTRACT socialist intellectuals and conform to them? This is for people who are ready to be responsible for themselves as political and social agents, where nothing is beyond criticism, including certain demands for 'catering' to ones ignorance and sensitivities.

That you constnatly keep fucking assuming 'dis is just human nature' means you shouldn't even be in this thread in the first place. Which is the basic point: the only way this 'code of conduct', or any code of conduct is ever going to fucking mean anything is if enough people agree with it and meet up agreeing with it, mutually, which provides a consistent framework where everyone acknowledges they don't have to play petty and stupid games.

If it offends one so much, they don't have to engage an intellectual space with such a code of conduct, and they can form one with people who agree with it. And I tell them: good luck! Really, good luck! No, I actually encourage you do this - make a different one that you agree wtih, and SEE how it works out. I'm not joking! Please, go ahead and do it - when I claim people ought to form intellectual spaces, they are free to do this however they want, I didn't fucking tell anyone what they HAVE to do - so by all means - one can set whatever rules they wish, if enough people agree. And see where it gets you. My insistence is that the formalities you all propose will (have, and continue to) erode any sense of comradeship among people, will be (is, in fact) grounds for passive aggressiveness, and people will simply be alien from each others ideological, political views, will not be fully engaged and fully committed, won't be able to pour their whole hearts out but will simply be a group of private individuals, and so on.

[Rafiq]

The code of conduct presented here, was not a matter of making rules by authority, it was theoretical - it challenged why and how radical groups conduct themselves, it wasn't a matter of arbitrarily making up fucking rules, but justifying ethically how Socialists ought to conduct themselves. This is what you fall to understand: I didn't fucking say THIS IS THE RULES, I put this forward as a theoretical argument, criticizing how groups today conduct themselves and proposing what is the logical conclusion of a theoretical argument. So approaching this in the spirit of "Well you're just going to scare people off!" IS NOT FUCKING MEANINGFUL OR RELEVANT, because this is made with the presuppostiion that people FIRST AND FOREMOST UNDERSTAND the theoretical basis of the 'code of conduct', how Socialist ought to conduct themselves and why.

EVERY SINGLE argument here, or almost every single one, has been made presupposing that this understanding will not be there among people - that random fucking people will be 'recruited' or whatever and find themselves in a group with certain rules. But that isn't fucking true - I am theoretically justifying this 'code of conduct', ethically justifying it, and in order for people to engage a group with such a code of conduct they must agree with it theoretically and ethically. So this wasn't made to fucking 'regulate' or 'tame' human animals, it was made to criticize how groups today conduct themselves and show alternatively how socialists ought to conduct themselves. Passive 'human animals' who must be herded have nothing to do with this - everyone who joins such a group would have to be consciously engaged and would have to actively agree ethically and theoretically with HOW THEY THEMSELVES OUGHT to act and conduct themselves.

This is why your arguments are literally just stupid. No, I won't be polite - the arguments you are giving here, are simply crass. It's one thing to command rules, and another to theoretically explain and justify them, and have people agree with them theoretically and THEN abide by them.

[Puzzled Left]

Very disappointed by this thread overall. Yes, Rafiq is being deliberately provocative like he usually does, but what he said is mostly sensible things that I do not understand how many people can seemingly deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent. It is a real yet overlooked problem how intellectual discussion is stifled out of the fear of "hurting others' feeling." He is simply proposing that we ought to be honest with ourselves, at least within the context of a socialist discussion group. Interruptions are often inevitable, and I think people are capable of distinguishing raucous rants from those interruptions (which are usually not even rebuttals).
People keep reacting as if Rafiq literally forced them into a "Fight Club" while ignoring and dismissing the contexts of his statements. I am surprised.

[#FF0000]

Maybe my experience is unique here but I don't think I've ever been in a leftist political space where discussion was actually seriously stifled in such a way. I have been, on the other hand, in places and meetings full of pompous fevered egos who thought that being rude or outright cruel was conducive to a productive discussion, and who were more interested in being "right" than discussion in the first place.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing. One can have hella heated political discussions while also having structure that doesn't allow one individual to dominate the discussion or for it to turn ugly. imo Rafiq's guidelines here don't succeed in that aspect.

[Rafiq]

Maybe my experience is unique here but I don't think I've ever been in a leftist political space where discussion was actually seriously stifled in such a way.

Then your experience is probably that people were simply warmly congratulating themselves and not engaging in the necessary criticism that is demanded for any Left space today. In other words, you haven't been in a political space wherein people were able to properly criticize each other's positions, to the extent that it is demanded by their disagreement. If you have, then that is quite exceptional, because it is as a rule something that leads to passive aggressiveness, which is exactly what we are talking about vis a vis "turning ugly".

But the fact of the matter is that you simply haven't properly identified how discussions are stiffed in "such a way', case in point:


who were more interested in being "right" than discussion in the first place

What's your point? Have you READ anything here? ANYTHING?

If someone is more interested in being right, at the expense of critically engaging the dsicussion, i.e. at the expense of truly being engaged in their position not becasue it comes out of their mouth, but becasue they believe in their position as others could, THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT SERIOUS about anything in the first place, and furthermore, this is a totally irrelavent argument.

Of course it is common that people simply want to be right for the sake of it. that is the whole fucking point of this code of conduct - which the standards of ruthless criticism would not tolerate.

In other words, THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THIS CODE OF CONDUCT WAS ADDRESSING WHY PEOPLE PLACE THEIR CONSUMERIST EGO BEFORE THEIR ACTUAL GENUINE COMMITMENT TO THEIR POSITIONS. This is a THEORETICAL controersy, an IDEOLOGICAL one, it isn't fucking 'human nature' that people conduct themselves this way, they do so because of their immersion in ruling ideology. This was my whole fucking point - the whole point of the code of conduct, THE whole point of spekaing of ruthlessness, and so on.

If a group is successful in repressing this consumerist ego, that is no better than it exploding and 'turning ugly', for this is simply rearing the head of that which was repressed. The point of ruthless criticism is that EVEN THIS ego, EVEN THAT which one conceives to be an expression of their 'identity' is subject to ruthless criticism, hence, people can become universal subjects whose only self-expression is congruent with the position they adhere to, becasue of their relation to a collective reason, and so on. Much less than arbitrarily conceived commandments that people should obey, the 'code of conduct' here is a theoretical argument that is meant to challenge YOUR OWN pre-conceived, ideological notions of your ego, and so on - and how that relates to group discussions. It is a theoretical argument which rafiq doesn't even need to exist to enforce.

You simply fail to understand the point. And it is at this point tantamount to trolling.


It's not an all-or-nothing thing. One can have hella heated political discussions while also having structure that doesn't allow one individual to dominate the discussion or for it to turn ugly.

And if people are actually fucking adults, and are mature, and care not about who is saying what, but what is being said, then hypothetically speaking there is no fucking problem with a 'single individual' incidentally dominating the discussion. This is what you fail to understand. That you think it is impossible to achieve this environment might be because this level of engaged political maturity is something you have not experienced, which - god forbid - ACTUALLY IS POSSIBLE.

In other words, if incidentally an individual is dominating the discussion, this can be becasue people simply have nothing to say, are genuinely interested in what they are saying, engaged in it, do not have criticisms of it, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that.

Once one is able to fucking grow the fuck up and stop acting like a child - something that was a given for the socialists one hundred years ago, or even before the counterculture atomization/'individualism' WHO EVEN AS FRIENDS would rip each others heads off in debates, this is a non-problem

It is a basic convention that one acts respectfully and doesn't violate the others dignity. The point is that - you aren't necessarily violating another persons dignity or integrity by criticizing them ruthlessly.

Socialists, among each other, ought to act in the saem way that they think themselves. In other words, the way YOU YOURSELF use reason. Every single position and argument put forward by a comrade should be no different than something that comes from your own head (which you either disagree, or agree with, using reason) - this is what collective, unviersal reason means, it means that no particular individualty gives one special access to the use of reaosn, that everyone is equally able to engage in it - that so as I think, so others can also think.

If Rafiq thinks 2 plus 2 is 4, you can think this too, because how Rafiq arrived at this conclusion is not something that derived from something only a particular aspect inherent to him allows him to see, but a process that engages a reason that is irreducible to him. At the risk of re-affirming cliche's of Communists having a 'hive mind', THIS is how socialists ought to approach each other - what each person sais is a thought, that you actively relate to and understand on the same terms that they do. That's what it means to have a socialist group - you have a common mind - this, precisely this is the democratic approach to epistemology, use of reason.

If Bob claims that Two Plus Two is Four, and you disagree with Bob, you have a reason for that. One, Bob can also articulate and understand. That is because you share a space of reason. So the same way that you criticize Bob, you criticize your own internal thought that would have you believe Two plus Two is Four. One criticizes Bob ONLY for the same reason that they would criticize themselves, in their own mind, for believing this.

[Futility Personified]

Slightly off topic but, do you not think your time would be better spent writing a book? I mean that half in jest and half not, because the amount of time you spend dedicating to thinking this through is admirable, regardless of your conclusions, but this level of effort for this forum, well, it seems misplaced to say the least.

That isn't a "you should go" kind of post either, but I think this thread stopped being a debate and became even more weird than normal revleft standards quite a while back now.

[Rafiq]

Well this is why I made a blog - of course, being that one simply can't write a book. I don't have the skill (coherently putting something together around a single subject that won't inevitably spill into others) or the money to do that.

I tend to post things from it here in case people are interested.

[#FF0000]

Then your experience is probably that people were simply warmly congratulating themselves and not engaging in the necessary criticism that is demanded for any Left space today. In other words, you haven't been in a political space wherein people were able to properly criticize each other's positions, to the extent that it is demanded by their disagreement. If you have, then that is quite exceptional, because it is as a rule something that leads to passive aggressiveness, which is exactly what we are talking about vis a vis "turning ugly".

But the fact of the matter is that you simply haven't properly identified how discussions are stiffed in "such a way', case in point:

No, no. I'm saying that I haven't been in a political space where people keep disagreements to themselves in order to not hurt anyone's feelings. That is, I haven't been in the sort of space that Puzzled Left and Alet say are very common.

But I have been in groups that operated along the lines of your code of conduct here, and the result was, predictably, pettiness and drama leading to the group falling apart with members going their separate ways to follow the wannabe-demagogue/guru they liked best.

I can agree that spaces for political discussion can't really be all that comfortable for people, since challenging ideas is part and parcel with why the space exists, but there is a difference between criticism and abuse, which the code of conduct you have here doesn't establish. I know that's not because you think verbal abuse is acceptable, but these kinds of things are what need to be set in stone in any sort of code of conduct. Otherwise, anyone could just be cruel and rude and not technically be in violation of the code of conduct.

That's the main issue here, I think.

[#FF0000]

Well this is why I made a blog - of course, being that one simply can't write a book. I don't have the skill (coherently putting something together around a single subject that won't inevitably spill into others) or the money to do that.

I tend to post things from it here in case people are interested.

fwiw I disagree and think you could write a book. Spilling tons of words on a paper is half of the job. All you might have a hard time with is editing it down but that's what other people are for.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A relevant few words from . . . Nova Scotia's Corbyn, I guess?


We are all acquainted with the contradictory phenomenon of the right-wing, conservative person who is, for all that, a pretty nice guy. Many people are also familiar (though, understandably ashamed, they usually keep it to themselves) with the opposite problem — the socialist who, despite the importance of basic decency in the outlook we share, has the social skills of an amphibian.

It is, sad to say, quite common. All things considered, would you want to be stranded on a desert island with most of the people you’ve met over coffee and doughnuts during breaks in the action at solidarity symposia on the struggle in Central America? Is discussing “late capitalism” over cocktails with delegates at the Learned Societies’ Committee on Socialist Studies your idea of a good time? Likely not. And if you’re like many others on the left, you choose the people most important to you personally from the ranks of those who are unconcerned whether capitalism is late, early, or right on time.

There’s a good reason for this. Too many socialists are like Peter Sellers’ Panther — they’re great at being pink, but not much else, especially when it comes to personability. Instinctive character warmth, though it ought to be, is not always the left’s strong suit.

This is a big problem. Niceness, after all, is not without its political economy. Working-class culture is to a great extent made up of the ways working-class people contrive to celebrate their socialness in the midst of circumstances that are both isolating and difficult. In the Maritimes this is made especially clear in the distinctive style (nonetheless real for being inaudible to the untrained ear) that people have of talking to one another. It’s characterized by a certain self-deprecatory grace, an easy weaving of conversation around sidetrips into the inconsequential.

Middle-class conversation has its own style, too. It’s a battle zone. Each response is carefully assessed before being sent forth as a bargaining chip in negotiations over esteem, prestige, and power. And, though packaged with the measured amiability of the herbal-tea-and-salad, so-nice-to-meet-you world, it is by very nature spoken through clenched teeth.

Make no mistake about it. When a person who’s used to talking in the first of these two styles hears so much as a hint of the intrusion of the second, he is gone. The distancing language of self-protection — unfriendliness — lands on the ears of most working-class people in the Maritimes like frost-bite, rendering forever inaccessible that part of a person that extends enough trust for anyone ever to be able to change their minds on anything. This has always been the source of a great deal of confusion, as the poet Milton Acorn pointed out, since the working-class person always continues in these situations to ‘weave a tissue of talk’ around his insensitive associate, who is hardly ever aware of the disappearance that has just taken place.

The phenomenon of the likeable conservative is the result of the near-total dominance in our society — stretching into all kinds of cultural nooks and crannies where it has no natural home — of capitalist ideology. The dilemma of the diffident socialist is the flip side of that process.

Socialists have no business wearing calculating looks. Distancing phrases like “quite frankly” and “to be quite honest” should cleave our tongues to the roofs of our mouths. Our conversations cannot afford the quasi-competitive air of the upwardly mobile.

Rooted radicalism scares the powers-that-be to death, and its heart and soul is an easy-going, sincere humility. Do the class struggle a favour — lighten up. Unkindness is the enemy within.

[Rafiq]

Otherwise, anyone could just be cruel and rude and not technically be in violation of the code of conduct.


That's the main issue here, I think.

The code of conduct is not a set of arbitrarily chosen rules, formal rules, that one finds 'loopholes' in. It is a theoretical text, one that people actually have to agree with, by their own devices and their own engagement in their access to universal reason, as individual agents. This is what you simply don't understand: The notion that people will find themselves with these rules in front of them, is besides the point: People need to actually understand why such a 'code of conduct' is in place, its basis of justification, before they can even agree to conduct themselves in such a manner.

So even though this distinction is not directly clarified, it is theoretically the very point of the text: One must fully give themselves over to the tradition of socialism and fully engage themselves in their positiosn, fully own up to the responsibility of them, and insofar as they attack another person, they are not attacking another human body but specific positions that relate to a universal tradition. So if it 'seems' that they are abusing another person, that must only be an incidental fact - their innocence is determined in whether they are fully immersed in the controversy at hand and care about its implications with regard to our common prerogatives and our tradition, not how loud they are and so on. And if the 'abused' person elevates the cause above everything else, they will not see it as an attack on them in particular, but an attack on a (universal) position which they in particular are expressing.

So the kind of pettiness that you mention - would simply be unjustified insofar as it is subject to critical evaluation. The same way this text criticizes people who think that any attack on their position is a pretext for a battle between consumer-egos, another 'dominating' them, it cuts both ways: The point is that if one thinks that others inevitably want to assert their ego over them, THEY will assert their ego over others. That's how the whole ideological substrate works, as I've elaborated. One never identifies with ideology. It's like the conundrum of being a false atheist: "Okay, I might know that god isn't real, but does god know it?" - this is how the big other works. One sais "Okay, I might be above such pettiness, but is the other person above it? Is the other person still using this as a pretext for asserting himself over me?" - and the 'other person' is thinking the same thing.

So it would be wrong to include "do not abuse others", becasue the whole point is: upon recognizing the partisan nature of such petty and false egoism, it is not possible to abuse others in this way, becasue the basis of all and any abuse is "If I don't do this, someone will (potentially) do it to me" or "This is what I am supposed to do as an ethical subject, this is what humans do" and so on. That applies to any and all kinds of violence too.

I simply cannot keep repeating myself: The precondition for any such group is that each person is a committed and willing radical, is a socialist insofar as they are practically inclined toward socialism. This is not something that one can convince others to have - in this context - it must be a precondition.

[Rafiq]

A relevant few words from . . . Nova Scotia's Corbyn, I guess?

I agree, but it's also important to note the implicatison of this "lightening up" - the point is that doing away with this 'middle class attitude' means that one is able to take criticism frankly, honestly and directly, without interpreting it in terms of:


negotiations over esteem, prestige, and power

It goes both ways. Abdicating upon cold unfriendliness (an unfriendliness which is nothing more than a repressed violence), also means being able to adopt a hot unfriendliness - warm, in this sense, which is frankness, directness and honesty. To have a warm heart and a cold head. The point is that the middle class attitude disallows for genuine and impassioned debate, truly being able to criticize the positions of others directly and honestly.

Often times it is not difficult to see that behind 'kindness' is a real violence, a falseness.

[Luís Henrique]

You are worthless. You don't matter as an individaul. Your individuality is fake.

These things may be "true" in a very abstract way.

But the way they function within a leftist cult is terrible: it means that only the supreme leadership has a right to an individuality, which quickly situates them beyond criticism. It puts the membership at a perpetual debt to the organisation, which becomes the only source of legitimacy for the individual: you are worthless, the organisation is worthy; you don't matter as an individual, you only matter as a member of the organisation, as a tool for the organisation; your individuality is fake, only the organisation is authentic. This immediately installs a caricature of a class division within the organisation; there are those who represent the organisation, and so identify their individuality to the collective being of the cult. They confiscate the individuality of the common members, and put themselves in a position to systematically decide who is and who is not worthy. And there is the common membership, who are unworthy, who are not individuals, because their individuality has been expropriated on behalf of the "surplus-individuality" of the leader/commander. And since they are not individuals, they cannot even productively discuss with each others; any such thing is a subversion of the order, in which legitimacy only comes from above.

That is, of course, a recipe for disaster, for the precise kind of disaster that is an organisation nominally committed to "socialism" (and this could be replaced with anything else, from the second coming of Christ to the advent of the superman; this is no different from Scientology or the LaRouchites or Jim Jones' cult) but that daily and ordinarily reproduces, not just the hierarchies of the capitalist system, but precisely the worst, less democratic, aspects of those hierarchies.


And yet, there is a political dimension to being an arsehole.This is, again, the mirror image of the tendencies it ostensibly attacking. The desire to be ruthless - to place oneself "above" the pettiness of having any emotional intelligence whatsoever is the elevation of the liberal "rational individual" to its insufferable extreme.

And then there is this. "Not having an individuality" becomes a competitive characteristic among the members of the organisation; you assert your individuality by systematically pretending that you have none - and you progress in your "carreer" within the cult by displaying the most ruthless, unsufferable behaviour; not only this is an affirmation of individualism under the disguise of collectivism, it is a mechanism by which the most egotistical members will always prevail over the less selfish ones (who will take in serious the "you are worthless" clause, and consequently surrender control to those who can game the rules).

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

My god.


But the way they function within a leftist cult is terrible: it means that only the supreme leadership has a right to an individuality, which quickly situates them beyond criticism. It puts the membership at a perpetual debt to the organisation, which becomes the only source of legitimacy for the individual: you are worthless, the organisation is worthy; you don't matter as an individual, you only matter as a member of the organisation, as a tool for the organisation; your individuality is fake, only the organisation is authentic.

First, before I begin, I would like to say that I refuse to believe this is simply a misunderstanding. It is abundantly clear that what I meant was as clear as possible, what you are doing is in effect claiming that there are inevitable implications that which my 'code of conduct' is not taking into account, which for all intended purposes is no different than claiming that Communism doesn't take into account the hidden dimension of human nature. In other words, you are ideologically projecting and translating the theoretical text as designating inevitable facts of human engagement and existence in the first place. What you fail to understand is that this precise dimension is what is being subject to ruthless criticism in this text: This precise dimension of 'da alpha male' and so on, this is what is being challenged, subject to critical evaluation. There is no hidden hierarchy that which this would assume - I simply think users refuse to understand this, because of their immersion in ideology: No matter what, for htem it is eppur si muove - the consumer, survivalist hierarchy, this pettiness, is an inevitability, and any attempt to criticize it is just an assertion of ones particular desire to be da alpha male. In teh same way that - as I mentioned, any attempt to criticize antisemitism, or racism, is an assertion of ones particular racial interests, and so on. The falseness of these purported particulars is that they relate themselves to a universality already, which is not subject to critical evaluation but assumed to be a given, uncritically.

What you say might be true, if such an organization unto itself would be the only source of criticism, knowledge, and so on - but this is not true: The issues, the universal constellations that such an organization would be dealing with, are irreducible to the confines of that organization: What that means is that unlike, for example, the Spart cult, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE FACT that NO ONE has special access to the use of reason - not even structures inherent to the organization itself, that which it can allow itself to isolate itself from confronting the controversies of universal reason within our capitalist totality. You simply fail to understand the point here, and rather than take seriously the actual theoretical argument at hand (which is nothing more than what this code of conduct is), you then go on to explain to us about what "inevitably will happen" because we are creating an 'environment" that which the human animals will inevitably conform to in this or that way.

It is so abjectly beyond the capacity for any of you to understand that to actually own up to the responsibility of as an independent subject possessing your own active relationship to the cause of socialism, that it is inevitable that people will need a master, or that the old authoritarian master will - inevitably - arise, become the 'alpha' and so on. What you all fail to understand is that this derives from your own superstitions that which this is an inevitable fact of any and all human engagement. The complexity is quite simple: No matter the predispositions of active members of the group, no matter how they approach and understand the contents of this group, the egoistic and 'individualist' conventions of everyday life will inevitably arise out of them. My point is quite simple: At the surface it may appear this way, that is, if one is only capable of articulating certain gestures, and activity (the propensity to be a more active speaker, more engaged, than others) as resembling the archetypal, consumerist group convention, but at the level of how this relates to each and every member's actual consciousness, this is not the case. In other words, I am not even saying that people will not eb more active or influential than others - I am saying that within the contours of this fact, the act of projecting pettiness and individualist power games is itself what creates them. Even if one is not at all offended by an insult, for example, the very fact that they believe the person insulting them believes they should be offended, THIS, without exception, is why people are largely 'insulted' by things. And it precisely goes for these kinds of situations: You may not actually have to believe, ideologically, that someone is dominating you, or even CAN dominate you, but the very fact that you believe that they secretly think they are asserting their individuality over you, is what is responsible for this hidden tension. I claim that if one is truly dedicated to the cause of Socialism, that which this group would be a medium for ruthless criticism with regard to, then this totally ideological egoism would have no basis of existence.

What is even more forgivable is that - like other users - you of all people have thought it fit to take an olympic leap over the fact that THIS VERY THING WAS CLARIFIED several times over. You don't care though - because the way in which you approach the matter is totally and solely ideological. For example, did I say these groups would immediately take the leap to become political organizations, with models of decision making, and so on? No, I didn't - in fact - I said that such groups would in the first place be the basis of finding innovative and effective ways to build political organizations, and eventually, hopefully, with them being connected on a nation-wide scale (or even global), to become a vehicle for party building. Ruthless criticism won't work for movement, or party building so easily, because of the fact that recruits won't be able to simply 'jump in' and have this theoretical understanding, this would require organs of education that take this into account. But what I claim is that the Socialist intelligentsia is so small that they have no excuse - they should be able to, as our predecessors, 'jump in' and have this implicit understanding and maturity.


This immediately installs a caricature of a class division within the organisation; there are those who represent the organisation, and so identify their individuality to the collective being of the cult. They confiscate the individuality of the common members, and put themselves in a position to systematically decide who is and who is not worthy.

What you fail to understand is that the universality is not confined to the organization itself, but to something irreducible to it: The parameters, unlike a cult, of the common shared space of collective reason and universality is not set up by structures within the group, this is what you fail to understand - ruthless criticism means that there is no special access to the use of reason, structurally, in the group - your standing of the group cannot give you more special access to the use of collective reason than another person, because the group itself does not regulate the use of reason - access to the use of reason is free and equal with or without any group for a socialist - so as one sais, so another can say, so as one thinks, so another can think - this is the rule. No identity, whether that means being more influential, or even more actively organizing the group itself (times of meeting, etc.), gives one more of a right to engage this collective space and engage ruthless criticism. A cult functions because it sets up structurally special access to the use of reason only within the confines structurally of that group or organization. This has not been the case for every single socialist organization before the counter-culture - before then, an organization was a particular expression that which equal access to the collective use of reason, established by the capitalist totality (the social, historical totality).

In other words, unlike cults, socialist organizations of any kind have to answer for the social totality we immerse themselves in, they don't absolve themselves from confronting it. If a Communist party is a cult, with such uniformity, then unlike a cult the difference is that it is predisposed with the belief that forces internal to the 'external' society itself, can allow for this 'cult' to encompass the whole of society. A cult, by nature, no matter if it professes the ability to do this after Armageddon, or whatever, by nature is only a cult insofar as it as an organization possess a purported special access to the use of reason JUXTAPOSED to society as a whole - signified by structures internal in the group. This is why hierarchies can be created, in who has more special access to this use of reason (like a religion, with priests, etc.) - because by merit of its juxtaposition to the collective space of reason in society, it must ration this special access . What a socialist organization does, is quite different. in encouraging an environment of ruthless criticism, yes, it allows itself to be an environment for engaging the collective reason of society (both conscious and unconscious/ideological), allows and enables the confidence to do this. But there is no rationing of this ability and right to do it - you either possess the confidence to do it, or you don't, there are no varying degrees of being able to engage in ruthless criticism - you either engage in it, or you don't.



And there is the common membership, who are unworthy, who are not individuals, because their individuality has been expropriated on behalf of the "surplus-individuality" of the leader/commander. And since they are not individuals, they cannot even productively discuss with each others; any such thing is a subversion of the order, in which legitimacy only comes from above

Why do you feel confident in saying this? No, before you made this post, did you think in your head: "I believe I have enough of a grasp of what Rafiq has been trying to say and the context of what he is saying, to make this post."

In fact you did not, because if you didn't, you would know that there is no 'common membership' in the same way that there was no 'common membership', 'common recruits', and so on in the very first Communist organizations after the Young Hegelians, or say, the first socialist groups out of the universities (or after them) in Russia before the turn of the century - there are practically inclined socialist intellectuals who are confused, do not know what to do right now, and are sick and tired of our disgusting and despicable Left. People who have lost faith in the Left as it exists, but are still faithful in the historic tradition of the Left, and the possibility of its re-emergence.

Structures surrounding practical decision making, of course, must be created, insofar as real leaders have real accountability. Such a group - I claimed - would have leaders, but these leaders would be accountable and their specific abilities would be made open and accountable, and possibly subject to scrutiny and criticism (insofar as one shirks on their duty, and so on). A leader may be responsible for enforcing standards that disallow Fascists, liberals, etc. (and maybe it's unnecessary), and what qualifies one as a liberal or Fascist must be formal: Just like on Revleft, there are many liberals here, but they aren't banned or restricted because they still identify in some way with radical Socialism and have a practical inclination towards it. The reason this would be a problem is that eventually, with the collaboration of others, I plan on helping establish some kind of board, where people can list their locations and meet up. Only those practically inclined would do this, obviously, but it is possible that people can infiltrate, maybe to 'troll', harass, and so on. So a leader would purely have the role of getting rid of people who clearly are not practically inclined towards rebuilding a Left, practically inclined as socialists. There is no arbitrariness that is allowed here, because IF ONE is a liberal ideologically and calls themselves socialists, they would be subject to criticism. If they can't take this criticism, they can leave - if they can take it, then they clearly have a reason for staying. This is the enviormnet of ruthless criticism: People have to be inclined enough to actually fucking engage such a group.

So that you jump to the conclusion that now we have already taken an Olympic leap to dealing with 'common recruits' is groundlessly... Flattering? We are talking about groups of around five to ten people (more would be great, but you can't expect this right now), not some kind of organization that random, innocent souls join to be 'brainwashed' and so on. Recruiting random members, or organizing ordinary people, is a task that such a group would have to discuss, it wouldn't be impicitly in the group.

That is my point: IT IS DISGUSTING THAT WE NOW HAVE TO DEBATE HOW to ORGANIZE the socialist intelligentsia, a bunch of children, who are not even serious about their self-proclaimed goals, it seems.. This isn't about educating random people to mobilize them. It's about strengthening socialist intellectuals, giving them the ability to have a direction and the confidence that they can do something right now.


but that daily and ordinarily reproduces, not just the hierarchies of the capitalist system, but precisely the worst, less democratic, aspects of those hierarchies.

In other words, the human animals cannot control themselves, cannot help but create such secret hierarchies. So that even if a more active speaker sais something that Bob disagrees with, Bob will inevitably keep his mouth shut, because being afraid of insulting the active speaker and incurring disagreement among the group, is above his actual genuine concern about what the active speaker is saying and his criticism of it. That suggests that Bob isn't serious to begin with and is still acting like a child.

Rafiq, conversely, has pretty much all of Revleft against him here. And that doesn't make a difference, they won't pressure him. Is Rafiq not human?


it is a mechanism by which the most egotistical members will always prevail over the less selfish ones (who will take in serious the "you are worthless" clause, and consequently surrender control to those who can game the rules).

And you didn't even read the response to this, it seems. Why did you make this post? Why do you skip through the whole thread, when this has already been addressed numerous times over? Again, this hysterical knee jerk reaction among most of Revleft, in this thread, is purely ideological. They want to create an argumentative context which does not exist, so that they will heroically enact their ethical duty, out of petty individualism, to say "No, bullying is wrong, each individual should have their say" and so on. I don't even have to claim this has nothing to do with my post - the ideological dimension is the impulse to, at the expense of what is ACTUALLY written in front of them, what should concern us. The same way that jumping to hysterical fears of pedophilia is an ideological reaction to homosexuality being acceptable. What should concern one is not whether pedophilia is good or bad here - but why one is so eager and willing to hysterically enact the role of an anti-pedophilia crusader at the expense even of what the homosexuals are doing or saying!

What are the qualifications for 'prevailing'? What does that mean? Are you claiming that humans by merit of something inevitable, are incapable of, by default, thinking critically, so that people will 'prevail' and inevitably influence others against their own ability to think critically, for reasons external from the active use of reason by each person? INTELLECTUALS, that is, NOT EVEN to speak of a mass organization? Imagine if the early Russian social democrats talked like this, in their disagreements and early polemics. What a fucking joke.

Luis, YOUR 'prediction' about what will happen is why such things could ever happen - it is precisely the ideological belief that humans must inevitably act this way that relates to the consciousness of human who are acting this way.

Thus if a person manages to convince others of the correctness of his position, you interpret this as him 'prevailing' at the expense of others ability to relate to those same ideas actively, and this is what creates the exact passive aggressiveness and pettiness that is the object of criticism here. the point isn't that people will not be more influential or more convincing, or have a better rasp of the matter - the point is HOW IS THIS interpreted by a person standing outside of the context of this, like Luis? That's the point. How you describe or interpret a reality consisting of nothing more than men and women, as it relates to human consciousness, here actually determines that reality - because this is nothing more than men and women and how they as men and women actively relate to each other. You are not above the human subjects, Luis, you are not some zoologist describing human animals. Rather, you are a person who is susceptible to the same kind of pettiness you are describing as inevitably human..

The poitn is that people must be mature, get over their individualist pettiness and actually, god forbid, ACTUALLY commit themselves not to the 'hierarchies' of the group itself, but see the group as a means that which wider universal inclinations are expressed through. God forbid the possibility that people actually care about what is being said and not the mere act of opening ones mouth, god forbid!

[Rafiq]

Revleft is the best example of this 'environment' now.

All of Revleft, virtually, is against me in this thread. If there was every a scenario where being pressured to shut up and yield was present, it is here. And Rafiq won't budge. Why? Because he actually is responsible for his positions, believes in them genuinely, and so on. He is not special. Anyone can be this way, if they genuinely care and are inclined.

And without being anonymous, if one truly cares about their positions over their consumer identity, they can do the same thing in real life. People make up online personas and then they have their real-life identity. To actually in real life, at the expense of your NORMAL consumer identity (and not your extra-ordinary online identity), be committed to the cause of socialism, is a difficult thing, it seems. Depressing.

[Guardia Rossa]

Well you could for example answer my first post seriously and without all that shit of yours. You idealistically representing Communist "as only the movement blablabla" for example has already confused another comrade and annoyed the arse out of me.

You say "oh anglo-saxon philistine blablabla" but you claim Zizek is not postmodern, well fuck PROVE it! You at all times speak so closely to idealism and closely to postmodernism and trying to analyse me with all that fucking stupid freudian bullshit "OH GUARDIA ROSSA NEEDS A NEW MASTER BLABLABLA"

Now if you may, ADDRESS THE FUCKING POINTS IN MY FIRST POST, OR RUN FROM IT AS YOU RUN FROM MUCH OF EVERYONE'S POSTS, WHEN YOU PICK WHAT TO ANSWER AND WHAT TO IGNORE.

[Guardia Rossa]

Revleft is the best example of this 'environment' now.

All of Revleft, virtually, is against me in this thread. If there was every a scenario where being pressured to shut up and yield was present, it is here. And Rafiq won't budge. Why? Because he actually is responsible for his positions, believes in them genuinely, and so on. He is not special. Anyone can be this way, if they genuinely care and are inclined.

Oh Tod you look more and more like a fucking postmodern or a stalinist with all their religious belief on every and each single point of their theories.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

rafiq do you actually do anything other than post on here

Missed this while thread-skimming.
Seriously, next dis post gets an infraction. General warning. I know the general tone of this thread is . . . not nice; I'm not going to clamp down super hard on posts that have content in addition to jerk-y comments. But if your post is just jerk-y and sans content . . .

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Oh Tod you look more and more like a fucking postmodern or a stalinist with all their religious belief on every and each single point of their theories.

Seriously, no more of these.

[Noa Rodman]

The second part of Psychology of the Private Individual: Critique of Bourgeois Consciousness (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/0-contents.html), titled "How the bourgeois individual proves his worth in his home, capitalist society", has a chapter called "Radical dissent: The fight for the right to criticize" (reminds a bit about Lenin against "Freedom of Criticism").

Young Marx asked not the right, but indeed set the task of ruthless criticism (http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/), something Bruno Bauer espoused at the time.


When Bauer writes to Marx that theory is “the strongest praxis,” 4 this affirmation should be read in conjunction with a letter written only four days earlier: “the terrorism of true theory must clear the field.” 5 The epochal function of critique, its grafting onto the crisis, consists in destroying the categories through which the existing thinks itself. Criticism clears the field of everything that, in thought, upholds a world already in crisis; the action of criticism is to show the theoretical groundlessness of the categories in which the existing order is conceived. Only in this sense can Bauer affirm that theory is “the strongest praxis.”It sounds quite a modest point still. Only the actual practice of discussion determines whether criticism is affirmative (in which case it is not really criticism) or destructive of present society.

However, someone might come along and counter that even this is still too modest ('the point is to change it', I wouldn't be surprised if Bernstein had recourse to this quote), so that your discussion group liquidates itself.

[Rafiq]

How amusing.

The child has completely broken down. You know, this has happened on more than one occasion - this false poised rebellion against the master, which is nothing more than running away from the weight of ones own anxieties, and so on. You see Guardia Rossa, the child, for all this time has been thoroughly confused, and he has collapsed under the weight of the anxiety of actually dealing with theory - this infantile, false sense of rebellion, enables him to FREELY throw around words, schizophrenically, no longer under the strict control of what theoretical discipline warrants. The reason for this is simple:

Guardia Rossa never had any notion of anything that pertained to Marxism in the first place. Rossa, who we can most certainly assume is a child (literally - most likely a preteen), only 'agreed' with the meanings of certain terms like a high school kid memorizes phrases for a text. He isn't aware of how the association between a word and its meaning comes to pass, he doesn't do this with independnet mechanisms, for him, he is like a dog - he's simply told how to think. And now Guardia is in open rebellion, like a child, against being forced to think this or that way. The pathetic falsity is that he is only able to comprehend thought in terms of being forced to think, he lacks the internal confidence to do it himself - he literally wants someone to FORCE him, to HAVE to think, he does not want to put the work in himself. This is what makes him such a coward - it's easy to bark like a dog, to demand a master - it's not easy to fulfill this responsibility where a master would otherwise be.

"Ur stoopid freudian bullshit tryin to analyze ME (how dare u) for 'wanting a master' or sum bullshit blah blah blah, im not hysterical, U just running away! respond 2 me!":

Come on! Rebellion! Edgy kid politics! Fuck thinking! Fuck your stupid theories! Fuck your stupid ideas! I'm a kid, you're not the boss of me! Yeah, edgy irrationalism! Yeah, fuck u and your stoopid theory, i dont give a shit about any of that! Kid power! bordiga! bordiga! Look at me everyone, I'm such so unique, i can just make a pretension to bordiga and that's it! he speaks FOR me! amadeo bordiga, how edgy of me! fuck everything!

Rafiq, y wont u respond 2 me? r u scared? running away? Y dont u actually respond 2 me in a way that makes me immune 2 criticism, just respond 2 me in a way that is without da 'bullshit'. when u do respond, i can just arbitrarily call your response 'da bullshit' and say u ignoring me. come on! respond 2 me without bullshit!


Well you could for example answer my first post seriously and without all that shit of yours.

Guardia Rossa, ladies and gentlemen, demands that I respond to his post in a way that is confined to unjustiifed and arbitrarily chosen conditions. You see, you fucking child, if you're trying to mock me, the difference is that if I accuse someone of not responding to my posts seriously or thoroughly, I can actually demonstrate this in my argument: I don't have to resort to dismissing what they say as "bullshit", I can show that, EVEN ON THEIR OWN TERMS, what they say is bullshit in relation to my argument. I don't fucking bluff, unlike you.. This is the kind of infantile hysteria we are dealing with, ladies and gentlemen: Guardia Rossa wants me to literally force him to think critically, he claims that my accusation that he desires a master is 'meaningless blah blah blah', but the very act of covering ones ears like a child only goes to affirm this. Rossa, I can't fucking force you to do anything. I've addressed your pathetic points, and if you're unable to understand what I mean, this isn't Rafiq's problem, it in fact reflects your own stupidity. Case in point:


You say "oh anglo-saxon philistine blablabla" but you claim Zizek is not postmodern, well fuck PROVE it!

Prove it, he sais. Prove it, as though this is literally an empirical controversy of the natural sciences, wherein Rafiq can just "show" Guardia Rossa something, and this will act as a substitution for the most mundane and simple kind of independent thinking. The fact of the matter is that this child insists on his intellectual passivity: PROVE IT, he sais, he wants me literally make it so that by Rossa's own qualifications, he HAS to agree, he HAS to understand - by force - without having to think critically. He does not question these silly qualifications for 'proof', he does not even think about it - he goes, "PROVE IT!" and that's that. The fact of the matter is that your qualifications for proof are groundless, and frankly clownish. It is unjustified that Zizek is a postmodernist, for the simple reason that Zizek regularly has subject what can be called postmodernism to critique. Is it this that you want proof for? Do you want ten sources, becasue I can provide you ten sources for this.The fact of the matter is again: Postmodernism is a word that anglo-philistines use to describe more complex fields of thought, ones that exceed the bounds of conventional philistinism, and the natural sciences. That is to say, calling this or that person a 'postmodernist' is meaningless, it's an empty word used to describe things which are too complex for the philistine to understand, or more importantly, which the philistine has no practical inclination toward engaging. That is why postmodernism is a bunch of 'meaningless' blah blah blah.

So the fact of the matter is - child, sit down, calm down, have a glass of water and take deep breaths. Now, tell me, Rossa, how do you qualify postmodernism, and how do you justify this qualification? You accuse the Frankfurt school of being 'postmodern' - which is actually embarrassing, becasue not even the philstine critiques of the Frankfurst school - the positivists, did this. That is becasue the very buzzword didn't fucking enter into popular use until the so-called 'cognitive revolution', spear-headed by Chomsky, among others, which was congruent with the retreat of Marxism and critical theory from the universities and the substitution of the social sciences with cheap genetic determinism, etc.: In fact the actual scientific racism that is contemporary has its origins precisely in this epoch. It was only then that critical theory, Western Marxism, etc. was condensed into being called "postmodernism", the ultimate irony being that the emerging cognitivist philistinism was precisely postmodern - abides by the logic of postmodernism as underlied by Fred Jameson. So to reiterate, for Rafiq to "prove" Zizek is not a postmodernist, this assumes that Guardia Rossa actually has a qualified and sufficient understanding of what postmodernism actually means, has an understanding about the proper usage of this term and why. I claim he does not - and that like the anglo-philistines, he uses this word to describe theory that involves an iota of critical thinking as a precondition for understanding.


You at all times speak so closely to idealism and closely to postmodernism and trying to analyse me with all that fucking stupid freudian bullshit

Idealism, he sais, IDEALISM. He doesn't even fucking know what this word means in relation to how it is used in our tradition. "Speak so closely to idealism", what, pray tell, constitutes materialism, cheap and juvenile pretensions to "da material conditions", which are composed of nothing more than actual men and women, including how they relate to it in their consciouensas? Are you literally stupid? you REFUSE to actually think - so tell us, Rossa, what od you want? if you refuse to actually think, and I mean it - ACTUALLY think about things through, what do you want, child? Rafiq can't force you to use your fucking head. So what is it you demand? Literally, what a twisted fucking masochism. The child has literally completely broken down, it's actually amusing. "Stoopid freudian bullshit". You see, anone can play this fucking game - why not say "stoopid marxizt bullshit"? You are unable to justify what is bullshit and what isn't. You simply aren't. You see something you don't actually understand - and are too lazy to have any practical inclination to - and it is now 'bullshit'. Very well, we 'postmodernists' (holy shit, lol) will keep to our bullshit amongst ourselves, and you can fuck off thinking we are speaking total gibberish. No, you are totally entitled to tell yourself whatever you want, child. For all anyone fucking cares you can think the world is flat. You can tell yourself that. You can.


OR RUN FROM IT AS YOU RUN FROM MUCH OF EVERYONE'S POSTS, WHEN YOU PICK WHAT TO ANSWER AND WHAT TO IGNORE.

What is Rafiq ignoring, exactly, child?

Do you know how stupid you sound? YOU FUCKING ARBITRARILY MAKE UP WHAT QUALIFIES "IGNORING" THE POINTS, LITERALLY BY FUCKING ADMITTING YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF MY RESPONSES - YOU DISMISS THEM AS "BLAH BLAH BLAH" WITHOUT FUCKING JUSTIFYING THIS, AND THEN YOU SAY I'M IGNORING YOU, YOU FUCKING CHILD? DO YOU FUCKING WANT TO DO THIS? REALLY, DO YOU WANT TO GO THERE?

He LITERALLY fucking comes here, tells me "DONT GIVE ME BULLSHIT" without ACTUALLY FUCKING JUSTIFYING and DEMONSTRATING how what I am saying is "meaningless bullshit". I can justify PERFECTLY what I fucking mean in relation to your STUPID fucking arguments, I can, - really. And I have done this. What the fuck have you done? Totally and groundlessly dismiss me? Guardia, NOBODY CAN FUCKING FORCE YOU TO USE YOUR HEAD. you LITERALLY DO have the right to cover your ears and ignore what is being said. You do, bless you. Now get the fuck out of here, because nobody wants you, nobody needs you - nobody is fucking begging you to use your head or to call yourself a Marxist. In fact, every single response has accrued a thorough and substantive response, to all the arguments as it pertains to the topic at hand. There is no exception. At the onset I ignored a chunk of your post because out of politeness I didn't want to embarrass you because everything had literally been addressed already, BEFOREHAND, had you took the FUCKING time to read the posts above you. I did this fucking child a kindness - and he claims I'm running away? Be honest with yourself - do you REALLY fucking think you have anything to say that eludes Rafiq's comprehension? Do you REALLY think, no, do you ACTUALLY tell yourself that Rafiq can't confront and destroy the argument's you've brought forth, which I already have? Do you actually think this, dear preteen comrade?

I pick what to answer and what to ignore. WHERE IN ANY OF THE POSTS WAS THERE SOMETHING I IGNORED, AS IT PERTAINED TO THE DISCUSSION? WHERE CAN IT BE SAID THAT "HAD RAFIQ NOT IGNORED THIS ARGUMENT, HE COULDN'T MAKE X POINT". If you FUCKING demonstrate this, I will send you 500 dollars. No, I'm that confident you're full of shit - demonstrate this, and I'll send you 500 dollars, all of the cash on me right now, over paypal, if you can demonstrate that. You can't, because you talk out of your ass.

Behold, the profoundly consistent Guardia:


26 February 2016[/B]]I see you criticizing people around, and they are good criticisms, yet you never criticized me (Apart from some misunderstandings), do you have any? Don't worry about words or harshness, I'm the black sheep of everywhere (Partially it's my fault)

So clearly, his leap of faith from "Rafiq's criticisms of others are good" to "ALL U SAY IS BULLSHIT POSTMODERN BLAH BLAH BLAH U IGNORE EVERYONES ARGUMETNS" is clearly justified. Chid, get off Revleft, it's simply embarrassing what you have done here. Holy shit.

[Rafiq]

(reminds a bit about Lenin against "Freedom of Criticism").

Now that you mention it, I cannot refer to a better piece right now on the matter, regarding groups, what Lenin sais is almost strangely identical to my argument (this is for everyone in the thread):

We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire.

We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation.

And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them [rather than exert any actual power over them, but simply criticize them], they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road!

Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!

Lenin's point is simple: Each person by their own devices, by their own active means, chooses either to go into the marsh or to stay behind. This is their free choice, no one can force it upon them or even trick them otherwise. Where freedom begins, you no longer abide by this dichotomy, you presuppose your freedom and then own up to the responsibility of it. The only thing which separates the two groups - 'a split', in other words, is practice. Lenin is simply brilliant here, he summed it up in a way I could not do better. No pretense to herding people in this or that direction, to 'appeasing' certain people, and so on - everyone is responsible for their own engagement as active revolutionary agents.


However, someone might come along and counter that even this is still too modest ('the point is to change it', I wouldn't be surprised if Bernstein had recourse to this quote), so that your discussion group liquidates itself.

If I understand you correctly - only up a certain point would such a group have to liquidate itself and mature into direct practical action. I claim that first willing partisans of Socialism must be found and organized before any talk of this can begin, however.

[Armchair Partisan]

Missed this while thread-skimming.
Seriously, next dis post gets an infraction. General warning. I know the general tone of this thread is . . . not nice; I'm not going to clamp down super hard on posts that have content in addition to jerk-y comments. But if your post is just jerk-y and sans content . . .

So as long as you post something that's on-topic you can get away with any level of asshole conduct? Below are two full paragraphs (and one short sentence) of constant unrelenting insults, with a very heavy theme of ageism that actually say a lot about the kind of person Rafiq is (in short, the opposite of the kind of person you want a communist to be). Is it going to be excused simply because Rafiq also sprinkles a few "on-topic", "not-entirely-flaming" points in there? Or is it because Rafiq gets creative with his insults - instead of telling people that they are fuckwads, he invents eloquent poetry to say pretty much the same? Because this shit is nasty - I'd argue that it's much nastier than simply calling someone a fuckwad or asking them if they do anything other than post here, because it's clear that Rafiq spent a lot of deliberate time and effort with the sole purpose of trying to insult Guardia Rossa:


How amusing.

The child has completely broken down. You know, this has happened on more than one occasion - this false poised rebellion against the master, which is nothing more than running away from the weight of ones own anxieties, and so on. You see Guardia Rossa, the child, for all this time has been thoroughly confused, and he has collapsed under the weight of the anxiety of actually dealing with theory - this infantile, false sense of rebellion, enables him to FREELY throw around words, schizophrenically, no longer under the strict control of what theoretical discipline warrants. The reason for this is simple:

Guardia Rossa never had any notion of anything that pertained to Marxism in the first place. Rossa, who we can most certainly assume is a child (literally - most likely a preteen), only 'agreed' with the meanings of certain terms like a high school kid memorizes phrases for a text. He isn't aware of how the association between a word and its meaning comes to pass, he doesn't do this with independnet mechanisms, for him, he is like a dog - he's simply told how to think. And now Guardia is in open rebellion, like a child, against being forced to think this or that way. The pathetic falsity is that he is only able to comprehend thought in terms of being forced to think, he lacks the internal confidence to do it himself - he literally wants someone to FORCE him, to HAVE to think, he does not want to put the work in himself. This is what makes him such a coward - it's easy to bark like a dog, to demand a master - it's not easy to fulfill this responsibility where a master would otherwise be.

It is really worrying if stuff like this can fly, and if there is a reason for the decline of this forum other than the purges, it's the fact that the place is extremely newbie-hostile. I mean, what kind of an impression is a new user supposed to get from this place when looking at one of the most active regulars and seeing them act like this?

[Rafiq]

Is Gaurdia Rossa a newbie? He's been here for a fucking year, and furthermore, out of nowhere, in a completely unwarranted way, he began flaming me.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869265&postcount=25

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869267&postcount=27

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869268&postcount=28

Tell me Armchair, what is Guardia's excuse for conducting himself this way? That he is a "newbie"? Why then, did he manage to keep up the the other kind of persona up - namely, the 'curious', 'innocent' learner? Do you want proof? I have various PM's from Guardia, dated not even a week ago.


simply because Rafiq also sprinkles a few "on-topic", "not-entirely-flaming" points in there?

In fact nowhere I have "sprinkled on" any 'on topic' points, my posts are overwhelmingly on topic and substantive, that you hone in on a few phrases like a child that sound hostile to characterize the entire point is your problem, not mine. Oh, and your pretension to ageism is simply offensive - that word - is simply stupid. Yes, Revleft is for adults, or at the least young people who strive to conduct themselves as adults. "Ageism" - this is where identity politics has led us, everyone, "ageism". Put any fucking quality on a person and put an ism behind it, and that is supposed to pass for some kind of oppression. What's next, gamerism?

In fact buzzwords like ageism only exist so as to opportunistically de-sensitize ones encounter with and the actual meaning of words like racism and sexism. The very idea that 'ageism' stands among phenomena like racism and sexism is actually fucking disgusting, so opportunistic that it is vomit worthy. 'Ageism'. What? Ageism? What kind of pathetic hysteria is this? Now it is comparable to sexism and racism, to recognize that children aren't at the same fucking level as adults? We may as well do away with words like 'maturity' - we may as well scold Lenin for using 'ageist' words like infantile. Holy shit, just put a bullet in my head and put me out of this nightmare. What fucking times we are living in, truly.

In fact, even the quote you give us is not flaming. Because I don't simply dismiss people, I pointed out why guardia was acting the way he was, and what underlied his hysteria. I could have called him a "stupid hysterical little fucking shit", in his own tone, but I didn't: I demonstrated why and how he was hysterical in his accusations. What you call "unrelenting" insults was a justification toward Guardia's own conduct - which referred to nothing more than the content of his posts.

Though maybe it's already clear that like every other fucking thread, this has now turned into another debate about the 'deterioration' of the forum following the purging of certain Trotskyists. We have already seen it with Guardia speaking of 870 already.

[Armchair Partisan]

Is Gaurdia Rossa a newbie? He's been here for a fucking year, and furthermore, out of nowhere, in a completely unwarranted way, he began flaming me.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869265&postcount=25

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869267&postcount=27

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869268&postcount=28

Tell me Armchair, what is Guardia's excuse for conducting himself this way? That he is a "newbie"? Why then, did he manage to keep up the the other kind of persona up - namely, the 'curious', 'innocent' learner? Do you want proof? I have various PM's from Guardia, dated not even a week ago.

I'm fine with seeing Guardia Rossa infracted too honestly, I do remember him snapping at me every so often for no fucking reason at all. But I don't think "he started it" is a very legitimate excuse for what you're doing here - now is it?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Kk. Let's keep at the topic. If this is going to turn into a "So who should get demerit points?" Ima just close the thread, eh? Like, maybe the topic has run its course?

This isn't in red because I think it raises interesting "code of conduct" questions. How should discussion be moderated? Etc.

[Sewer Socialist]

I think that this discussion is a pretty good example of how to derail a discussion - focus on the character of others, completely forget about the topic at hand, which was once a discussion on discussion groups and how they might conduct themselves.

As far as I can tell, making it personal invites a tit-for-tat response, which also invites a tit-for-tat response, and we quickly forget what we were talking about.

And personally, verbally abusive people tend to make me want to either actually fight or leave rather than contribute. I'm not sure why, but I have a pretty thin skin. Maybe it was all those years if being bullied growing up, but I really can not be productive in such an environment.

[Rafiq]

This isn't in red because I think it raises interesting "code of conduct" questions. How should discussion be moderated? Etc.

The problem is that we have not entered the domain of discussion proper - as practical discussion (insofar as the mode of practice is mapping out our constellations in the first place, discussing them, etc.), we are in a situation where we largely debate about whether we ought to even do this, or can do this in the first place.

The aspect of anonymity is also important. Engaging people face to face, reveals more about them, their commitments and engagements, and thus necessiates basic conventions of respecting the dignity and integrity of others.

The reason for that is because: On Revleft, online, it's not clear whether people are truly serious about their ideas. But in real life, even if you can have this same level of 'depersonalized' engagement (which is not bad), it is still always going to be different, because only then will you truly know where someone stands in relation to their everyday being. One can be just as 'mean' in real life as they are online, but the expression of this meanness is different.

[Rurkel]

Different concepts of "worth" are thrown around here. The OP uses a definition of "worthiness" that is compatible with dignity and freedom from certain constraints. This is not what I or many other people associate with the concept. Seems ripe for misunderstandings, or, worse, equivocations.

[Rafiq]

Immediately following the claim that "You are worthless", it is asserted that this worthlessness is a precondition for as an individual (to be capable of) expressing a universal tradition.

I immediately defined this worthlessness as your socialism not deriving from any particular individuality (which I assert is fake).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wtf is happening here? Why are people referring to themselves in the third fucking person?

Can we have a law against mis-use of the bold, italic, and underline functions?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree, but it's also important to note the implicatison of this "lightening up" - the point is that doing away with this 'middle class attitude' means that one is able to take criticism frankly

Yeah but sometimes you come across a bit strong. Clearly you have the intellect to engage in reasonable, open communication - wouldn't this be preferable to longer, unintelligible, snide posts?

[e_e]

Didn't his argument in this thread called for coming across strong?

[Ele'ill]

"so long as you're good at interrupting people and listening to yourself talk you'll be grand champion of every meeting while encouraging others to try to take the throne from you"

"mow down every "shy" person by pointing out their lack of contribution with patronising horseshit because you know them better than they do and only you hold the key to their liberation from 'shyness'"

"with this professional communist workout plan, not caring about any criticisms because you're right is the best way to approach an exchange of criticisms and an exchange of criticisms is probably the first thing that should be done tbh even before opening talks"

[Rafiq]

Oh, are you paraphrasing someone? Share with us who you are paraphrasing, after - like a decent person - critically assessing on my own every single post made in this thread I cannot find a single person whose arguments can even be caricatured on these lines.

It is nothing more than pure slander and deliberate lying to avoid a wider point. You are, as I described of everyone else earlier, hysterically at every direction throwing around slander and nonsense, just to entertain one's sense of devil's advocate. In other words, your implicit attitude is: "Meh, it might not be true, but I'm just going to say it anyway as a means to hysterically oppose whatever the actual points are".

In fact it is criminal that I am responding this way. You want a response to this post, everyone? I refer you back to pages four, three, etc. - where I dealt with this precise thing. But let me, at the criminal expense of trivializing the thorough, considerate arguments that have been put forward, cheaply summarize this:


"so long as you're good at interrupting people and listening to yourself talk you'll be grand champion of every meeting while encouraging others to try to take the throne from you"

If people are inevitably lack both the seriousness and the maturity that they will inevitably act this way, why even identify with the radical left at all?

We get it. You uncritically accept, that this is inevitably 'human nature', against all historical evidence with regard to our tradition. You are free to cling to this superstition. This however isn't made for such people, it's made for people who are matured, committed and willing enough to the point where the question on their mind is: "What can I possibly do right now?". No one can force upon you this attitude.


only you hold the key to their liberation from 'shyness

Again, everyone, refer to how acutely, almost eerily exact this is in relation to my argument with regard to how today Leftists think: They are hysterical and need a master, only articulate things in terms of people 'forcing' things upon you, and so on.

Leftists are no exception to this rule - people today think "I have an opinion, this opinion is mine, and to justify this opinion to others is to submit to them". What happens when one asks: How do you justify it to yourself, in your own mind?

So, the point is quite simple: You are cheaply evading confronting the point at hand, not simply as a matter of posturing but you're evading the point as it relates to your own mind. You can't fucking 'hold the keys' to another persons shyness, 'liberation' from shyness is a task that only, ultimately, the shy person in question is capable of doing. This is their responsibility as individuals. Why is this so hard to grasp? There is no 'key to liberation' invested in other people - you do it by your own devices as you as an active subject relate to a collective reason.

In other words, 'liberation from shyness' is YOUR duty, ultimately, and no matter whether you can do this or not - YOU ARE ETHICALLY responsible for this, if you cannot overcome shyness, because your fear of exposing your ego, having your 'feelings hurt' is greater than your seriousness and engagement with the ideas you have, YOU are ethically responsible for that EVEN as it pertains to HOW YOU justify it TO YOUR OWN mind

What kind of world are we living in here? Why is this so controversial, to think to yourself, "No, I CARE about this, I invest myself in this, above all other things, it is necessary that the group knows - or that this position is criticized, or that this position is defended, and so on?" - as though this is a matter of preying on victims to demand this of them? Shyness? As though this is some neurological impairment you're born with? Are people in the 21st century this helpless?. Tell me, when the darkness consumes our nations, our lives, when the impending doom happens, will you make a pretension to shyness then? Will you make a pretension to your excuses then? Will the world owe you something then, when everything you take for granted is destroyed - to the point where those among you who are weak of heart will submit before this darkness, indeed, believe in it, even? When these structures of guarantee are razed to the ground?

You don't have the right to have the world as it is right now as you see fit. There is a fucking hell upon us - and it doesn't fucking care about your feelings. It doesn't give a shit about your insistence on crutches, it will give you none, it will simply CONSUME you. Your liberal-democratic order, your 'political correctness' is not going to be able to save you from it, NOTHING will. Without a revitalized Left, NOTHING is going to stop this! Nothing! When it is too late, what will you, before the stage of history, have to say for yourself? What? When all that you've taken for granted is gone, and time has run out, what will you say then? Is this Rafiq bullying you all for pointing out this fact? That we are living in times where WITHIN EACH AND EVERY ONE of your lifetimes, at this present rate you will witness things far more traumatic than the torture chamber you envision such a group to be? And maybe, you will look back, when that time comes, and regret your insistence on your weakness and your reluctance to muster up strength with a pretension to victimhood. And the only feeling then that should weigh uncontrollably on your mind is shame, a shame undeserving of any pity. Like do you think we radical leftists are in charge here? Do you think we are inevitably the future, and that you simply, generously, 'agree' with us? Do you think that all of the political correctness that those in power have conveyed solely as a means of co-opting radical consciousness, which is so little a threat today that there is less and less of mainstream acceptance of political correctness?

What will it take, everyone, so that you're laughs won't have the last word? So that this truly isn't a fucking joke, something subject to your pathetic and fake postmodern irony? What will it take to convince all of you that this is not a joke, this is not some guy on the internet spouting nonsense, THIS IS VERY REAL, pertains to THE real reality, you know, the actual one you see around you, immerse yourself in. This is not a joke. There is no ironic postmodern humor that can factor into this. What I am telling you - which if you were so inclined you could already see for yourself - is that real darkness IS upon us, REAL darkness, not an abstraction - a REAL threat, one that within your lifetime will actually be able to be seen at the level of your apolitical and apathetic lives, is upon us! Stop playing these games, and get serious! You aren't fucking conquering anything, you aren't placing yourself above, or securing your sense of fullness by allowing laughs to get the last word here. "huh, Rafiq is so dramatic, Rafiq is so silly, like he's role playing" - Will you say this when the time comes where you can't ignore the silly and dramatic internet user?

Do you think you, great persons, in all your 'normality', where you retreat into your postmodern, fake irony - you think that's going to last forever. You think that all the guarantee you have, all the faith you place in the ability for everyday conventions to reproduce themselves indefinitely, you think that's just going to be there forever? Many of you laugh, I know you're laughing at me. I am not offended by this - I am offended that you make a sucker out of YOURSELVES when you have a duty to our cause. Yes, a duty, a real duty. Laugh it off, "In our enlightened age, our consumerist age, who can speak of duty like this? We aren't living in the 20th century!" you think. Your laughter is fake, your irony is fake, I spit on it, and knowingly ideological seriousness and engagement will always have the last word over laughter, because it is you who are the suckers, fools, idiots, who are so confident in your gods that any blasphemy against them you cannot help but laugh at. That is truly pathetic, that is truly almost invoking of such despair - so confident are you all in your reality, that any criticism of it is such an abnormality that it is only worthy of laughter. Maybe you all just don't care. No I mean it - maybe you will seamlessly accept the darkness when it finally rears its head - if it has not already. Maybe you just won't care and you'll go on with your lives. "What am I supposed to do, bro? Have a laugh." - perhaps this is how you will all be when the hell approaches us. Some of us clowns will prefer death to this. Some of us clowns will die before they act like this. And you will laugh yourself to a grave. On the tombstone, it will read "Here lies he who laughed".

Here's what's disgusting though, why this is so hysterical: The only reason I pointed out that if people are visibly and obviously shy, they should receive comradely encouragement to share what they're thinking, to be assured that they have nothing to fear, is because users here hysterically accused me of indefinitely silencing those who are too shy to muster up the courage. I said that others can help inspire confidence in them in very basic and conventional ways.

First Rafiq claims the shy people should be left to the dogs and therefore excluded. Now he claims to coerce the shy and externally 'liberate' them from their own shyness, and coerce and force them to contribute. It's pathetic, these arguments.


an exchange of criticisms is probably the first thing that should be done tbh even before opening talks

And you simply don't know what a 'criticism' actually means. You can't engage in criticism before 'opening talks'. That IS the 'talks'. Ruthless criticism, unconditionally, of all things and all persons, just as it was in our heyday. Pettiness, bourgeois-egoism and righteous pseudo-individualism are not neutral expressions of ones identity, they represent ones propensity ideologically to take a side in the global antagonism, consigning ones access to understanding it to something particular about their identity.

This pettiness is not simply petty, and infantile. Those who engage in it are class enemies, enemy ideologues and mouthpieces of the existing order. They ought to be exposed for it, if upon being confronted with this truth, they insist upon it still.

[Noa Rodman]

Sometimes a person just feels obliged to (continue to) talk because otherwise the meeting turns quiet (if that happens, usually some jokey remark is made to quickly dispel the awkward moment). When you sense that you start to ramble you even desire to be interrupted.

Were somebody not to want to speak, it can be interpreted as sabotage/protest of the meeting. Perhaps the silent person is just haughty – doesn't want to throw their pearls to the swine. Or perhaps it is pointless to speak because the meeting will pay no consequence to it (like a quickly updating facebook group, where lengthy discussions are soon passed over), ie the meeting is not serious so no reason to invest your effort into it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anyone who disagrees with Rafiq is choosing the wrong side and is the global enemy.

And he also ignores my previous posts because he has no logical refutation.

Stalinoid much?

[Rafiq]

Anyone who disagrees with Rafiq is choosing the wrong side and is the global enemy.

Are you even capable of fucking using logic correctly? Okay, Rafiq is against racism. If someone claims something that is clearly racist, does it make logical argumentative sense to claim "Rafiq is saying that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist." Do you have any position beyond justifying your passivity in the existing order? If so, why can't I just say: "Well anyone who disagrees with you - is wrong in your mind." - excuse me? Is that not the point of any argument?

Because it's only incidental that one happens to be disagreeing with a particular person called Rafiq - nowhere was the qualifications for passively and - frankly - pathetically falling back on pettiness defined in terms of 'disagreeing with Rafiq', that has nothing to fucking do with it. Rafiq - for all intended purposes doesn't even have to fucking exist - he could be a ghost for anyone cares, what he is saying is irreducible to him.

But none the less, BY EVEN MAKING THIS STUPID and PETTY fucking argument, reducing such serious matters to the particular 'opinion' of Rafiq, who wants to be 'da alpha male' here (because let's be honest, deep down, this is actually what you and most of everyone in this thread actually thinks - and it's fucking pathetic and juvenile) at the expense of what he is actually posting, YOU DO IN FACT REVEAL YOURSELF TO BE SIDING WITH THE GLOBAL ENEMY. Simply disagreeing with Rafiq isn't enough to be qualified in this way: But responding to such an argument by reducing it to a pretension to dismissing others simply becasue they are disagreeing with Rafiq as a particular person reveals you're a petty bourgeois ideologue, have your head so far up your own ass that you actually believe your clear and obvious ideological alignment and investment can be poised along the innocent assertion of ones 'individuality'.

So yes, in fact, you are choosing the wrong side by evading teh fucking argument, in a pathetic and worthless attempt at reducing it to the expression of Rafiq's particular individuality and his insistence that "people agree with him" JUST FOR THE FUCKING SAKE OF IT (?)! - are you 12? Are you a child? Does everything I'm saying, does that shoot right the fuck past you? No really, are you incapable of actually reading? Behind everything I am saying, is it impossible that you avoid translating ACTUAL WORDS into your petty-bourgeois, pseudo-individualist language? That behind everything Rafiq is saying, ultimately, at the expense of which, he is simply asserting his particular individuality?

It's fucking pathetic, because what it allows you to do is avoid confronting YOUR OWN, as an individual, YOUR OWN relation to wider ideology in your own mind, by ideologically associating it with your inevitably particular individual existence - any challenge upon which, is merely another person trying to be the 'top dog', trying to bring you to your knees and control you. Child, no one wants to control you, I promise. No one wants to be your alpha dog or your father. I promise, such a thing is not even worth it - those who require a master to do anything at all are a disgrace and are despicable. The fact that you so readily insist upon having to be literally forced at fucking gunpoint to do what is YOUR OWN ETHICAL DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY as a self-proclaimed socialist, reveals the fact that your identification with socialism is ingenuine.

And yes, I say this at the risk of your pathetic fake cynicism getting its last word. "oh look, Rafiq, trying ti dispel that he is trying to be da alpha dog, actually makes himself look like he's trying to be one" - I expect you to think this, what you don't see is that if one thinks this, they aren't fucking being clever, but just re-asserting their fucking stupidity to begin with, the same one that Rafiq is attacking in this very text. It's like the paradox of the laughing man: No matter how serious one is, the laughing man always thinks he gets his last laugh, and that all serious engagement is just a joke. By all means, continue to the be the laughing man - YOU ARE ONLY MAKING A SUCKER OUT OF YOURSELF by thinking you have your last laugh.


And he also ignores my previous posts because he has no logical refutation.

Your sentance was ignored, yes:

Yeah but sometimes you come across a bit strong. Clearly you have the intellect to engage in reasonable, open communication - wouldn't this be preferable to longer, unintelligible, snide posts?

I was going to respond to this, but it simply wouldn't have been worth it, because I only would have been accused of dragging on the discussion farther than what was merited - but now that you you claim that "There is no logical refutation" for your heroic, bold and irrefutable sentence, I will gladly own up to the responsibility of confronting it, dear sir.

As it was presented, it had nothing to do with not being serious, frank, or directly engaging. It was precisely targeting the upper middle class attitude of passive aggressiveness, totally fake and in-genuine communication, and so on. You simply missed the point all together. Secondly, and most importantly, you pathetically assume that your own qualificaitons for what constitutes 'reasonable, open' communication are uncritically shared. The fact of the matter is that it only reflects your insistence on refusing to think critically. You have failed to demonstrate, you and everyone else in this thread, that anything I have said is unreasonable, and if you do make a pretension to this, it might be because you operate by a standard of reason that is bellow Socialism. Yes, we Socialists are 'unreasonable', how unreasonable that we take serisouly our own fucking self-proclaimed alignments and engagements, how fucking 'unreasonable', that we aren't normal, and passive, and "Dude, chill, calm down, you're being dramatic" - how 'unreasonable' that we want to put our fucking money where our mouth is, FOR REAL. That sacred, untouched space you call reality - some of us, true to those who preceded us in our tradition, set ourselves to the task of exploding this sacred, untouched space of yours. And we do this at the expense of being 'unreasonable' and 'too dramatic'. We do it.

They speak of being 'unreasonable', DO YOU THINK I'M JUST TALKING OUT OF MY ASS WHEN I TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A JOKE, AND THAT THE THREATS WE FACE ARE ACTUALLY, GOD FORBID, ACTUALLY REAL? DO YOU EVEN CARE? Are you really going to try and say i'm just fucking using this as an excuse so as to make people agree with me? tell me, as an abstraction, why would rafiq or anyone else simply want others to agree with them for the sake of it? what does rafiq have to fucking gain from it? Are you literally a child? DO YOU ACTUALLY think this way? Do you ACTUALLY think that people simply "want others to agree with them" for the sake of it, and that's the end of it? No, EVEN WHEN THEY IN THEIR OWN HEADS tell themselves this, this is ALWAYS ideological, ALWAYS partisan, NEVER reducible, with this pseudo-individualist cynicism, to their particular self interests. There is no such thing as self interest in a vacuum - self interest is, and always will be, ideological. You call me unreasonable, and yet, in fact, you openly admit that you are immune to reason, and your superstitious, uncritically held notion that ultimately this is an expression of some stupid fucking survivalist impulse - 'to be da alpha dog' - something which in fact is outside the bounds of the conscious use of reason, but is simply uncritically assumed? You have the gall to claim what is being said is unreasonable, and yet, YOU LITERALLY ADMIT that you refuse using conscious reason in assessing the arguments at hand?

What are going to say? "Oh, Rafiq is just proving our point: This is why such groups will never work. Okay, that's fine - those who wish to engage such groups will engage them, those who won't, won't. As Lenin said, as I pointed out: You're free to fucking retreat into the marshes, no one cares, but for those of us who wish to battle on... Amply and plainly fuck off, becasue we do not seek your approval if you won't even consciously put forward the qualifications for your approval in critical and conscious terms:

wouldn't this be preferable to longer, unintelligible, snide posts

In fact, it wouldn't, dear sir, because we are not engaging each other in the same way such a group would engage each other, a group, full of mature and committed socialists who actually fucking care, and IN THEIR OWN HEARTS are invested in our cause, in reviving our tradition and repelling the fucking enemy! IN THEIR OWN HEARTS, without need of compulsion by others, IN THEIR OWN HEARTS, who are instilled with a sense of duty and commitment, who cannot live 'normal' liveas - we are arguing about whether one can even 'talk' in the first place. This is what you and everyone else fails to understand, and it's pathetic - and yes, I have no problem whatsoever claiming that you, the majority, are abjectly fucking wrong, cry about it, or - laugh yourself to death deluding yourself in thinking that Rafiq needs some kind of extra-ordinary notion of his 'superiority' to you all to see this. Laugh, laugh yourselves to fucking death for all Rafiq cares.

How DARE Rafiq, how DARE he think his very positions are correct, and those of others are incorrect! How DARE he! Can't he see that by merit of being in the minority, he is wrong? Can't he understand the great laws written in the cosmos that if the majority of people hold a position, that means their position must be correct, and the position of the person in the minority is self-deluded egoism, and so on? How dare he violate this unwritten convention, how dare he! What a self-obsessed person!

What a disgusting fucking political culture we have here - Rafiq is berated and criticized for 'coming off a bit strong'. Excuse me? Does Rafiq need to pull the golden keys of confidence out of his own fucking ass to be 'strong'? I berate and I ridicule all of your pretensions to weakness, as an inevitability. YOUR OWN INSISTENCE on not being strong, rather than being a genuine expression of any kind of innate defects, is an assertion of your passivity and your submission to the ruling order. The reason for that is because you righteously insist upon it. Rafiq 'comes across a bit strong' - strength, the bane of the Left! Rafiq - whatever else he is - is ethically responsible for his positions. Rafiq, takes seriously calling himself a Socialist. he takes this seriously, does not retreat into his own fake 'individuality' (which is worthless, which is nothing, which is garbage, shit, and filth) as an excuse. 'A bit strong', excuse me? A bit strong? We Socialists, with the tradition we must hold ourselves to, with the actual fucking people we have the duty to answer before, before history, their honor and their sacrifices which can only live on through us, we are supposed to be weak? Rafiq 'comes off a bit too strong!' - shame on him! Shame on him for being strong, we all ought to be weak while those in power, while forces of darkness, filth, poison and doom bring upon us a hell which Rafiq himself lacks the imagination to truly envision in all its barbarity and filth - Rafiq ought to be weak, and passive, like Vladimir.

You are going to have to take a fucking side, all of you. The time is coming, no, the time is ALREADY up, where your passivity, your silence, your insistence on weakness and you falling back on excuses DOES place you squarely in the camp of the 'global enemy'. It does. You do nothing, you are fucking complacent in what is about to happen. I admit what a desperate position I am in - I am relegated to the use of the internet, to find others, to get something going, BUT I AM FUCKING TRYING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. What are you all doing? Shame on you for your conduct - you all attempt to laugh and shame me for doing this, your snakes, you vile cowards, shame on you all! It is not simply that you do nothing - this is a crime enough. It is that you attempt to RIGHTEOUSLY JUSTIFY doing nothing. At least have the fucking decency to admit YOU SHOULD be doing something, you don't, though. You don't even have this minimal decency and dignity, you vile, vile snakes.

You aren't even FUCKING doing anything, you sit, like hysterical fucking monkeys on a tree, lazy and content, you berate Rafiq for having the gall to take this seriously. Your fucking trees are going to be razed to the ground soon, and when the time comes that you wake up and find yourself in a situation where it's just too fucking late, let that shame weigh in on the back of your mind until your grave. Rafiq can't even gloat about this - about how THIS IS going to happen. He can't, because there's not even any fucking TIME to gloat about it, I'm simply in no position too - it's just too fucking serious for this. You all think I'm such a god damned sucker, yes I'm fucking desperate - it is a desperate thing to have to appeal to others in this way, yes, I know, I know EXACTLY what I fucking look like, and I don't give a shit. Stop thinking you're clever for pointing it out - because you're not.

Let's get that out of the way once and for all - Rafiq does not spend time making himself look so oh so legitimate, he doesn't fucking have the time or energy to do this. I say what I say at the expense of my image. I use bold, I use caps, to highlight things, I do not care if this makes me look desperate because I am desperate. Truly to the core of my being I am a desperate person right now, because we are in a desperate situation. Stop thinking you're clever in pointing out this fact - you're not, you truly are not saying anything by claiming "Oh Rafiq, that wouldn't pass in the university."

I couldn't make this shit up if I wanted to. You all think it's worth it to simply scare you into 'agreeing with me' for the sake of it? Or is it my subconscious, evolutionary impulse (which is ideologically all of your assumptions, probably) to do this? I am telling you - this isn't a fucking joke, and none of you have the fucking right to make a pretension to your feelings, to your fake individuality, and to 'openness'. Remember that if those among us who do care fail - when time alone - vindicates this. Remember it.

[Rafiq]

What you see above, what do you see, really? You see a whole lot of nothing. You yawn.

"Oh, that's just Rafiq, saying things just to get ahead of me, to put me down".

Rafiq is unreasonable, so who cares what an unreasonable person sais, right? Why use reason? It's just a big gorilla beating his chest, he isn't actually saying anything, he's just typing a bunch of symbols and - yawn - it doesn't affect my everyday life.

So high and 'reasonable' you are, Rafiq, the screaming, hysterical ape. You fine zoologist, what a position you are in to do this, you upright, reasonable, normal person. Good on you. The invisible audience, the characters in movies and on TV... The judges of normality... They are clapping their hands. "Bravo, Vladimir! Call a spade a spade!".

"I may be a socialist, but god forbid I'm not that ridiculous!" - and the audience cheers you on, approving your 'socialism'. How reasonable of you, you sane, normal, calm, and reasonable man. You're very legitimate.

I'm sure Buzzfeed, VICE, would be honored to host a normal person like you, you normal, reasonable person.

[Rafiq]

Our problem is simply not like before. It's that spiritually people do not feel the same confidence and enthusiasm as those who preceded us a hundred years before, in our cause.

This is a spiritual problem, not a theoretical one. We are knee deep in some shit. How to traverse this, without infantile pretensions to the 'red pill'?

It's really pathetic too. In our postmodern 'ironic' culture, everything's a fucking joke. But come when one is 'depressed', you go to tumblr, talk about your 'mental disorders', talk about how fucking miserable you are, talk about how broken you feel, and so on. You drink your problems away, you get fucked up to cope with them. Everything's an ironic joke... Until one cowardly confronts their spiritual suffering: "Hey man, I genuinely have an inborn disorder, I'm just so unhappy and miserable, how can I find the keys to happiness?" - "It's just life man, this is just how life is. Look on the bright side of things... Let your faith in the idols of capital fix your broken heart..."

And then, who is the idiot, the sucker then? Not them, because at that point - they are immune to irony and laughs. That's when it gets 'serious', where you go to the doctor for you fucking pills to keep you a functioning, ordinary, normal postmodern ironic subject. What fakeness is behind this pseudo-sense of irony, what volatility, what deep spiritual suffering underlies it which is simply repressed or reified into being a physiological problem. The minute you expose this sensitivity everyone loses their fucking minds, the upright, reasonable and ironic people - everything's a joke until you expose this sensitivity. Rather than see their suffering with the damned, miserable, suffering and downtrotten of the world, they cling on to the hope... "Well, it's not THAT bad for me...." as they write on Tumblr about how they are getting a therapist, and so on.

Fucking disgusting. Those whose hearts are not with the damned of this world deserve the most acute and painful suffering. Those who righteously cling to their faith in the existing order, make pretensions to 'my depression' or 'my unhappiness', deserve the worst hell when they could know otherwise. "Hey man, I'm ironic, I'm a laughing man, but not when it comes to da serious stuff - my real problems in my search for da happiness." - so much for Nietszche's last man. A ticking time bomb is what these people are.

[Counterculturalist]

Our problem is simply not like before. It's that spiritually people do not feel the same confidence and enthusiasm as those who preceded us a hundred years before, in our cause.


I agree with this, Rafiq, and I think it's an interesting angle from which to approach the discussion. Nobody seems to wholeheartedly support anything, or unabashedly, unashamedly care.

One of the defining traits of our day is the layers and layers of distance we create between ourselves and our convictions. People are so terrified of the social ramifications of actually caring about something that they can't say what they mean. Everything is a sarcastic, ironic joke. Under the guise of edgy "irony", straight-up, undisguised bigotry and fascism are seeing a resurgence.

I was living in Toronto when that city's ultra-right-wing, gay-bashing, racist, sexist pigfuck of a mayor, Rob Ford, was engulfed in a crack-related scandal. Too many of my peers refused to condemn him, despite knowing full well the depths of his pigfuckery, because he was somehow (ironically) "awesome". Now some people are doing the same with Trump.

I won't pretend that I'm never guilty of hiding under layers of irony - I am, after all, a product of my time. I am also old enough to remember when people didn't always act this way.

If there is to be a "code of conduct" for leftist discussion, let's put meaning what we say at the top of the list.

[Rafiq]

Everything is a sarcastic, ironic joke. Under the guise of edgy "irony", straight-up, undisguised bigotry and fascism are seeing a resurgence.

I cannot enough emphasize what an important observation this is. The true tragedy is that this resurgence of filth, poison, and fascism, appeals and relates to people who are otherwise not even political. In other words, fascist discourse is entering into our cultural sphere, without people articulating it as political at all, and so on. Of course, what is this if not the phenomena of Donald Trump and the emerging neo-Fascism? It is precisely this pretension to irony.

Zizek touches on this when speaking of Kevin Macdonald, the Fascist ideologue who drawing from evolutionary psychology gives anti-Semitism a new 'theoretical' basis:

We should have no illusions here: measured by the standards of the great Enlightenment tradition, we are effectively dealing with something for which the best designation is the old orthodox Marxist term for “bourgeois irrationalists”: the self-destruction of Reason. The only thing to bear in mind is that this new barbarism is a strictly post-modern phenomenon, the obverse of the highly reflexive self-ironical attitude—no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.

I wish I could thank your post a hundred times over, because it is precisely this straight, unapologetic seriousness, and ultimately responsibility for the contours of ones ethical agency, truly, frankly and unapologetically meaning what one sais, is what will distinguish us Socialists, true heirs to the great enlightenment tradition, against this impending darkness.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I wish I could thank your post a hundred times over,

You could give it rep and that would give him your rep power. So it'd be like thanking him 154 times.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I cannot enough emphasize what an important observation this is.


But it's not important. This is an anonymous internet forum that holds no sway over anything.

[Noa Rodman]

George Grosz in his An Autobiography makes this comment apropos a (likely false) rumor about Lenin's appreciation of his art:


He is said to have appreciated my work, especially The Face of the Ruling Class. Apparently it seemed to him another means of dissolving the much hated capitalism. As so many people, he was mistaken in the effect of such caricatures in the new medieval period that we are now entering. The days of the caricature as an instrument for progress are past. If one wants to agitate, a photo with appropriate caption would serve the purpose better

which seems a definition of a meme (basically the Nazi and Stalinist posters are the original memes) and he places it even below caricatures. Yet he feels obliged to accommodate to it.

[Rafiq]

Often times on facebook or the internet in general you those kinds of propaganda circulate, but they are not ironic (or necessarily ironic) - that is, photos with captions.

[Rafiq]

But it's not important. This is an anonymous internet forum that holds no sway over anything.

Worse, infinitely worse and limited environments: The study groups in Russian universities around the turn of the century, tiny groups dedicated to the study of complex things with infinitely more limited resources, did these 'hold no sway' over anything? Today, we have the privilege of being connected with individuals not only across the nation, but across the globe, and our resources are infinite, our means of conveying information among each other - with less than seconds of delay. Virtually all the greatest treasures of our tradition, readily at our disposal and for free online. If we had a fraction of the dedication they had, truly, our words could count for much more than space on an internet forum.

The act of typing and posting alone - correct - holds no sway over anything. The propensity and the ability to 'hold sway' over 'things' is of course solely a human act that concerns individual men and women and them alone.

So in fact, it is important, insofar as we - individual men and women - correctly articulate such information as one of the many steps that are necessary to take before we can speak of 'holding sway' over anything. One does not become magically bestowed the powers of being able to 'hold sway' over events from nothing.

Finally, it is easy to be intimidated by the sheer scope and size of our world today. There are seven billion humans. But the universality, as it relates to the consciousnesses of each of those seven billion humans is infinitesimally smaller than their seven billion magnitude. Each and every one of those seven billion humans relates to the same universality - that of global capitalism. The scope of their consciousness therefore is much smaller than what we would otherwise think is the 'sum-total' of seven billion. One should not shirk from confidence, therefore. A hundred people among seven billion can be enough to begin. Nay, a single person can be enough to begin, and that person is you. You as an individual have access to the universality of seven billion individual men and women.

As Dzerzhinsky said, in each and every one of our hearts contains the souls of all living men and women, whether we know it or not. As an individual, the universality, the totality of all social relations is manifested at the level of your consciousness (including the subconscious)... It is not a matter of empathy. Our misery, our suffering, our despair, is a universal despair and suffering. It is the proletariat, the class which is not a class, which represents the universality of this suffering, despair and wretchedness.

[Noa Rodman]

The OPE-L (Outline on Political Economy list (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/)), "a small, closed list of Marxists who have been discussing controversial issues in political economy since September, 1995" is no longer a very active list, but their debates in the past seem helpful, so hopefully the participants believe that it was a somewhat successful experiment.

Here is what one member at the start of the OPE-list proposed as guideline (in one of his posts):


What gets results is assembling a group of people who may be nice and may be complete assholes, but who agree to a common aim which is also worthwhile. What counts is not the people
but the aim.
..
So: what is our aim? What could be considered as progress by a group of thirty people whose only common feature is, let's face it, publishing things with the word 'Marx' in?
..
Stop debating and we die. We don't die outside straight away, but inside, we are already dead. All that remains is the formal rotting of the flesh.
Agreeing what to disagree on: the need for a strategic goal.
If we simply exchange polemics on everything of interest to each individual member, the result will probably be a sorry mess and certainly not a nice advert for Marxist thinking.http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/9510/0180.html (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/OPE/archive/9510/0180.html)

[Ele'ill]

Oh, are you paraphrasing someone? Share with us who you are paraphrasing, after - like a decent person - critically assessing on my own every single post made in this thread I cannot find a single person whose arguments can even be caricatured on these lines.

It is nothing more than pure slander and deliberate lying to avoid a wider point. You are, as I described of everyone else earlier, hysterically at every direction throwing around slander and nonsense, just to entertain one's sense of devil's advocate. In other words, your implicit attitude is: "Meh, it might not be true, but I'm just going to say it anyway as a means to hysterically oppose whatever the actual points are".

In fact it is criminal that I am responding this way. You want a response to this post, everyone? I refer you back to pages four, three, etc. - where I dealt with this precise thing. But let me, at the criminal expense of trivializing the thorough, considerate arguments that have been put forward, cheaply summarize this:



If people are inevitably lack both the seriousness and the maturity that they will inevitably act this way, why even identify with the radical left at all?

We get it. You uncritically accept, that this is inevitably 'human nature', against all historical evidence with regard to our tradition. You are free to cling to this superstition. This however isn't made for such people, it's made for people who are matured, committed and willing enough to the point where the question on their mind is: "What can I possibly do right now?". No one can force upon you this attitude.



Again, everyone, refer to how acutely, almost eerily exact this is in relation to my argument with regard to how today Leftists think: They are hysterical and need a master, only articulate things in terms of people 'forcing' things upon you, and so on.

Leftists are no exception to this rule - people today think "I have an opinion, this opinion is mine, and to justify this opinion to others is to submit to them". What happens when one asks: How do you justify it to yourself, in your own mind?

So, the point is quite simple: You are cheaply evading confronting the point at hand, not simply as a matter of posturing but you're evading the point as it relates to your own mind. You can't fucking 'hold the keys' to another persons shyness, 'liberation' from shyness is a task that only, ultimately, the shy person in question is capable of doing. This is their responsibility as individuals. Why is this so hard to grasp? There is no 'key to liberation' invested in other people - you do it by your own devices as you as an active subject relate to a collective reason.

In other words, 'liberation from shyness' is YOUR duty, ultimately, and no matter whether you can do this or not - YOU ARE ETHICALLY responsible for this, if you cannot overcome shyness, because your fear of exposing your ego, having your 'feelings hurt' is greater than your seriousness and engagement with the ideas you have, YOU are ethically responsible for that EVEN as it pertains to HOW YOU justify it TO YOUR OWN mind

What kind of world are we living in here? Why is this so controversial, to think to yourself, "No, I CARE about this, I invest myself in this, above all other things, it is necessary that the group knows - or that this position is criticized, or that this position is defended, and so on?" - as though this is a matter of preying on victims to demand this of them? Shyness? As though this is some neurological impairment you're born with? Are people in the 21st century this helpless?. Tell me, when the darkness consumes our nations, our lives, when the impending doom happens, will you make a pretension to shyness then? Will you make a pretension to your excuses then? Will the world owe you something then, when everything you take for granted is destroyed - to the point where those among you who are weak of heart will submit before this darkness, indeed, believe in it, even? When these structures of guarantee are razed to the ground?

You don't have the right to have the world as it is right now as you see fit. There is a fucking hell upon us - and it doesn't fucking care about your feelings. It doesn't give a shit about your insistence on crutches, it will give you none, it will simply CONSUME you. Your liberal-democratic order, your 'political correctness' is not going to be able to save you from it, NOTHING will. Without a revitalized Left, NOTHING is going to stop this! Nothing! When it is too late, what will you, before the stage of history, have to say for yourself? What? When all that you've taken for granted is gone, and time has run out, what will you say then? Is this Rafiq bullying you all for pointing out this fact? That we are living in times where WITHIN EACH AND EVERY ONE of your lifetimes, at this present rate you will witness things far more traumatic than the torture chamber you envision such a group to be? And maybe, you will look back, when that time comes, and regret your insistence on your weakness and your reluctance to muster up strength with a pretension to victimhood. And the only feeling then that should weigh uncontrollably on your mind is shame, a shame undeserving of any pity. Like do you think we radical leftists are in charge here? Do you think we are inevitably the future, and that you simply, generously, 'agree' with us? Do you think that all of the political correctness that those in power have conveyed solely as a means of co-opting radical consciousness, which is so little a threat today that there is less and less of mainstream acceptance of political correctness?

What will it take, everyone, so that you're laughs won't have the last word? So that this truly isn't a fucking joke, something subject to your pathetic and fake postmodern irony? What will it take to convince all of you that this is not a joke, this is not some guy on the internet spouting nonsense, THIS IS VERY REAL, pertains to THE real reality, you know, the actual one you see around you, immerse yourself in. This is not a joke. There is no ironic postmodern humor that can factor into this. What I am telling you - which if you were so inclined you could already see for yourself - is that real darkness IS upon us, REAL darkness, not an abstraction - a REAL threat, one that within your lifetime will actually be able to be seen at the level of your apolitical and apathetic lives, is upon us! Stop playing these games, and get serious! You aren't fucking conquering anything, you aren't placing yourself above, or securing your sense of fullness by allowing laughs to get the last word here. "huh, Rafiq is so dramatic, Rafiq is so silly, like he's role playing" - Will you say this when the time comes where you can't ignore the silly and dramatic internet user?

Do you think you, great persons, in all your 'normality', where you retreat into your postmodern, fake irony - you think that's going to last forever. You think that all the guarantee you have, all the faith you place in the ability for everyday conventions to reproduce themselves indefinitely, you think that's just going to be there forever? Many of you laugh, I know you're laughing at me. I am not offended by this - I am offended that you make a sucker out of YOURSELVES when you have a duty to our cause. Yes, a duty, a real duty. Laugh it off, "In our enlightened age, our consumerist age, who can speak of duty like this? We aren't living in the 20th century!" you think. Your laughter is fake, your irony is fake, I spit on it, and knowingly ideological seriousness and engagement will always have the last word over laughter, because it is you who are the suckers, fools, idiots, who are so confident in your gods that any blasphemy against them you cannot help but laugh at. That is truly pathetic, that is truly almost invoking of such despair - so confident are you all in your reality, that any criticism of it is such an abnormality that it is only worthy of laughter. Maybe you all just don't care. No I mean it - maybe you will seamlessly accept the darkness when it finally rears its head - if it has not already. Maybe you just won't care and you'll go on with your lives. "What am I supposed to do, bro? Have a laugh." - perhaps this is how you will all be when the hell approaches us. Some of us clowns will prefer death to this. Some of us clowns will die before they act like this. And you will laugh yourself to a grave. On the tombstone, it will read "Here lies he who laughed".

Here's what's disgusting though, why this is so hysterical: The only reason I pointed out that if people are visibly and obviously shy, they should receive comradely encouragement to share what they're thinking, to be assured that they have nothing to fear, is because users here hysterically accused me of indefinitely silencing those who are too shy to muster up the courage. I said that others can help inspire confidence in them in very basic and conventional ways.

First Rafiq claims the shy people should be left to the dogs and therefore excluded. Now he claims to coerce the shy and externally 'liberate' them from their own shyness, and coerce and force them to contribute. It's pathetic, these arguments.



And you simply don't know what a 'criticism' actually means. You can't engage in criticism before 'opening talks'. That IS the 'talks'. Ruthless criticism, unconditionally, of all things and all persons, just as it was in our heyday. Pettiness, bourgeois-egoism and righteous pseudo-individualism are not neutral expressions of ones identity, they represent ones propensity ideologically to take a side in the global antagonism, consigning ones access to understanding it to something particular about their identity.

This pettiness is not simply petty, and infantile. Those who engage in it are class enemies, enemy ideologues and mouthpieces of the existing order. They ought to be exposed for it, if upon being confronted with this truth, they insist upon it still.

I don't really feel like engaging you in discussion since you have misunderstood at least one of the sarcastically worded points I was making however it is at least brave of you to refer to the 'hysterical' criticisms of your OP as posturing while in the shadow of these walls of text. If you are truley lost, the point of contention is over what the word 'shy' seeks to keep hidden in any given situation.

[John Nada]

Often times on facebook or the internet in general you those kinds of propaganda circulate, but they are not ironic (or necessarily ironic) - that is, photos with captions.This is part of the capitalist superstructure. Internets not so different from books, media, schools, newspapers, pictures, sculptures, ect in a way. Like moving from copying books by hand to printing presses. An advance in the productive force changing the expression of the productive relations. Perhaps why the memes are often bigoted, patriarchal, religious and petty-bourgeois in nature? A reflection of bourgeois ideology.
Worse, infinitely worse and limited environments: The study groups in Russian universities around the turn of the century, tiny groups dedicated to the study of complex things with infinitely more limited resources, did these 'hold no sway' over anything? Today, we have the privilege of being connected with individuals not only across the nation, but across the globe, and our resources are infinite, our means of conveying information among each other - with less than seconds of delay. Virtually all the greatest treasures of our tradition, readily at our disposal and for free online. If we had a fraction of the dedication they had, truly, our words could count for much more than space on an internet forum.The subjective situation in the US(at least) is kind of like the earlier "circles" in the Russian Empire. In Chapter IV (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm) of What is to be Done?(IMO Lars Lih's translation is superior), Lenin discusses the early socialist "circles". They were isolated workers and intellectuals, often less than a dozen scattered throughout towns and cities in Russia. And at first, they were riddled with artisanal limitations(alternate translation of "primativness") and opportunist theories like economism. They'd grow a little, only to get busted by the cops. Yet a couple decades later there was the October Revolution.

Compare Absolutist Russia number of strikes according to Lenin from 1895-1912 https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/dec/31.htm to the modern bourgeois-"democratic" US: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.t01.htm The US proletariat has much more political freedom than Tsarist Russia(though still a imperialist police state), a much larger proletariat numerically and percentage wise, and unions are de jure legal. Yet fucking Russia had way more strikes in the low tide of the early socialist movement! This is fucking weird.:confused:

The post-Cold War era of a low tide of revolution could be something like after the failure of the Paris Commune. Engels initially predicted there would be a revolutionary phase around 1880s-1890s, but proved to be almost dead in the water. However, I suspect this isn't a sustainable victory for the bourgeoisie. They don't pour hundreds of billions into weapons and prisons out of altruism. Yet at the same time impose austerity on anything beneficial to workers.

I have a feeling that capitalism is entering a phase where the bourgeoisie won't be able to rule like in the past. I can't imagine every current bourgeois states surviving another depression. This could be good if it leads to socialist revolution, bad if it leads to fascism. There could be a revolution within a couple decades, but only if the proletariat is subjectively prepared. Objectively, the bourgeoisie's rule could be in jeopardy, but if the people summit to their harsh rule, a revolution won't happen automatically.

How revolution's generally start is with a few scattered circles. Right now in a place like the US, it could be like the first phase of the socialism in Russia. From there they expand out to the worker movement, then the proletariat and finally the masses.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps why the memes are often bigoted, patriarchal, religious and petty-bourgeois in nature? A reflection of bourgeois ideology.

Indeed, but it is much more complex than this. We must allot our attention to self-ironic humor all together and its ideological significance.

All self-ironic 'meme' culture, no matter how it politically identifies itself represents - in the midst of the irony - the affirmation of ones true, and serious ideological immersion that is not made known. The way in which this works is a peculiar thing.

It is for this reason that 'memes' are by and large not simply reflections of the status quo, but are reactionary. This is because what we consider the 'status quo' is mystified: We conceive it at the level of outward and formal discourse (political correctness). But what is under the surface is the point. What makes Fascist 'memes' significant is that they represent ruling ideology as such, no longer buttressed by dying formalities (political correctness) or a very real potential trajectory path for it. What the humor reveals is that which is purportedly suppressed by what is assumed to be serious discourse - political correctness, etc. But in our age where transgressions of serious convention are a part of the goings of capitalism, it becomes impossible to step outside of this process of transgression.

One way in which 'ironic' memes which are reactionary are, and have been combated by Leftists is by adding more layers of irony to them. Okay, for example, let's take the 'Jewish merchant' meme. Leftists might attempt to combat the ideological effect by subjecting this 'meme' to ironic humor, thereby thinking they've made a superior transgression. This is not how one ought to correctly de-mystify and de-enchant the ideological effect of ironic humor, and expose it, because one endlessly gets entrapped in this cycle by abiding by its rules.

We should draw our attention to the culture of leftypol, to 'leftist' memes, which are nothing more than opportunist and re-hashed Fascist propaganda with a Left aesthetic. For the first time people who call themselves Leftists are now the opportunists appropriating an aesthetic from Fascists (rather than the other way around, as it always has been)! What Left-wing memes ultimately represent is the affirmation of the postmodern triumph over the modern emancipatory project. They represent the assertion of one's lack of seriousness in their political identity, taking a distance from it, it represents their prostration before the true altars of seriousness which command their devotion 'at the end of the day'.

Instead, for Socialists, we should hope that eventually we can foster a new culture of more honest, and innovative online propaganda that will be for frankness and seriousness, by striking at the falsity of postmodern self-irony in revealing its deeply partisan, opportunist nature. If one can do this, the humor loses its magic, and thereby the ideological effect is de-mystified. Rather than a battle of laughs, we must do this by turning the tables on the Fascists and making them accountable for their ideas. They reveal what is suppressed by political correctness, but what we must reveal is their own assumed naiveties... Not in a self-ironic humorous way but in a totally frank, cold and direct way, one that crushes them, strikes at them, instills into them and their adherents fear and anxiety.

Our propaganda ought to be terroristic in the very qualified sense that we do not have this common agreement of 'meme culture', we must shake the very foundations of this itself. What that means is - exposing their personal identities, instilling into them fear, and exposing them in revealing the pure contingency of their ideological persuasions. You expose the enemy in such a way... That what you elicit is no longer laughter, but pure disgust and outrage, plain and simple. That these scum are laughing. That they are so confident that they are laughing. We must strike mercilessly at this confidence, CRUSH it. It's simple. In a culture of transgressions, the individual can never be above it. Expose Fascists as individuals, and you humiliate them. If we Leftists are committed, serious in our individuality, then if they expose us we have nothing to hide, because we are serious and frank in our convictions. This is the catch of transgressive culture: As soon as one unites the 'taking a distance' memes with the concrete individuals who authored them, the magic can be ruined, because we reveal that particular individuals alone, shriveling little rats, are the only ones responsible. By making hem accountable as tangible figures, rather than anonymous ones, this is our finest weapon against 'meme culture'.

The reason is simple. Because these individuals are engaging in 'memes', that means they are taking a distance from their self-proclaimed ideas, and thereby not being fully responsible for them as ethical subjects. But where are they located that which they can take such a distance? They are individuals who live normal lives. This is how ideology works today: one is a normal postmodern subject, and one takes a distance from their political engagements. But this 'taking a distance' as the highest kind of alienation, gives the purported ideas an untangibility and a lack of direct accountability. This is a double edged sword: On one hand, their anonymous nature gives them power over the audience, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, the only authors of these ideas which are untangible are very tangible and concrete people. So if we can make them accountable for their ideological positions as concrete individuals who relate to them, we CRUSH them!

This is the true battle. We must aim for seriousness, and frankness, at the risk of being 'made fun of'. We do this by sparing nothing - no more 'normal lives' and 'normal people' - by politicizing this sacred space, we become and subsequently force others to be ethical subjects responsible for their ethical existence. At the last instance, the battle between frankness and irony - is a particular expression of the universal struggle between Communism and barbarism, the battle between historical self-consciousness and living with a sense of guarantee in a big other. True, the enemy may get their last laugh. But only temporarily. Think about even Bernie Sanders' campaign vs. Donald Trumps. The "Bernie memes" aside, Sanders' seriousness as opposed to Trump's transgressions are able to work. If Trump tried to play that shit with Bernie, it wouldn't work, because Bernie's seriousness is stronger than Trump's transgressions....

That is not to say all 'memes' are reactionary. But that what ironic humor represents, is a deep conservatism or investment in our existing order. Our propaganda must be different. The laughing that is elicited by such memes is the laughter of faithlessness. Faithlessness that all pretense to great projects, can only ever be a joke. We must prove that we are not joking by shaking the very core of the confidence and sense of guarantee that allows them to so naively laugh.

[Rafiq]

We tend to think we are powerful, we are the masters of our own engagements, unable to get swept up in hot passions, in worldly things... When we engage in postmodern self-irony...

Is it not the ultimate kind of power, freedom, to see the self-ironic postmodern attempts at humor and with a straight face recognize it does not have the last word? That this fake humor doesn't have the last word, and that one's retreat into laughter is nothing more than the expression of their sense of guarantee in something which doesn't exist? Is it not true freedom to be able to recognize the thin, precarious and volatile contingency of the laughter of the ironic subject in all its weirdness? Let that be the revenge of the modern project - the one to demystify the world. We are stricken by the beauty of nature, until we see it for what it really is, and that is meaningless incompleteness and imperfection. After this, as modern subjects, we see it as an imperfection, we see it as more like this (http://infinispace.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the_thirteenth_floor_header-660x330.jpg) (from the 90's movie The Thirteenth Floor). The same must go for humor.

To see it, and squarely place it in its ideological, political and social context, to recognize what it means in relation to our historical predicament, to be unmoved by it, to de-mystify it? Let others laugh if they think we are totally futile in our seriousness. Should we not prove them wrong?

[Noa Rodman]

Besides these standard reproaches (of being inexorable - Nietzschean will to power or whatever -, passionate, morose, etc. – they can be easily reversed as well; coy, boring, blithe, etc.) that are thrown about at each other during a discussion (and the most fundamental one, to which everything perhaps can be reduced, is that of being a troll), and which are not really arguments but some kind of polemical tricks (although they occur in ordinary life situations too, so a better designation should be found), is there something else, something more important maybe, that is plaguing debates? I wonder what that the other problem is (I forgot my idea). Maybe it is about patronising tone, I can't quite put my finger on it.

[iamnoone]

You are worthless. You don't matter as an individaul. Your individuality is fake. Before you can be a Socialist, you need to get over yourself and become a universal subject.

Disagree. Not worthless. Do matter. Not fake. This is the biggest error in socialism/communism and probably it's biggest downfall. Being a socialist/communist doesn't mean I have to continue to spout erroneous and flawed reasoning on the part of those who became before me. My individuality is patently obvious. I am a singular human being, that I belong to something bigger than myself does not mean I don't exist or don't matter. I am an individual expression of all that is with my individual skills, preferences and imaginings. Does that make these skills, preferences or imaginings special or unique? No. That is the misnomer of the bourgeoisie.


What does that mean? It means your socialism doesn't come from any particular individual interest, but how you as a particular person express a universal tradition.

Also disagree. Expressing a universal tradition is fake, we should be seeking to embody said tradition where that tradition holds true and this requires a value change. Teaching a bunch of maxims to someone does not a socialist make. I absolutely agree that socialism cannot come from self interest, it wouldn't exist otherwise.


It's a shame that we live in a time - our filthy consumerist epoch - where this must be clarified. But socialism must be for you more than just an identify you tie with your sense of individual self worth as an individual consumer, bourgeois-egoist. That means, that if you agree to meet with others, you must drop all pretense to being immune to criticism, and take nothing 'personally', that is, don't play with these ideas as a smokescreen for your worthless, particular sense of individuality and your consumerist ego.

I concur and I agree it is annoying as all fuck.


If people can form fight clubs and literally beat the shit out of each other without any drama, you can do the same thing in a socialist organization. The first prerequisite is that no one matters. Everyone is equally worthless and equally entitled to participating in a common space of reason. That means: Debates and arguments must go as far as they need to, must be endured, without there being any pettiness or drama, you must ruthlessly attack each other and expose the philistinism, etc. that is among you. This ruthlessness cannot be limited for the sake of polite conventions. You don't need to all be friends and hold hands.

You must be willing to take criticism, you must be willing to be broken by another persons argument without interpreting this as this person asserting their particular individuality over you. You must understand that these debates are with regard to a universal tradition, THIS tradition must be in common.

Is this really necessary? It's not actually that difficult to 'expose the philitinism', it's usually blatantly obvious in the way the person speaks and presents themselves. People need to be led through the process of ego death not beaten into submission (and yes that can involve criticising thoughts and thought processes but there'd be no point doing that publicly except to public shame and humiliate someone, it would be better to just not include them in discussions until they've reached the place they need to be in order to contribute). If you do that, you're no better than the military and other right-wing fascists and all you end up with is conditioned drones. In achieving ego death we are naturally socialist, we couldn't imagine being any other way and we embrace this way of life as a choice.


Speaking is not a sign of a persons particular power over others.

One thing which I am told is a particularly American problem is the propensity to interpret speaking alone as signifying some particular power. What a disgusting convention! What that means effectively is that regardless of what a person is saying, the act of them saying something alone is interpreted as that person asserting some particular interest over everyone else. Leave that shit behind.

I don't live in the US. Have never heard of such a thing. Don't care.


If you have nothing to say, then you don't have to speak, it doesn't make you any more worthless than anyone else. A person who speaks longer, who has more to say, and has more to share, is doing so, so as to contribute to a common tradition we are attempting revive. Instead you should pay attention to what the person is saying, and recognize that what they are saying can be subject to the fullest degree of criticism you can muster. If you cannot muster this criticism, then you ought not to protest what another person is saying.

Is this a different point to the one above? I can't tell. I'm not sure I understand the point of all this debate. Either something is scientifically verifiable or it's not. If it is, science wins out, if it's not, it shouldn't be debated, people present the options, we decide. EASY.


Group discussions therefore shouldn't be rationed along the lines of 'speaking turns' and other such fake, walking-on-eggshell conventions. There is nothing wrong with people loudly arguing with each other, impassionately, there is nothing wrong with interrupting others, with doing this to its fullest extent. If each according person can get over their juvenile egoistic, personal pettiness, then they must at the onset be prepared to debate and discuss how they relate to the universality of Socialism to others, which can be subject to ruthless criticism and can be contested.

This seems very important to you since you keep mentioning it. Is it something you need to look at within yourself? Maybe you have some 'juvenile egoistic' desire to justify rude and impolite behaviour. Fake, taking it in turns bullshit came about because some people are wankers who think their right to speak outweighs everyone elses. I think you'll find the middle road is where the truth lies here. Someone stepping up and taking responsibility for ensuring everyone who would like to be heard is. This doesn't need to faked. Nice people just tend to notice when others are getting railroaded and naturally stand up in support.


This is particularly a problem with regard to identity politics. That is to say, because a person belongs to a particular identity, what they say is elevated. Again, leave that shit as home. Socialists must be universal subjects - so your particular experiences as a 'non-white non-heterosexual non-male', must be translated into something with theoretical substance, something that can have a say in a collective space of reason. If it can't do this, then it means nothing to assert your identity. All pretensions to "As an X" must be dropped, unless they are within the context of theory - and not simply crass attempts to substitute one's relation to universal reason with a pretension to their identity.

I agree in sentiment but this is written in an unnecessarily and combative way and I think it's insulting to imagine anyone would do that but I do often underestimate human behaviour.


And don't get me wrong - there are scum who can be obvious with their philistine sexism, racism, etc. that they aren't aware of out of ignorance in peritoneal to their personal experiences. But this must be a theoretical controversy, and their conduct will be reflected in their ideas. Those ideas must be attacked. Such outwardly behavior, doesn't come from not 'checking your privilege' but from a rottenness that is reflected at the level of their actual ideas. Locating this is the task, not petty, idealist, juvenile and actually fake rituals of 'checking your privilege' and whatever. Leave that shit behind.

There is nothing wrong with political, ideological shaming.

A common problem we find with Leftists today is that they're simply too soft - they don't want to hurt each others' feelings. Your particular feelings... Are worthless. They are meaningless. You are either a partisan of the tradition of the Left or you are a philistine who identities with this tradition for some other particular reason.

I wouldn't attack it, that suggests giving them room to move, I'd destroy it.


It is necessary to, as the Russian revolutionary social democrats used to say, regularly "bend the stick". There is nothing wrong with rigidity and conformity. This conformity and rigidity must be enforced not by blind obedience, but by actively understanding it through the medium of each particular individual, so that each particular individaul actively, by their own devices, conforms to common standards.

If that bothers you - the point must be that you must fuck off.

See my comments re embodiment.


These standards must be definitive and set - perhaps agreed upon. Examples like:

No Fascists

No reactionaries of any kind (racists, anti-semites, etc.)

No preachers

No liberals

The common agreement that everyone is a socialist, a radical Leftist that is.

This is necessary because these common standards set the standard for debate. For example, if one is a sexist, you don't have to debate whether sexism is okay or not okay - they simply become bellow the standards of the group and must be excluded. A common agreement, one that must be universal across all cities even, must be made, about the political standards of the radical grouping. ONLY THEN can ruthless criticism of all kinds proceed, ONLY when it has been established that AT THE LEAST all are radical leftists who seek the supersession of capitalism, and so on. Without this precondition, the whole idea - for radical groupings, becomes worthless.

Agree.


These spaces cannot be designed for your comfort.

For all intended purposes, these spaces can't cater to your stupidity, your ignorance and your worthless preferences. You must be able to become a universal subject insofar as at the expense of all personal, particular considerations you dedicate yourself to the tradition of socialism we are attempting to revive. Inevitably out of their philistinism and pettiness some will be exposed and some will leave. But this ruthless process is necessary.

Also agree.


If you're shy, and so on, well - sorry to break it to you, THIS NEEDS TO BE OVERCOME. Is your shyness, your particular personality, are you going to let that get in the way of your dedication to the cause? If you do, you have no right to call yourself a socialist in the first place. Don't be afraid to say things if you feel like they need to be said - holding in criticism and arguments against others creates tension, awkwardness and an overall poisonous climate. Let everything be let loose - for the innocent have nothing to hide. If someone has to repress their reactionary predispositions, those predispositions must be exposed in the first place.

Disagree. This is YOUR personal opinion based on YOUR personal experience. Everyone has the right to express themselves however they like. This does not make them wrong or bad or worth less.


And those who can be shown not to be innocent will be exposed, and must be. This is why it is necessary that there are leaders who are able to regulate political standards to the point where there is a zero tolerance policy toward enemy ideologues - Fascists, and reactionaries. There is nothing wrong with leaders, or people who happen to be more knowledgeable, committed and so on than others. And it's purely a provisionality - if one is a socialist, and say, the majority of their group is in fact composed of Fascists, then they ought to leave the group. These political standards must be held in place, first and foremost, by dedication to the tradition of the Left, and there will always be - no matter how few - people who are like minded as you.

This conflicts with your anti special snowflake stance. I don't disagree, it's just that you should.


Keep your group connected with others online so as to establish common, and accountable standards, (political) culture.

Let's see if we can work these out together rather than having a despot impose them.


Finally the activities of certain groups can be scrutinized through the medium of online discussions with other potential groups, so that truly a the basis for a leftist tradition, and political culture, can be born. I do not know which website would serve best for this - though I can think of one at the top of my head. That' something we can discuss if we can get more people involved in this.

This is getting awfully Orwellian for me. Shall we send in the thought police too?


Even if you disagree with this code of conduct, recognize that it's important to have one, or nothing can get done.
Thoughts? My inspiration, by the way, and please - go ahead and laugh at me - is Revleft. Revleft is important because it has common standards that are enforced wherein all debate, criticism and discussion proceeds from with that precondition. These standards can be vague and open to interpretation, but they must exist. This allows for more diverse political discussion, why? because let's say you join a socialist organization - if you do not agree with their articulation of socialism in its particularity, you can't be there. But with these kinds of groups, so long as everyone agrees that they are radical socialists, they can take ruthless criticism to its highest conclusion, so long as it is established that one's practical inclinations are at least FORMALLY in common. This is very important. Neither 'open' political spaces nor sectarianism, but ruthless criticism, which both lack (the former, out of retaining 'openness', and the latter, out of retaining formally, uncritically accepted rules).

Think of this as a Socialist 'fight club'. Everything must be left behind, and you must be willing to get your ass kicked (not physically, of course - you all understand what I mean...).

Of course eventually, hopefully something that can be consistent and strict can come about from this. But we aren't at that point yet. What we need is to find like minded people in the first place before we can have more discussions about party building, and so on. These aren't meant to be an ends, but a basis for reinvigorating socialist politics. A beginning point for a new beginning.

I agree with this: 'What we need is to find like minded people in the first place before we can have more discussions about party building, and so on'.

[Rafiq]

This user joins this month, reads the initial post, makes an Olympic leap throughout the entire discussion at hand, and is confident in assuming that his juvenile misinterpretations have not already been addressed SO THOROUGHLY and SO EXTENSIVELY that one gets the impression this person is simply trolling.

For all the theoretical, etc. elaboration I have given on the matter, I refuse to simply repeat myself. I will only respond to that which we have not encountered yet. This blatant petty bourgeois ideologue. The crass and blatant arrogance, naive arrogance, in thinking what you are saying is worthy of the standards of discussion at hand is literally clownish. Every single fucking thing that I am going to ignore, has already been so thoroughly destroyed, so thoroughly theoretically attacked and crushed that it is embarrassing. Yes, we get it, you translate any pretense to the universal as deriving from the particular apsects of the individual in question - thus Rafiq is merely asserting particular aspects of his individuality in making a pretense to the universal, WE GET IT, WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS, AND THIS MUCH HAS BEEN TOTALLY DESTROYED, TOTALLY RIPPED APART IN ANY WAY IMAGINABLE, AND YET YOU FUCKING COME TO THIS THREAD, AND YOU SAY THIS SHIT WITHOUT EVEN GIVING THOUGHT TO THE IDEA THAT OTHERS HAVE TRIED TO ARGUE WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING? Is this LITERALLY a fucking joke? Are you TROLLING? No, be honest, if you're trolling, we will applaud you. Otherwise, tell us what is going through your head, I am so curious, do you literally just think with your ass? Do you just post for the sake of it? Who are you trying to impress? You post at the expense of actually trying to convey certain ideas - if you were committed to that, you would have actually fucking read the discussion at hand to see if others have already argued your very same position, which they have, numerous times over. But no, that's not possible! It's not! Because even if they did:

"Well, that's their opinion, I'm going to share my opinion, and if it coincides with theirs, then brah, that's just incidental". No, fool, what is incidental is that this is coming from you as a particular person, any pretense otherwise is to not care about your positions, but care about how you fucking look. In which case, welcome to Revleft, an anonymous internet forum. Here on Revleft, we have a great thing called the 'like' function. It means that if you have nothing new to fucking contribute, you can just like the posts of others. I know, a crazy, Orwellian and strange ritual, no doubt.

And remember, before you even respond to this - as I already envision you to do, so pathetically, recognize that there is a 99% chance that your responses, you great and special individual, have already been addressed a thousand fucking times over. Such a great and special individual that their arguments are so pathetically predictable that it is almost inducing of vomit, how disgusting it is... This person actually thinks that they are offering a unique perspective on the matter, worst of all, they articulate their cliche'd, conventional IDEOLOGICAL notions, irreducible to themselves, as an expression of their own individuality and their own 'unique' perspective'. Holy shit, I'm going to vomit. He speaks of fucking orwellian uniformity and yet there is no greater example of the uniformity of the petty bourgeois individualists than the arguments in question. And they articulate it in terms of freely deriving from their own selves. Disgusting. Absolutely sickening. You assume we are comrades and you're discussing matters with comrades. But we are not comrades. Your are an enemy who identifies as a socialist out of pure confusion and entanglement of consumer-identities alone. Socialists despise you as they despise any other enemy ideologue. Stop fucking assuming we're on the same page here, because we are not. We are exactly the scary, Orwellian monsters you envision us to be - nay, even worse than that.


Also disagree.

First, let us make something very clear. Nobody cares about whether you simply agree or disagree, because no one is asking for your uncritical and unqualified approval or disapproval on the matter. Nobody gives a fuck... Literally no one, if you are unable to justify PRECISELY what you oppose. You see, we know that you are attempting to justify yourself, the point is that even in the very expression of your arguments it is clear you are a juvenile petty bourgeois ideologue: For you what matters is not the critical justification for your agreement or disagreement (your agreement or disagreement being PURELY INCIDENTAL to WHY you disagree or agree), you first put forward how you identify with regard to the positions presented, and from then on you elaborate upon this. You see, the petty and clownish egoism is simply disgusting, because at this point it is almost as though you are talking to yourself, referring to yourself in such a way that it is almost as if one is playing the devil's advocate with their own self-proclaimed positions: You are not an individual, you are playing the part of an egoist individual and you are presenting it in the matter of an uncritically accepted devil's advocate position. In other words. You see no one here cares about you in particular. Nobody actually gives a fuck about you in particular, or about convincing YOU, peripheral and archetypal 'individual'. We have nothing to offer you - you either have something to offer to the discussion, or you don't. It is that simple.

You come in here with the implicit pretension that somehow you're in a position of authority, and that you're checking off the arguments at hand so as to give them either an O.K. or your disapproval. It's so fucking stupid. Your approval or disapproval means nothing in and of itself, it is either incidental of real criticism or it's worthless fucking dick-waving that doesn't belong here. Think about it: Why is it even important to INSIST upon your agreement or disagreement, often times at the expense of your justification, if your criticism was enough to already implicitly signify this? If I say that two and two is four, and you say that two and two is five, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT to insist on IDENTIFYING with an archetypal person who disagrees, why not just say "No, two and two is four". That is because you don't take responsibility for your positions fully, you simply associate and identify them with your fake sense individuality and then raise your arms when you're ridiculed: "Hey man, that's just my opinion! We're all entitled to one!".


Teaching a bunch of maxims

I just would love to fucking point this out, how he talks out of his ass and arrogantly makes GROUNDLESS fucking assumptions, even though this much has been said already:

The code of conduct is not a set of arbitrarily chosen rules, formal rules, that one finds 'loopholes' in. It is a theoretical text, one that people actually have to agree with, by their own devices and their own engagement in their access to universal reason, as individual agents. This is what you simply don't understand: The notion that people will find themselves with these rules in front of them, is besides the point: People need to actually understand why such a 'code of conduct' is in place, its basis of justification, before they can even agree to conduct themselves in such a manner.

[...]

This 'code of conduct', which is A code of conduct, made no pretensions to being "The" code of conduct (?), was not made for those groups, but for socialists who are sick and tired of our disgusting fucking left and want something new.

This is literally the only people Rafiq cares to work with, cares to help bring together, THOSE WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF OUR DISGUSTING AND INFANTILE fucking Left. And if you're fine with the Left as it is right now, simply leave - because this has nothing to do with you.

[...]

Which is the basic point: the only way this 'code of conduct', or any code of conduct is ever going to fucking mean anything is if enough people agree with it and meet up agreeing with it, mutually, which provides a consistent framework where everyone acknowledges they don't have to play petty and stupid games.

If it offends one so much, they don't have to engage an intellectual space with such a code of conduct, and they can form one with people who agree with it. And I tell them: good luck! Really, good luck! No, I actually encourage you do this - make a different one that you agree wtih, and SEE how it works out. I'm not joking! Please, go ahead and do it - when I claim people ought to form intellectual spaces, they are free to do this however they want, I didn't fucking tell anyone what they HAVE to do - so by all means - one can set whatever rules they wish, if enough people agree. And see where it gets you. My insistence is that the formalities you all propose will (have, and continue to) erode any sense of comradeship among people, will be (is, in fact) grounds for passive aggressiveness, and people will simply be alien from each others ideological, political views, will not be fully engaged and fully committed, won't be able to pour their whole hearts out but will simply be a group of private individuals, and so on.

[...]

The code of conduct presented here, was not a matter of making rules by authority, it was theoretical - it challenged why and how radical groups conduct themselves, it wasn't a matter of arbitrarily making up fucking rules, but justifying ethically how Socialists ought to conduct themselves. This is what you fall to understand: I didn't fucking say THIS IS THE RULES, I put this forward as a theoretical argument, criticizing how groups today conduct themselves and proposing what is the logical conclusion of a theoretical argument. So approaching this in the spirit of "Well you're just going to scare people off!" IS NOT FUCKING MEANINGFUL OR RELEVANT, because this is made with the presuppostiion that people FIRST AND FOREMOST UNDERSTAND the theoretical basis of the 'code of conduct', how Socialist ought to conduct themselves and why.

EVERY SINGLE argument here, or almost every single one, has been made presupposing that this understanding will not be there among people - that random fucking people will be 'recruited' or whatever and find themselves in a group with certain rules. But that isn't fucking true - I am theoretically justifying this 'code of conduct', ethically justifying it, and in order for people to engage a group with such a code of conduct they must agree with it theoretically and ethically. So this wasn't made to fucking 'regulate' or 'tame' human animals, it was made to criticize how groups today conduct themselves and show alternatively how socialists ought to conduct themselves. Passive 'human animals' who must be herded have nothing to do with this - everyone who joins such a group would have to be consciously engaged and would have to actively agree ethically and theoretically with HOW THEY THEMSELVES OUGHT to act and conduct themselves.

[...]

Much less than arbitrarily conceived commandments that people should obey, the 'code of conduct' here is a theoretical argument that is meant to challenge YOUR OWN pre-conceived, ideological notions of your ego, and so on - and how that relates to group discussions. It is a theoretical argument which rafiq doesn't even need to exist to enforce

[...]

The fact of the matter is that no one understands the context of this 'code of conduct'. This was not made to say: "HERE IS THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EVERY GROUP OF SOCIALISTS".

In the spirit of a previous blog piece, which was What Should I be Doing, Rafiq made a code of conduct. If one thought that they were in any position to simply declare rules that everyone should follow because I said so (?) then why would I even publish such a code of conduct?

In fact what is happening is that a Code of Conduct has been proposed. This was directly related to the 'intellectual spaces' in question that was mentioned in What Should I be Doing.


I concur and I agree it is annoying as all fuck.

Do you want a fucking prize?


Is this really necessary? It's not actually that difficult to 'expose the philitinism', it's usually blatantly obvious in the way the person speaks and presents themselves

Yes, if you think with your ass and not with your head, it's "not actually that difficult". And yet philistinism is far from self-evident, and even if it is self-evident, it needs to actually be exposed insofar as one engages in criticism: One actually, rationally and consciously justifies the characterization of another person as a philistine, as it relates to a universal reason that which everyone relates to.


People need to be led through the process of ego death not beaten into submission (and yes that can involve criticising thoughts and thought processes but there'd be no point doing that publicly except to public shame and humiliate someone, it would be better to just not include them in discussions until they've reached the place they need to be in order to contribute).

People need to be 'led through a process of ego death' he sais. So-called ego death which is nothing more than exactly what I am fucking arguing against: the so-called EGO is not a fucking ideological, unpartisan and abstract thing, the ego of a radical socialist may be infinitely bigger than the ego of a petty bourgoeis individualist such as yourself. We are much more ruthless, scary and Orwellian than you think: Not only do we claim that your ego is worthless, petty and so on, we claim that you are not even entitled to the contours of having an ego or not having one - it being as simple as that. In other words, it is not a matter of suppressing your ego, but subjecting your ego to criticism, i.e. WHY THIS PARTICULAR EGO IS YOUR PARTICULAR EGO, IS NOT A FUCKING GIVEN OF YOUR PHYSIOLOGICAL EXISTENCE alone. That is the point, and this is why I use the phrase petty egoism. One must actively express and relate to the tradition of socialism as it pertains TO THEIR OWN ego, wherein one's 'ego' is synonymous with the universality of socialism. The crass stupidity of your arguments is the assumption that Rafiq is somehow claiming that one ought to suppress and sacrifice their self-interests in the name of socialism. This is far from the point: If one has self-interests that are at odds with ones ethical existence as a Communist, then one is not a Communist, that is the point - if one is a communist there is nothing to suppress, there is only the continual self-discipline that is in congruence with ones theoretical, ideological loyalty. This is why we speak of ruthless criticism: One cannot simply fall back on their individuality, because the whole point is that YOUR INDIVIDUALITY IS NEVER YOUR OWN, you RELATE your particular individuality to something universal WHETHER OR NOT you are aware of it. Again, I'm not going to FUCKING go over this again for fuck's sake. The point is quite simple: ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR EGO, FOR THEIR OWN ETHICAL EXISTENCE, YOU CANNOT FALL BACK ON SOMETHING PURPORTEDLY OUTSIDE OF YOUR RATIONAL ARTICULATION to justify it, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for it, and this responsibility is one that answers itself to a universality.

And let us draw our attention to your disgusting fucking idea, which can only genuinely breed drama, fakeness and ingenuinety. You are claiming that PUBLICALLY one shouldn't be fucking criticized with regard to their positions, because it may 'shame' or 'humiliate' someone, and furthermore, not only this, BUT THAT THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE INCLUDED UNTIL SOMEONE HAS ARBITRARILY CHOSEN THAT THEY ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO CONTRIBUTE? Like a petty bourgeois ideologue you speak of Rafiq being a despot (holy shit) - and what the fuck are you arguing here? And furthermore, once we descend from the realm of abstraction, it becomes even more embarrassing for your sorry ass. As I've already fucking stated countless times over, you are assuming that there are vast swaths of fucking people who are willing and who want to engage in such groups in the first place, to the point where we would need such a bouncer at all - this is an assumption which has no basis in reality. And yet you cling to it, because you don't actually fucking see this 'code of conduct' AS SOMETHING THAT PERTAINS to reality, but a fucking abstract thing, wherein one can play the devil's advocate as a test of their own abstract moral, ethical, positions, to see "how they would react". It is almost as if this whole fucking thing in your mind, as it is in the minds of others, is a thought-experiment, a pure abstraction. You fail to understand that the only people who would engage such groups are people who are practically inclined - not out of any implicit desire to assert themselves or 'play the socialist' but people who see the only obstacle between the goals of a socialist and their own practical activity are concrete conditions which they want to confront, address and traverse. It is simply ironic when we add that all Rafiq is proposing is ruthless criticism: If someone has incorrect positions, and are not knowledgeable, then they are responsible for defending what they do know - and if they can't do this, that is how they acquire new knowledge. If someone is less knowledgeable, this can't be fucking arbitrarily qualified in a genuine socialist organization, it must be demonstrated rationally and consciously in a shared space of reason. That is quite different from DISALLOWING people to engage SIMPLY because it was arbitrarily chosen (formally chosen) that they aren't "knowledgeable" enough. You simply think so disgustingly... "It would only publically shame and humiliate them"... WHERE IS IT WRITTEN that this is inevitable? Where is it written that people care about hteir FAKE sense of individuality and their consumer-ego more than their practical inclination to know things? How would it fucking humiliate them? If I think that two and two is five, and someone tells me that two and two is four, there is only two conditions that which I could be humiliated: Either I somehow believe that it is an inevitability of my existence physiologically to have made the error that two and two is five, or I don't actually fucking care about what two and two is, but care about HOW legitimate or 'smart' I appear. Honestly just shut up - I have already fucking envisioned your response, because you're so damned predictable, "Well, it's human nature to.." Okay, then all the humans can fuck off. How about that? I have already addressed all of this so deeply and with such thorough consideration at this point it's just fucking EXHAUSTING we all must cater to YOUR SPECIFIC righteous stupidity and ignorance. You seem quite uncritically and righteously confident in your abjectly, monstrously fucking stupid positions, so what do you expect but pure ridicule by asserting them like this? How about this: no one fucking needs or wants you.

With such great and careful consideration, and we get this user to come and just shit all over.


If you do that, you're no better than the military and other right-wing fascists and all you end up with is conditioned drones.

By the qualifications of philistines, who see no difference, indeed, we are no better and moreover we don't care that we are no better by your STUPID fucking qualifications. This is hilarious when we factor in the reality that such 'conditioned drones' preceded Fascism, the mentality was implicit in the very first socialist organizations, up to social democracy and finally ending with so-called "Bolshevism". This was an aesthetic, an ingenuine one, which Fascists stole and adopted for themselves so as to appease working masses who - in fact - were never predisposed to the middle class or bourgeois mentality that is aversed to such 'conditioned droning'. This is especially why such right wing currents are and always will be in the minority: the partisans of fascism today are precisely the defenders of sacred free speech and free individuality against the 'orwellian uniformity' demanded by liberal political correctness. In fact there is not even a real comparison at the onset that which one actually compares the 'militaristic' uniformity of the Fascists and that of the Communists. The Communists are much worse and are much 'scarier' towards this regard as being an affront to bourgeois individualism. The Fascists may deride certain sacred rights of the individual, such as their public expression as individuals in ways that are unlawful or unacceptable. Communists are much worse: Fascists where wear all the same uniforms as it pertains to certain formalities, but when they all go home, they are sacred bourgeois individuals left uncritically to their purported particular self-interests - so long as they engage in the SPECTACLES, in the public rituals, they are left to their individuality, an uncritical island of sacred particular space, wherein they are allowed to engage in all the self-indulgence, all the rabid expressions of the particular bourgeois individual, so long as it remains private. Communists are different: That Communists create formal uniformity is incidental to how we demand the conscious uniformity and discipline of the mind itself, of the very so-called sacred space, sacred island, wherein EVEN HOW YOU JUSTIFY YOUR OWN individuality TO YOURSELF is made something subject to conscious criticism, something that is not allowed to be a given, but must be questioned, wherein individual are responsible for their own self-existence even as it concerns their own thoughts and their own sense of identity. You see, the point is not that Socialists can say "What makes us better than the Fascists?" - it is that: "What makes the Fascists any different from the Communists?". You fail to understand that Fascists are not 'conditioned drones', their discipline is a formality, under which all the nastiest kinds of self-indulgence, bourgeois-egoism and individuality lurks under. We Communists are actually fucking drones, we are actually of a hive mind, we don't just PRETEND to be of one.

We lament in the horror this instills in you. We lament and celebrate how much it is an affront to you, you parasitic 'individual', mouthpiece of the bloodsuckers. We hope it scares the shit out of you and we hope it scares you to the core of your being, for where you got away with the enslavement of peoples not behest to their own consciousness as well as your own, what we represent is the conscious control of our own uniformity, of our own social existence, in the same way that the sciences represent the conscious control of the natural where before there was none.

"Oh! What uniformity these runaway slaves have! No individuality whatsoever!", we might assume the Romans to have said of Spartacus and his band of slaves. "Why not just fall back on their own individuality, in servitude to their masters?". When this uniformity is precisely the only key to their continued freedom. Freedom is not free. It is not a given. The price of freedom is actually having the strength to defend it, which you attempt to take from us. You fail.


In achieving ego death we are naturally socialist, we couldn't imagine being any other way and we embrace this way of life as a choice.

That is akin to saying women's liberation is impossible without male castration. Furthermore, there is no such thing as 'ego death', not even when you're taking LSD, a so-called 'ego' is a given to one's active relationship to the universality of social relations as a particular expression of them, there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself - the point is, YOUR EGO is NOT YOUR OWN, it is not answerable to anything particular to you, it can only posit itself in relation to a universality, in relation to others. This is why no, people who purport to achieve 'ego death' as an ethical goal are not fucking socialists, are on the contrary the greatest reactionaries, in congruence with the disgusting and filthy Western Buddhism of our times that revokes the individual of actual, engaged and active agency, reduces them to passive animals whose worldly prerogatives are now seen as purely futile. Freedom is posited specifically as something internal to the individual, simply because for the individual to actually engage themselves in the collective universality of capitalism consciously, this is dangerous for our existing order. That you hold uncritically the deepest crevice of your soul as either unknowable or simply unquestionable, is because you are an irredeemable partisan of the existing order, no matter how you choose to identify. We don't want, or need you. We don't care about you. How about that? This post was not made for you, your irk, it was made for socialists who are so-inclined, but lack any direction. I offer such a modest thing, and he goes on, like a filthy opportunist, about 'ego-death' and that we are 'naturally socialists' upon the achievement of which. What an abjectly stupid thing to say, because one can define socialism however they like, like a filthy and disgusting opportunist...

"Socialism is about sharing bro, its about caring for one and another", the word socialism rolls off of their tongue as they give a slight grin, as they smile, eyes wide open like rabid predators, 'Socialism' they say, so as to play the devil's advocate: "Is socialism not the caring for your fellow man?" they say, as if socialism is such a worthless fucking abstraction, roaming in the aether, that which they can make a pretension to as it applies to the contours of ethical life for the bourgeois subject. As consumer-subjects, they conceive socialism only as it is relevant to their atomized ethical existence in capitalist society, wherein socialism is an aspect inherent to it. This is quite a conventional problem: Today, Socialism is seen as something one 'applies' to this or that, Socialism is seen as an abstraction, an ethical platitude, wherein a socalist can be criticized for not sharing his toothbrush or possessing an Iphone. Sharing ones meal at lunchtime is conceived as a 'socialist' act. Such is the deep fucking stupidity we find ourselves in: And why? Because the bourgeois-subjects in question find it inconceivable to think outside of the framework of our existing order, for them, it is a given of existence itself, a netural space, that which we apply a 'little socialism' or a 'little capitalism', things which are purported to be contingent upon the consumer-identity-decisions of individual subjects and not things which are systemic, exist in totality, and so on.


I don't live in the US. Have never heard of such a thing. Don't care.

YOU don't care? YOU don't fucking care? You don't? Really? Tell us more! Tell us more about how you don't fucking care, shit, I should just blow my brains off right now because... God forbid, he doesn't care! Shit! You don't care? Really? Oh wow!


I'm not sure I understand the point of all this debate. Either something is scientifically verifiable or it's not. If it is, science wins out, if it's not, it shouldn't be debated

Are you actually just stupid? First, as it concenrs science, how we conceive this word and how you do are as different as can be imagined. In light of this, I say this: Fuck off with your 'science'. We despise so-called "science". We shit on it. Anything else? Good. There is no uncritically accepted science for us - science, is the task of criticism, IT IS NOT A FUCKING GIVEN whether something is 'scientifically verifiable' or not. That is because as a disgusting bourgeois ideologue, you conceive science as something separate from the actual people in question. There is no "science" for us, there is no "science" that can win, there is the approaching of certain things scientifically or not by actual men and women. Honestly, I can't fucking believe someone can deface a thread in one post like this - so much utter SHIT you are saying, so much fucking GARBAGE you take for granted. I mean listen everyone - this guy talks about the necessity of 'respecting others' and 'not being a tyrant' and yet he literally is saying some things should be unquestioned and should be outside of the ability to debate. SAIS WHO? WHO DECIDES THIS AND HOW DO THEY JUSTIFY THAT? DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT RUTHLESS CRITICISM HERE MEANS? IT MEANS NOTHING IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED OR UNCRITICALLY ASSUMED. FUCK.

You don't understand the point, that's fine. Go find enough people who share your righteous stupidity and you are free to do whatever the fuck you want. You are clearly so lost on the matter, so irredeemably lost that it's almost painful. "Science" he sais. "Science wins" he sais. A socialist organization is not like a fucking church. It is a Spartan phalanx. Outside of it there is no victory, there is no direction, and yet the phalanx only goes where its individuals members allow it to go - there are no divine rules, there are no rules outside of them, there is nothing. The debate is therefore about where the phalanx will go, not about how we are going to force others (?) to go here or there, or 'give them' the ready made options that which they can choose from. One can freely leave or join it if they are so inclined. They can break out of it and do whatever they want. You want a master, sorry no - you aren't giong to get one. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for yourself. You fail to understand this, because again, you are irredeemably a bourgeois ideologue who has no place here, has no reason to even engage this thread in particular. If you were an honest person, you would confine yourself to the Learning section of the forum. Instead you run into here, arms flailing around, completely naked and screaming. Sorry, not going to work. You're not going to be given a free pass. We will treat you as an adult responsible for what they say and responsible for defending what they say with no pretense to "Bruh my opinion" to worm their way out. You are making a pretension to something which goes beyond your particular human body. Own up to it.


I do often underestimate human behaviour.

I love such Freudian slips. You underestimate human behavior? And what the fuck are you, great zoologist? Who are you to say such a thing? You're a free fucking rational agent, and you divorce this from any purported 'humanness'. This is why you are a class enemy in theory, a bourgeois ideologue: You are a reactionary. You conceive your 'estimations' of human behavior as outside any purported humanness.


I wouldn't attack it, that suggests giving them room to move, I'd destroy it.

He's destroyed sexism and racism! No longer do sexism and racism have any basis of existence, thanks to iamnoone! He can destroy them in the confines of a group discussion which has no impact on the basis of their actual existence! Brava!


This is YOUR personal opinion based on YOUR personal experience.

Yes, MY PERSONAL OPINION and MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHICH I HAVE CLEARLY NOT JUSTIFIED. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS CAN ALSO BE THE OPIINON OF OTHERS, BECAUSE THEIR DISTINCT PHYSIOLOGY AND OCCUPATION OF PHYSICAL SPACE MAKES THEM IMMUNE TO THE USE OF REASON.

The uncritical stupidity is quite simple: Ones particular opinion or ones particular experiences can only be constituted in relation to a universality, can only be related to a universality in order to be sustained, there is no "YOUR" personal opinion, there is only how ones particular opinion can be wrought as an opinion in the first place insofar as it answers to something universal. So it's quite fucking simple: You don't point out anything in saying Rafiq as a particular person is claiming this and agrees with it - what you are ignoring IS WHY. This is why you are a reactionary, an irrationalist, you INSIST that there is a space that is immune to rational articulation, and this space is called "the individual" or "YOUR PERSONAL opinion".

Others are responsible for their 'opinions' and how they articulate their experiences, it isn't a fucking given, these should not be UNCRITICALLY respected, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for justifying them as it relates to a common and universal space of reason, for Socialists. Rational justification exists either way: the only fucking difference is whether it is made consciously known, and therefore subject to criticism, or assumed uncritically. This responsibility can either be direct or indirect: One can articulate their uncritical stupidity as emanating from their particularity alone, and therefore absolve responsibility for justifying it, or they can take responsibility for themselves directly and shamelessly. Either way, you are not a sacred fucking individual, you are a toady and a mouthpiece for the ruling order. There are some among us who are conscious about what universality we relate ourselves to and WHERE WE STAND in regards to it. You prattle of scary collectivism and Orwellianism, like a disgusting reactionary, so as to defend the uncritically accepted enslavement by individuals to the existing order as it is. We claim: Your individuality is conceived as your own, even though it belongs to capital. We modestly claim that your individuality ought to no longer belong to capital, but to the universality of Socialism. Because you are unaware of the universality of your positions, and how they relate themselves to it, you mystify it by pretenses to your own individual bodily, particular existence, as inevitabilities of them that cannot be questioned.

Socialism for you can therefore be nothing more than scary, orwellian collectivism in the same way that science can only be witchcraft and sorcery for those who insist on not recognizing the contingency of their own superstitions with regard to nature.


This conflicts with your anti special snowflake stance.

Oh, okay. My bad, I never otok that into consideration, you genius and brilliant person.

Is that actually the response you hope to elicit? You fail to fucking understand the point of my argument: Once someone becomes a zero, is no longer a 'special snowflake' (in the context of how I used this), THEY DO NOT NEED ANY EXTERNAL identity, any confidence EXTERNAL from their own ethical existence as socially-conscious individuals, to justify their engagement even if there are only two of them. That's the fucking point: A zero is boundless, you only become free when you accept you are a 'nobody', and that all people are nobodies, because this opens up the space to act as an individual without any superstitions and without any faith in anything outside of the margins of your own effects on the world as an individual. This is what people would call 'psychopathy'. One CUTS from their place in the social hierarchy, and therefore is free from it and does not have to consult it. So no, AS I ALREADY STATED, no special confidence in the idea of a special self is necessary to have the confidence to act as a handful of people, against all odds, one only needs the confidence that quite on the contrary there is nothing unique, special about them or ANYONE ELSE.

Your logic is so juvenile. Do you actually know what you are saying?

If someone claims: Only people with the name "Joe" can have the special privilege to drink water because there is something special about their name, the conclusion of REJECTING that kind of special privilege is not refusing to drink water, but DRINKING WATER EVEN MORE fully and shamelessly.

You don't fucking say: "Oh, you drink water? You must think your name is Joe." - you say "I drink water, because my name doesn't have to be Joe to drink water, I can fucking drink water and I don't need any special privileges to do it."

One doesn't need to be a special snowflake to act alone, or to recognize that the tradition of the Left can manifest in a handful of individuals, becasue these individuals manifest this tradition NOT by any special characteristics of their identity, but by DOING IT without need for any.


This is getting awfully Orwellian for me. Shall we send in the thought police too?

That is exactly what Rafiq said when he said: Finally the activities of certain groups can be scrutinized through the medium of online discussions with other potential groups, so that truly a the basis for a leftist tradition, and political culture, can be born. I do not know which website would serve best for this - though I can think of one at the top of my head. That' something we can discuss if we can get more people involved in this.

Clearly the point is that scrutinizing groups means tracking them down for their erroneous positions and beating the shit out of everyone physically, torturing them and killing them. With a gun to your head and out of fear for your physical safety, this is how groups will be scrutinized and kept in check.

But I digress. It sounds Orwellian? THEN FUCK OFF! We don't need your permission. We don't, god forbid. He fucking says, this, AND FOR WHAT? BECAUSE I SAID THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF GROUPS SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, ACCESSIBLE FOR SCRUTINIZATION AND CRITICISM THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF AN ONLINE SETTING? This in your mind elicits ideas of 'thought police'? So, let us get this straight, groups should be immune to criticism, should not share their activities with other groups, including whatever successes they have, because this is an affront to their sacred, particular, sufficient-unto-itself and private THOUGHTS? He still doesn't understand: Even if you don't make your thoughts public to public criticism, YOU ARE STILL positing your thoughts on external lines: You are justifying them to yourself all the same, and the contours of this justification is irreducible to your human body, it is something universal. So fucking eager, at the expense of actually using their heads, so fucking eager are the philistines ready to play the part of John Galt resisting the thought police, FOR NOTHING. NO CONTEXT JUSTIFIES THIS FUCKING FANTASY. They want to play the part of this position, because they so readily, like rabid predators, are prepared to jump upon anything that looks like prey, so as to satiate their ethical desire to play the part of the ethical individual. Well we despise your ethics in the first place, this is what you fail to understand.

I cannot put into words how infuriating, how disgusting it is. I cannot put into words what rage this evokes, when all that has been proposed is so modest - it's almost as though IT'S SO FUCKING EASY for the Left to get things done, to do things, and scum like this individual INSIST RIGHTEOUSLY upon its docility, upon its passivity, shrugging their arms, "Brah, that sounds orwellian brah." - Orwellian? We are much worse, much more traumatic for your petty bourgeois sensitivities than anything imagined by Orwell, think of the worst fucking dystopia, worst affront and abomination to your petty bourgeois ethics and multiply that a thousand fold, and then you might just approach what you are dealing with here. Such a SIMPLE THING is the highest offense and affront: "Brah, this sounds Orwellian" - merely subjecting groups to common standards WITHOUT ANY means of coercion at all, for them, is scary.

Fascists rise exponentially, and these are the kinds of people that drag our tradition down, that hold us down, that poison it and degrade it because any bumfuck idiot, any philistine, any reactionary who MEAGERLY identifies with "Socialism" we are subject to dealing with.

[Anderson]

Nice conversations guys