Marxism

[hotsexygrl42]

While I am not an anarchist I think that they maid some good points about Marxism like they point out that Marxist do not believe in democracy. I think all you misguided fools should go to that website and learn something

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append3.html#app31

[elijahcraig]

Marxist do not believe in democracy

Pure trash. Marxists believe democracy to be something which will whither away along with the state and its political nature. We believe in democracy during the socialist stage.

[Bradyman]

Marxist do not believe in democracy

I think you are the misguided fool. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:37 AM

Pure trash. Marxists believe democracy to be something which will whither away along with the state and its political nature. We believe in democracy during the socialist stage.
Isnt it the other way round. Dont Marxist beleive that when the state wither's away it will be in control of the workers in there workplace, and that in the socialist stage there is less democarcy.

[elijahcraig]

No, when the state whithers away, their will exist no political nature to society in the sense we are speaking of; in other words, democracy has to end as the state ends.

Socialism, to quote Trot, can't exist without democracy.

I'd suggest you read Lenin's "The State and Revolution", which is the classic text on the Marxist conception of the State.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:12 PM
No, when the state whithers away, their will exist no political nature to society in the sense we are speaking of; in other words, democracy has to end as the state ends.

Socialism, to quote Trot, can't exist without democracy.

I'd suggest you read Lenin's "The State and Revolution", which is the classic text on the Marxist conception of the State.
So in a way the next step from democracy.

[elijahcraig]

Yes, I think so (If I take your statement in the right way).

[Hiero]

Representive democracy with parties in capitalism, direct democracy under socialism under one party, state less Communism

[elijahcraig]

Yes, that's the jig.

[elijahcraig]

Actually, if I were going to phrase it, I would phrase it as follows:

Capitalism--bourgeois democracy.

Socialism--proletarian democracy (mix of representative democracy and direct democracy on local and state/provincial level, and representative democracy on national level)

Communism--death of the state and democracy

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:12 PM
No, when the state whithers away
The state cannot wither away.


in other words, democracy has to end as the state ends.

I don't understand your definition of democracy? How do you expect decisions to be made in a communist society?


Socialism, to quote Trot, can't exist without democracy.

The same Trotsky condemend those who...

"put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy."
- L. Trotsky, Sochinenyia (Moscow 1925). p.89, p. 136.


I'd suggest you read Lenin's "The State and Revolution"

State or revolution, would be a more apt title.

[elijahcraig]

The state cannot wither away.

I have doubts, but it is not impossible.


I don't understand your definition of democracy? How do you expect decisions to be made in a communist society?

Read Lenin’s State and Revolution, which explains all this, it pretty much sums up the Marxist view of the State, and its withering away, as pertains to democracy.


State or revolution, would be a more apt title.

See, you haven’t even read a key Marxist text and earlier claimed to have formerly been a Leninist!

It is a book on the relation between the state and revolution. Bakunin discussed the same subject, but differed with Marx in the nature of the relationship.

At least be an informed cripple for god’s sake.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:45 PM
I have doubts, but it is not impossible.
It is impossible. The state as a functioning entity contradicts the objective it's being used for. Like cleaning your clothes with dirt.


Read Lenin’s State and Revolution, which explains all this, it pretty much sums up the Marxist view of the State, and its withering away, as pertains to democracy.

I've read it thank you. It's a nice ideal, but in practice it has never and will never work.

[elijahcraig]

The same Trotsky condemend those who...

"put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy."
- L. Trotsky, Sochinenyia (Moscow 1925). p.89, p. 136.

I’m just quoting a man, I could use Lenin or Marx also.

I’m not a Trot so I’m not going to defend his statements.


It is impossible. The state as a functioning entity contradicts the objective it's being used for. Like cleaning your clothes with dirt.

What is the “objective” you speak of? And care to explain why it "contradicts" this "objective"?


I've read it thank you. It's a nice ideal, but in practice it has never and will never work.

I’m not sure I believe this as you have posted two statements above which seem to highlight your ignorance on the work.

[redstar2000]

I'd suggest you read Lenin's "The State and Revolution", which is the classic text on the Marxist conception of the State.

This work "by Lenin" is actually a "copy & paste" job on every scrap that Lenin could find written by Marx and Engels on communist society.

It's completely unrelated to anything Lenin wrote prior to the summer of 1917 and likewise completely unrelated to anything he did after the work was published.

Keep in mind therefore, as you're reading, that you're reading the views of Marx and Engels...not the real views of Lenin himself.


Socialism--proletarian democracy (mix of representative democracy and direct democracy on local and state/provincial level, and representative democracy on national level)

It could work that way; but what has actually happened thus far is that Leninist parties have insisted on a total monopoly of political power...rendering all talk of democracy as meaningless under socialism as it is under the bourgeoisie.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

This work "by Lenin" is actually a "copy & paste" job on every scrap that Lenin could find written by Marx and Engels on communist society.

It's completely unrelated to anything Lenin wrote prior to the summer of 1917 and likewise completely unrelated to anything he did after the work was published.

Keep in mind therefore, as you're reading, that you're reading the views of Marx and Engels...not the real views of Lenin himself.

Well, though I disagree, I am trying to state the position of Marxists, not Lenin’s personal views.


It could work that way; but what has actually happened thus far is that Leninist parties have insisted on a total monopoly of political power...rendering all talk of democracy as meaningless under socialism as it is under the bourgeoisie.

I’m tired of debating this with you. I think we both know one another’s positions, and it is useless repetition to continue. A bit cold and pointless, isn’t it? (Clockwork Orange)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:56 PM
What is the “objective” you speak of? And care to explain why it "contradicts" this "objective"?
The objective is workers liberation.

How can you create workers liberation by removing power from them? In order for the state to exist the way the vangaurd needs it to exist it must remove power from the working class, centralise it into the hands of the party ruling elite, and hand down orders. It also needs to censor opposition, regardless of where it comes from and must assert its control over every aspect of society. How can it assert a this dictatorship while handing over power to the workers? How can it create liberation if it has to take away workers liberty? How can the state wither away if needs to be increased in order to survive, which is done in order for it to wither away. The theory is flawed, as history has proven, over, and over again.


I’m not sure I believe this as you have posted two statements above which seem to highlight your ignorance on the work.

It's not ignorance, its disagreement.

[elijahcraig]

The objective is workers liberation.

How can you create workers liberation by removing power from them?

That’s the point—Dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers ARE in power.


In order for the state to exist the way the vangaurd needs it to exist it must remove power from the working class, centralise it into the hands of the party ruling elite, and hand down orders. It also needs to censor opposition, regardless of where it comes from and must assert its control over every aspect of society. How can it assert a this dictatorship while handing over power to the workers? How can it create liberation if it has to take away workers liberty? How can the state wither away if needs to be increased in order to survive, which is done in order for it to wither away. The theory is flawed, as history has proven, over, and over again.

This would be done during the revolution (a necessity in order for the revolution to succeed); afterwards, this would not be the case, and would be structured on workers control from the bottom up.


It's not ignorance, its disagreement.

But you didn’t even make a disagreeing statement, you made a statement which made it seem you had no idea what you were talking about.

Actually two statements.

[Hiero]

Keep in mind therefore, as you're reading, that you're reading the views of Marx and Engels...not the real views of Lenin himself.


The two books i have read of Lenins also seem like a cut and paste job, espically Materialism and Empirco Criticism. But he wouldnt be doing this for no reason, he does this because his views are similar to the authors. I also like reading Lenin more then Marx and Engels.



how can you create workers liberation by removing power from them? In order for the state to exist the way the vangaurd needs it to exist it must remove power from the working class, centralise it into the hands of the party ruling elite, and hand down orders. It also needs to censor opposition, regardless of where it comes from and must assert its control over every aspect of society. How can it assert a this dictatorship while handing over power to the workers? How can it create liberation if it has to take away workers liberty? How can the state wither away if needs to be increased in order to survive, which is done in order for it to wither away. The theory is flawed, as history has proven, over, and over again.

As most progressive leftist claim that capitalism has numbed the the critical thinking of the proleterait and surely we can not trust the masses to come to a logical solution on every issue that they have not an idea of. So in some cases there must be a dictatorship of power or it will lead to tragedy. It would be like given untrained hands full control of a ship.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:14 PM
That’s the point—Dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers ARE in power.
That's the theory.


This would be done during the revolution (a necessity in order for the revolution to succeed); afterwards, this would not be the case, and would be structured on workers control from the bottom up.

You cannot expand the the state, increasing its power, creating a dictatorship, which ultimatly rests with the party elite, while at the same time handing power to the workers. There has to be a process some where? Or do you expect to hand over power in one fell swoop to the workers once the vangaurd has finished with it?

"Being is consciousness," so says Marx, and I agree with him. As history, again, has proven is if you act like a dictator, you will become one. The party elite are not going to hand over power. Why would they? As your state is exacting its control over the nation, the old party elite get taken over by a new party elite, an elite that see the benifits of being in power. China, Cuba, Russia, Vietnam has proven this. The temporary ruling class, acting on the behalf of the workers, have suddenly turned itno the full time ruling class, destroying any idea of class consciousness, any idea of liberation, and any idea of communism has long been forgotten.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 16 2004, 04:22 PM
As most progressive leftist claim that capitalism has numbed the the critical thinking of the proleterait and surely we can not trust the masses to come to a logical solution on every issue that they have not an idea of.
I guess you're just special then.


So in some cases there must be a dictatorship of power or it will lead to tragedy.

"The dictatorship of power" as you call it, is the only idea that has ended in tragedy, consistently, time and time again.


It would be like given untrained hands full control of a ship.

So train them. Or maybe the agenda isn't actually about the working class?

[elijahcraig]

That's the theory.

Theory and practice are one thing under Marxism.

Unlike utopian ideologies spouted by RS and TAT.


You cannot expand the the state, increasing its power, creating a dictatorship, which ultimatly rests with the party elite, while at the same time handing power to the workers. There has to be a process some where? Or do you expect to hand over power in one fell swoop to the workers once the vangaurd has finished with it?

The problem in Russia was that the workers were in a war and starving in a famine, so the party had to take over or the whole revolution was going to end completely. If this situation does not arise, where a revolution does not need this taking control, then I would be very happy. But I find it unrealistic to think that this would occur.

As to “handing back power”—this was done under the Stalin-leadership in the USSR.


"Being is consciousness," so says Marx, and I agree with him. As history, again, has proven is if you act like a dictator, you will become one. The party elite are not going to hand over power. Why would they?

Are you asserting that people cannot make choices in favor of their conscious ideas? This contradicts your Sartre.

Are you also asserting that people have some irrational lust for useless power? If so, this is a flaw in anarchism.


As your state is exacting its control over the nation, the old party elite get taken over by a new party elite, an elite that see the benifits of being in power. China, Cuba, Russia, Vietnam has proven this.

Are you aware that 40% of the Cuban government at present are non-members of the Party? The rest of your assertion is pure anarchist theory of human nature. There is no evidence in back that up under socialist states.


The temporary ruling class, acting on the behalf of the workers, have suddenly turned itno the full time ruling class, destroying any idea of class consciousness, any idea of liberation, and any idea of communism has long been forgotten.

Why?

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:37 AM

Pure trash. Marxists believe democracy to be something which will whither away along with the state and its political nature. We believe in democracy during the socialist stage.
Simply put, Marxism (as McNally presents it here) flies in the face of how societies change and develop. New ideas start with individuals and minorities and spread by argument and by force of example. McNally is urging the end of free expression of individuality. For example, who would seriously defend a society that "democratically" decided that, say, homosexuals should not be allowed the freedom to associate freely? Or that inter-racial marriage was against "Natural Law"? Or that socialists were dangerous subversives and should be banned? He would, we hope (like all sane people), recognise the rights of individuals to rebel against the majority when the majority violate the spirit of association, the spirit of freedom and equality which should give democracy its rationale.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:33 PM
Theory and practice are one thing under Marxism.
Evidently not.


Unlike utopian ideologies spouted by RS and TAT.

Who are you talking to?


Are you asserting that people cannot make choices in favor of their conscious ideas? This contradicts your Sartre.

People are easily corrupted is my point.


Are you also asserting that people have some irrational lust for useless power? If so, this is a flaw in anarchism.

I don't understand what you mean by useless? It doesnt make any sense. Lenin's power wasn't useless? Neither was Mao's or Stalins, it benifited them greatly.


The rest of your assertion is pure anarchist theory of human nature. There is no evidence in back that up under socialist states.

I don't understand this.


Why?

You are creating a system of control. Just as capitalism blinds people to reality, so it will under this system. People are blinded by power and as time moves along, things stop changing, they remain the same. The people who control the state continue to control it, and as new people come, indoctrinated from above, they serve only one interest. To retain power. It has happened in all the major attempts. China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba. The vangaurd got comfortable and the state will never wither away. People in these countries probably have no real concept of what the state actually is.

[elijahcraig]

Evidently not.

?


Who are you talking to?

?


People are easily corrupted is my point.

Not necessarily.


I don't understand what you mean by useless? It doesnt make any sense. Lenin's power wasn't useless? Neither was Mao's or Stalins, it benifited them greatly.

I don’t consider material capitalist gain a benefit.


I don't understand this.

That people “crave” power merely because they wield it.


You are creating a system of control.

All systems are control, therefore this doesn’t really do much.


Just as capitalism blinds people to reality, so it will under this system. People are blinded by power and as time moves along, things stop changing, they remain the same.

Once again, is this mere anarchist blabber? People can’t have power and relinquish it? In order for anarchist society to work, would there have to be a condition where you couldn’t get power so you wouldn’t be caught in the snare of “political power hardon”?


The people who control the state continue to control it, and as new people come, indoctrinated from above, they serve only one interest. To retain power.

That’s the point. You retain power for the workers dictatorship.


It has happened in all the major attempts. China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba. The vangaurd got comfortable and the state will never wither away. People in these countries probably have no real concept of what the state actually is.

You’ve ignored my past point on this in Cuba…but..oh well…

[hotsexygrl42]

Despite the persistence of civil strife in a number of countries and growing problems with corruption in societies emerging from authoritarian rule, the Survey found that 85 countries, representing 44 percent of the world total, were Free and their inhabitants enjoy a broad range of political rights and civil liberties. Fifty-nine countries, (31 percent) rank as Partly Free, a category which indicates human rights problems, some restrictions on liberty and a weak rule of law. The Survey also finds that 48 countries (25 percent of the world total) are Not Free, indicating systematic human rights violations and the absence of democratic institutions.

i had old number so i thought i would find newer and better ones

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/122199.htm

[Wenty]

I agree in part with this last post but would warn against a too radical approach against opening up all markets and allowing business to have a free reign. Although trade can help in freeing certain parts of a nation it has been proven those who initiate trade are not afraid to go to any and every lengths to make profit, i.e. trade with authoritarian nations such as Saudi Arabia and China.

[elijahcraig]

"Opening" up markets is complete nonsense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:58 PM
?
No country has managed to apply marxism-leninism succesfully. They have always corrupted or reverted back to capitalism.


I don’t consider material capitalist gain a benefit.

You are neither Stalin nor Mao. It doesnt necessarily have to be about money. Having power to do what you like, when you like has bad effects on people. Humans are not designed to have authority over each other. When people are put in those situations, to use a cliche, it goes to their heads.


People can’t have power and relinquish it?

But people do have power, this dictatorship of the proletariat for example. A vangaurd of elite intellectuals have the power over society, and the theory is that they will relinquish it.


In order for anarchist society to work, would there have to be a condition where you couldn’t get power so you wouldn’t be caught in the snare of “political power hardon”?

The destruction of the state.


That’s the point. You retain power for the workers dictatorship

Yes that is the point. Individuals retain power on behalf of the workers. Then they're power is supposed to mysteriously "wither away." It never works.


You’ve ignored my past point on this in Cuba…but..oh well…

I didn't know that no. But I also don't see communism, or any steps to move towards it.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by elijahcrai[email protected] 16 2004, 03:24 PM
"Opening" up markets is complete nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? Because it reduces poverty, or bring freedoms to other countries? Give me a break

[elijahcraig]

No country has managed to apply marxism-leninism succesfully. They have always corrupted or reverted back to capitalism.

Corrupted? I would use the word implemented revisionist policies or been militarily destroyed by the US.


You are neither Stalin nor Mao.

And neither are you so I suggest you stop “theorizing” over their “desire for power.”


It doesnt necessarily have to be about money. Having power to do what you like, when you like has bad effects on people. Humans are not designed to have authority over each other.

I disagree here. Humans ARE designed to be under authority and have authority.


But people do have power, this dictatorship of the proletariat for example. A vangaurd of elite intellectuals have the power over society, and the theory is that they will relinquish it.

You didn’t answer my question.



The destruction of the state.

You didn’t answer my question about the nature of authority/power in society, and gave me an anarchist buzzphrase instead.


Yes that is the point. Individuals retain power on behalf of the workers. Then they're power is supposed to mysteriously "wither away." It never works.

Their power is supposed to distribute out to the society in the form of workers councils, etc. The power won’t wither away immediately or in a long time. The educating of the masses would first take place.

Mind you I am pessimistic about the possibility of humans existing without some form of state at all.


I didn't know that no. But I also don't see communism, or any steps to move towards it.

That’s because it’s a socialist country attempting to exist, they don’t have time to please utopian anarchists who seem to be oblivious to all real world events.

[elijahcraig]

Why is it nonsense? Because it reduces poverty, or bring freedoms to other countries? Give me a break

I’m not even debating this. It’s a waste of space.


More space for "cappies arguments against socialism"--we need to make a thread to encompass this idiocy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:35 PM
I disagree here. Humans ARE designed to be under authority and have authority.
Who designed them that way? Where did this design come from? Your point is very strange. In order for humans to be designed that way, there must be a purpose? What is that purpose?

If this is the case, why is it that people constantly rebel against authority, in every single institution where someone has authority over someone else. People rebel against the authority of parents, church, their jobs, politicians, police officers etc etc.


You didn’t answer my question.

Your question was nonsensical.


People can’t have power and relinquish it?

Then Marxism is doomed to failure.


You didn’t answer my question about the nature of authority/power in society, and gave me an anarchist buzzphrase instead.


Buzzphraze it may have been, but an apt one.

Your question...


would there have to be a condition where you couldn’t get power so you wouldn’t be caught in the snare of “political power hardon”?

...my answer is, yes. The destruction of the state.


Their power is supposed to distribute out to the society in the form of workers councils, etc.

So the workers are supposed to have control of these councils? but only in so far as it is inline with the vangaurds wishes. As soon as the workers step out of line, they are suppressed.

This elijah, is the definition of idealism. You throw around theoretical rhetoric as if it were buck fizz and compeltely ignore historical fact. Why? How can these workers councils mean anything when they have no power. In order to have power these councils must be able to make decisions for themselves. What decisions can they make? None, unless they are what the state has willed. And what happens if they decide to make a decision which goes against that will. The state is then prepared to use artillary and chemical weapons to suppress them, as they did in Kronstadt. If they dare to go against the desire of their rulers they will be shot as counter-revolutionaries. Those unelected intellectuals who's only claim to power is that they champion the working class rule with an iron fist. They are to take power, not because they want to, oh no, but because they have to. It is their rightous obligation as conscious beings to snap the chains of exploitation. On behalf of the working class they must lead the blind to freedom. Bullshit! Pure unadultarated bullshit, and only fools and meglomaniacs could ever subscribe to something which has been proven over and over again to be a lie! Lenin, was wrong.

Workers democracy is a farce when it comes to Leninism. There can be no democracy. Not while the state exists. Not then, not now, not ever!


Mind you I am pessimistic about the possibility of humans existing without some form of state at all.

That would fuck up your chances of world domination wouldn't it.

[Osman Ghazi]

What is the “objective” you speak of? And care to explain why it "contradicts" this "objective"?


The 'objective' is communism, a stateless society. How do you intend to use the state to destroy the state?

[elijahcraig]

Who designed them that way? Where did this design come from? Your point is very strange. In order for humans to be designed that way, there must be a purpose? What is that purpose?

Genetic makeup, human nature.


If this is the case, why is it that people constantly rebel against authority, in every single institution where someone has authority over someone else. People rebel against the authority of parents, church, their jobs, politicians, police officers etc etc.

People rebel in order to gain power and authority.


Your question was nonsensical.

NO, it was not.


Then Marxism is doomed to failure.

Here I’m asking you a question, not stating a fact


Buzzphraze it may have been, but an apt one.

Your question...

QUOTE
would there have to be a condition where you couldn’t get power so you wouldn’t be caught in the snare of “political power hardon”?


...my answer is, yes. The destruction of the state.

But how would a state not arise again if you are so bent on the idea that people want to maniacally get power and control people from the state.


So the workers are supposed to have control of these councils? but only in so far as it is inline with the vangaurds wishes. As soon as the workers step out of line, they are suppressed.

Not necessarily, and the opposite is true in historical analysis, where the party’s handing down of local policies directly reflected the recommendations of the workers councils and governments on the local and provincial/state level.


That would fuck up your chances of world domination wouldn't it.

You are a moron.


The 'objective' is communism, a stateless society. How do you intend to use the state to destroy the state?

You are also a moron as you’ve already ignored my answer to this and my recommendation to read Lenin’s book on the subject. I hope not to be bothered with your blabber until you’ve done the latter.

[redstar2000]

This is from the report by "Freedom House" quoted by hotsexygrl42...


Venezuela: In a serious reversal for Latin American democracy, President Hugo Chavez stripped Congress of power, created a parallel government of military cronies, effectively ended judicial independence, and established himself as a role model for future demagogues.

I believe this "source" can be safely disregarded.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Hey, elijahgrieg, how will the state exactly "whither away"?

[elijahcraig]

I suggest you look at this source to find more about the withering away of the state:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/


RS, we should have said that two pages ago and avoided a long thread with scattered hotsexygirl attacks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:17 PM
Genetic makeup, human nature.

Genetic makeup, human nature.

For what purpose. This argument is used to justify greed by capitalists. Human nature is a myth. There is no instinct in a human nature which says that I should have authority of you, or that you should have authority over me. Unless of course you have some undeniable proof?


People rebel in order to gain power and authority.

Independence could be defined as authority if you were to take it into abstract relms, but authority which is justified.


NO, it was not.

Yes elijah, it was.


Here I’m asking you a question, not stating a fact

If your question is true, how do you expect your state to wither away? I think it is hard for people to give up power, that is why there should none which is not controlled by the collective.


But how would a state not arise again if you are so bent on the idea that people want to maniacally get power and control people from the state.

That's not what I think at all. I think that the nature of the state will always create situations like this because of its nature.


Not necessarily, and the opposite is true in historical analysis, where the party’s handing down of local policies directly reflected the recommendations of the workers councils and governments on the local and provincial/state level.

I'm talking about real control, not some semantic bullshit. "Policies which reflected the recommendations.." you sound like Tony Blair.


You are a moron.

And you are restricted.


You are also a moron as you’ve already ignored my answer to this and my recommendation to read Lenin’s book on the subject. I hope not to be bothered with your blabber until you’ve done the latter.

What he means by that is he has no real answer. 'State and Revolution' is full of rhetorical bullshit and shows Lenin up for the fool that he was.

[elijahcraig]

For what purpose. This argument is used to justify greed by capitalists. Human nature is a myth. There is no instinct in a human nature which says that I should have authority of you, or that you should have authority over me. Unless of course you have some undeniable proof?

There is linguistics work which shows that we have a human nature, and this expands over many different sciences.

There is no logic behind “there is no human nature”, that’s typical Sartrean nonsense.

There is no way of knowing if greed is a human characteristic, I personally believe it is a myth invented to help capital.

Proof? The last few million years.


Independence could be defined as authority if you were to take it into abstract relms, but authority which is justified.

What is the justification for authority?


Yes elijah, it was.

No.


If your question is true, how do you expect your state to wither away? I think it is hard for people to give up power, that is why there should none which is not controlled by the collective.

I am, again, asking you a question about your theory, which I think is flawed. I am not stating my beliefs, but looking at yours.


That's not what I think at all. I think that the nature of the state will always create situations like this because of its nature.

Or did the nature of man create the state? Which is more logical?


I'm talking about real control, not some semantic bullshit. "Policies which reflected the recommendations.." you sound like Tony Blair.

You are a complete idiot. With a country of 200 million or more, this is the best you can get.


And you are restricted.

And you are a sensitive little ****.


What he means by that is he has no real answer. 'State and Revolution' is full of rhetorical bullshit and shows Lenin up for the fool that he was.

YOU have not read the work, which has been proven many times in this thread. Stop interfering with topics you don’t know about.

[Guerrilla22]

Democracy is a false idea, it doesn't actaully exist. Socialist and Communist believe in actual empowerment of the people and the working class, as does the ideology behind anarchism. Both ideologies are really quite similar if you compare any anarchist text with the actual communist manifesto.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:06 AM
There is linguistics work which shows that we have a human nature, and this expands over many different sciences.





YOU have not read the work, which has been proven many times in this thread. Stop interfering with topics you don’t know about.
They're wrong.


There is no logic behind “there is no human nature”, that’s typical Sartrean nonsense.

Get over yaself superman...

Human nature doesn't exist. How could it? We're just animals with big brains. The only reason you believe that there is human nature is because you can think it. Imagine if you couldn't think it?


There is no way of knowing if greed is a human characteristic, I personally believe it is a myth invented to help capital.

:rolleyes:


Proof? The last few million years.

I said proof!


What is the justification for authority?

Walking out into the middle of the road infront of a car and being stopped is an act of domination. Someone exacted their authority over you. It's justified however.


No.

Oh yes!


I am, again, asking you a question about your theory, which I think is flawed. I am not stating my beliefs, but looking at yours.

"I think it is hard for people to give up power, that is why there should none which is not controlled by the collective."

There's my answer.


Or did the nature of man create the state? Which is more logical?

There is no nature of man. The state was created because it was a logical way to maintain economical rule.


You are a complete idiot.

So angry elijah


With a country of 200 million or more, this is the best you can get.

What has that got to do with anything. A country could be 1 billion strong and it would make no difference to collective organisation.


And you are a sensitive little ****.

"one day he will come" :lol:


YOU have not read the work, which has been proven many times in this thread.

You haven't proven anything.

[elijahcraig]

They're wrong.

How so? For example, the concept of generative grammar.


Human nature doesn't exist. How could it? We're just animals with big brains.

I don’t know what this means. Why ‘couldn’t” it exist?


The only reason you believe that there is human nature is because you can think it. Imagine if you couldn't think it?

I don’t know what that means.


I said proof!

And I gave you history.


Walking out into the middle of the road infront of a car and being stopped is an act of domination. Someone exacted their authority over you. It's justified however.

According to what?


Oh yes!

I think you had a blowjob flashback.


"I think it is hard for people to give up power, that is why there should none which is not controlled by the collective."

There's my answer.

What does a collective do to stop the want of power?


There is no nature of man. The state was created because it was a logical way to maintain economical rule.

The State was not built on logical grounds, that’s pure nonsense. It was built out of want of survival.


So angry elijah

So dogmatic cripple.


What has that got to do with anything. A country could be 1 billion strong and it would make no difference to collective organisation.

Yes it would be. You have limited authority in a large society.


You haven't proven anything.

I let your ignorance in the first few posts you made speak for themselves. Don’t edit, cripple, by the way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:41 AM
How so? For example, the concept of generative grammar.
Grammer ya say? :rolleyes:

So let's assume that authority was a human trait. Does that make it right? Domination is used to oppress, exploit, to consolidate control over peoples lives. It restricts freedoms and stifles independence.

Being racist is not a human trait, yet we do it. Being a communist is not a human trait, yet we do that also. If we can accept and disregard what we want, when we want, why can we not disregard the idea of domination.


Why ‘couldn’t” it exist?

There is no where for it to come from.


I don’t know what that means.

Your brain is big. You can understand complex ideas, that ultimatly were formed by the human mind. Your brain seeks justification for things you cannot explain. Your brain is attempting to justify the idea of authority, why I don't know. Just as capitalists use the greed card as a justification for their actions. They rationalise for themselves the conquest of profit, by claiming that it is human nature. The world around them shapes their ideas, their thoughts and their rationalisation of society. Your doing the same. Authority is no more a human trait as greed.

If you didn't have a big brain then you wouldn't have the need to justify yourself.


According to what?

Who cares? Unless someone wants to be run down by moving vehicle, what's the problem?


What does a collective do to stop the want of power?

Through idea of through force.


The State was not built on logical grounds, that’s pure nonsense. It was built out of want of survival.

That's pretty much what I said. Although I think it was logical at the time, for the people in control.


Yes it would be. You have limited authority in a large society.

What?!

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:07 AM
t Marxism like they point out that Marxist do not believe in democracy.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append3.html#app31
with respect such a comment makes you look even more thick than your name does

[elijahcraig]

Grammer ya say?

Yes, that’s the basis for human nature in linguistics, which washes over many many other fields of science. “Cognitive science.”


So let's assume that authority was a human trait. Does that make it right? Domination is used to oppress, exploit, to consolidate control over peoples lives. It restricts freedoms and stifles independence.

Authority does these things in certain cases (I won’t indulge in my Nietzschean views right here). But the idea that we can “escape” all authority simply by removing the state is extremely simplistic, and very naïve.


Being racist is not a human trait, yet we do it. Being a communist is not a human trait, yet we do that also. If we can accept and disregard what we want, when we want, why can we not disregard the idea of domination.

The nature of authority has nothing to do with ideologies or beliefs. The nature of authority as humans act it on one another is better seen as related to something like pleasure and pain. For example, are these two things human nature, meaning is it in the nature of man to exert their want or need of pleasure and pain? I think so, another human trait. The same goes for authority. Though this is sometimes unconsciously wanted I think, below the conscious level of things, it is some times unavoidable and without any relation to justice or concepts invented by human circumstance, culture, society, etc.


There is no where for it to come from.

In your genetic makeup is the human trait of having arms and legs, the same goes for other traits of humanity.


Your brain is big.

Not really.


You can understand complex ideas, that ultimatly were formed by the human mind.

Are you now a subjectivist? That contradicts the core principle of anarchism.


Your brain seeks justification for things you cannot explain.

Are you also an irrationalist or are you a rationalist? If the former, your ideas on god and religion are to be thrown out and your anarchism as well. If the latter, your argument here is stifled.


Your brain is attempting to justify the idea of authority, why I don't know.

Have you ever read any Foucault?

Foucault and Chomsky had a debate, the topic “Justice vs. Power”. The basic question was: Is there an innate “justice” which is used by humanity to justify all actions, or is there no notion of justice other than the one created by man in order to justify his want of power? Foucault sides with the latter in accordance with Nietzsche, Chomsky goes with the former along with all rationalists, and all anarchists.

It sounds to me like you are siding with Foucault. In which case the idea of “justice” has to be thrown out completely as it exists only as a justification for authority.


They rationalise for themselves the conquest of profit, by claiming that it is human nature. The world around them shapes their ideas, their thoughts and their rationalisation of society. Your doing the same. Authority is no more a human trait as greed.

I’m not “rationalizing” society, I’m actually leaning towards Foucault and Nietzsche and the idea of irrational human existence within society.

As I’ve said before, there is a difference between “myths in human nature” and “truths in human nature.” The former is created by people to justify their class oppression; the latter is something which philosophers look at in a seeking for truth.


If you didn't have a big brain then you wouldn't have the need to justify yourself.

I still don’t know what you mean here, as your ideas seem extremely conflicted to me, mixing rationalism and irrationalism and some other assorted ideas.


Who cares? Unless someone wants to be run down by moving vehicle, what's the problem?

Anarchist evasion of question.


Through idea of through force.

What if the collective supports a bad idea, like racism or homophobia? What happens then?


That's pretty much what I said. Although I think it was logical at the time, for the people in control.

I don’t agree it was logical, I think it was out of instinct in early man more so. In Freud’s metapsychology, the original state was founded on the basis of control of resources, not rationally, but out of want of survival and fear of having no control of resources.


What?!

Just what I said.



And, also, why do you keep double posting?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:28 AM
Yes, that’s the basis for human nature in linguistics, which washes over many many other fields of science. “Cognitive science."
Interesting.


But the idea that we can “escape” all authority simply by removing the state is extremely simplistic, and very naïve.

I suppose that's how you define authority. Of course there are many different forms of authority. Domination for one is not justified. Insofar as it is harmful and it is unecessary. Domination comes in many different forms, from the state, capitalism, patriarchy, homophobia etc etc.


is it in the nature of man to exert their want or need of pleasure and pain? I think so, another human trait.

I don't know many people who appreciate being in pain. Pleasure is desirable and so people seek to obtain it, whether they are "human traits," I really don't care. Pleasure is desribale to humans, pain is not, neither is domination. Therefore they should be rejected.


Are you now a subjectivist? That contradicts the core principle of anarchism.

No, i'm stating fact.


Though this is sometimes unconsciously wanted I think, below the conscious level of things, it is some times unavoidable and without any relation to justice or concepts invented by human circumstance, culture, society, etc

That again depends on what we the definition of authority is. I am talking here about domination.


In your genetic makeup is the human trait of having arms and legs, the same goes for other traits of humanity.

.....


Not really.

big enough to give us consciousness.


If the former, your ideas on god and religion are to be thrown out and your anarchism as well. If the latter, your argument here is stifled.

Stop waffleing! Humans do seek justification for the fact that they are conscious of their existence.


Have you ever read any Foucault?

Bourgeois philosophers don't really do it for me. I have reality to deal with...The answer is no.


Chomsky goes with the former along with all rationalists, and all anarchists...It sounds to me like you are siding with Foucault. In which case the idea of “justice” has to be thrown out completely as it exists only as a justification for authority.

Waffle! My point was that you are attempting to justify authority. Your consciousness is attempting to rationalise a subjective concept. You are attemping to justify something, for what ever reason, which cannot be justified.


The former is created by people to justify their class oppression; the latter is something which philosophers look at in a seeking for truth.

There is no truth.


I still don’t know what you mean here, as your ideas seem extremely conflicted to me, mixing rationalism and irrationalism and some other assorted ideas.

I don't care for all these labels. I don't seek definition. Call me what you will. The point I am making is that the only reason you think about all this bullshit is because you can. None of it is real. It's just your brain, making you conscious of yourself. Imagine being a hamster?


Anarchist evasion of question.

Dig deeper elijah!


What if the collective supports a bad idea, like racism or homophobia? What happens then?

Why would they? In order to achieve a society where these collectives existed people would have to reject forms of domination like this as antithetical to the existence of the collectives.


And, also, why do you keep double posting?

Because i'm in a third world country and the internet keeps fucking up and I can't tell wether I have posted or not.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:39 PM
This is from the report by "Freedom House" quoted by hotsexygrl42...



I believe this "source" can be safely disregarded.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
The only reason you want to disregarded this report is because it proves that i am right.

[elijahcraig]

Interesting.

If you are interested you might want to take a look at Chomsky’s books “Language and Responsibility”, where he talks about the structuralist linguists, and the extremely high number of far leftists who had voided the concept of human nature for political reasons, and why that shouldn’t be done.


I suppose that's how you define authority. Of course there are many different forms of authority. Domination for one is not justified. Insofar as it is harmful and it is unecessary. Domination comes in many different forms, from the state, capitalism, patriarchy, homophobia etc etc.

Domination in some forms is justified (at least by your definition). And I think some domination is unavoidable in society, and it unrealistic to think it will disappear altogether with the state.

I think homophobia, capitalism, patriarchy are all easily destroyed concepts. Homophobia has not existed in some cultures, as patriarchy hasn’t existed in all cultures. I’m not sure if you can have an equality of the sexes, as much as a reinstituted matriarchy.


I don't know many people who appreciate being in pain. Pleasure is desirable and so people seek to obtain it, whether they are "human traits," I really don't care. Pleasure is desribale to humans, pain is not, neither is domination. Therefore they should be rejected.

“Pain is the father of pleasure.” –Nietzsche

Pleasure and pain are attained through submission or domination, and both use forms of authority. This is not necessarily the case, at least from a physical point of view, though it may be unavoidable if you were to study the psychological effects/attributes of these things.

Pain is desirable by many people, they’re called masochists. Ever read Leopold von Sacher-Masoch?


No, i'm stating fact.

Yes, but you’re describing these ‘facts’ from a subjectivist standpoint, something like Sartre.


Stop waffleing! Humans do seek justification for the fact that they are conscious of their existence.

I’m not “waffleing.”

I happen to agree with you on the idea that humans seek justification for their meaninglessness; with this, along with god, rationalism goes out the window though. This is why I am saying that you cannot take your rationalist approach to any lengths because it will run into a contradiction in thought.


Bourgeois philosophers don't really do it for me. I have reality to deal with...The answer is no.

That is so fucking pathetic. You are aware that Foucault was a far leftist who fought for women, gay, and racial rights in France, are you not? He supported Mao Zedong at one point, and always opposed authority, punishment, domination by government, and analyzed political systems in order to understand power and authority.

Your reply to my question says a lot about how close minded and dogmatic you are.


Waffle! My point was that you are attempting to justify authority. Your consciousness is attempting to rationalise a subjective concept. You are attemping to justify something, for what ever reason, which cannot be justified.

Then which side are you taking in the debate? You are confusing me in your words, make it clear.


There is no truth.

Hmmm, ok. This is a direct contradiction with Bakunin, Chomsky, any other anarchist thinker, Marx, etc etc etc. How can you claim to be an atheist if there is no truth, being that the truth cannot be “There is no god.”


I don't care for all these labels. I don't seek definition. Call me what you will. The point I am making is that the only reason you think about all this bullshit is because you can. None of it is real. It's just your brain, making you conscious of yourself. Imagine being a hamster?

Are you a solipsist, then? How can you be aware of outside existence from your standpoint? Ever read Berkeley?

As for “I don’t care for all these labels”…it sounds like you’ve paniced in an area you haven’t thought through fully and are now attempting to use the anti-intellectual line someone like Pol Pot would use. The labels apply to you, even if you are not want to accept them.

Stop attempting to stifle debate in this way.


Dig deeper elijah!

So you can’t answer the original question?


Why would they? In order to achieve a society where these collectives existed people would have to reject forms of domination like this as antithetical to the existence of the collectives.

Because they have before, and they will again. I think the latter part of your sentence is correct but unrealistic.


The only reason you want to disregarded this report is because it proves that i am right.

Moron.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:25 AM
If you are interested you might want to take a look at Chomsky’s books “Language and Responsibility”, where he talks about the structuralist linguists, and the extremely high number of far leftists who had voided the concept of human nature for political reasons, and why that shouldn’t be done.
Thank you.


Domination in some forms is justified

I disagree.


Pleasure and pain are attained through submission or domination, and both use forms of authority.

What are you using as an example of pleasure and pain?


Pain is desirable by many people, they’re called masochists. Ever read Leopold von Sacher-Masoch?

A mutual decision between two people to do something like this is not a problem.


Your reply to my question says a lot about how close minded and dogmatic you are...As for “I don’t care for all these labels”…it sounds like you’ve paniced in an area you haven’t thought through fully and are now attempting to use the anti-intellectual line someone like Pol Pot would use. The labels apply to you, even if you are not want to accept them.

Philosophy is interesting in the abstract, confined to internet message boards or diner parties, in reality it serves only to entertain people with more time on their hands than sense. Call me dogmatic if you will, but all this talk is time consuming and irritating. Partly because I don't understand it, and partly because I think its irrelevant.

I care not whether things are right or true, I care whether we can achieve a society which is both fair and free. The best way to do that, in fact the only way is to destroy capitalism, the state and create a communist society. These are facts. I see them clearly as such based on the world around me. I see the effects of capitalism and the state with my own eyes, and whether Michael Foucault etc have dedicated their lives to finding out these meanings, these truths means nothing to me accept in the abstract. Boring, endless talk and thinking is irrelevant. Soon, you'll die, as did many of these philosophers, and what will be the point to all your searching. Nothing.


Then which side are you taking in the debate? You are confusing me in your words, make it clear.

I can't make my point any clearer.


Stop attempting to stifle debate in this way.

I don't mean to do that.


So you can’t answer the original question?

Re-read what I put elijah, it isn't that difficult to understand. There are forms of authority which can be justified, such as stopping someone from raping a child, walking infront of a moving vehicle or even submitting to sado-masochism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:25 AM
If you are interested you might want to take a look at Chomsky’s books “Language and Responsibility”, where he talks about the structuralist linguists, and the extremely high number of far leftists who had voided the concept of human nature for political reasons, and why that shouldn’t be done.
Thank you.


Domination in some forms is justified

I disagree.


Pleasure and pain are attained through submission or domination, and both use forms of authority.

What are you using as an example of pleasure and pain?


Pain is desirable by many people, they’re called masochists. Ever read Leopold von Sacher-Masoch?

A mutual decision between two people to do something like this is not a problem.


Your reply to my question says a lot about how close minded and dogmatic you are...As for “I don’t care for all these labels”…it sounds like you’ve paniced in an area you haven’t thought through fully and are now attempting to use the anti-intellectual line someone like Pol Pot would use. The labels apply to you, even if you are not want to accept them.

Philosophy is interesting in the abstract, confined to internet message boards or diner parties, in reality it serves only to entertain people with more time on their hands than sense. Call me dogmatic if you will, but all this talk is time consuming and irritating. Partly because I don't understand it, and partly because I think its irrelevant.

I care not whether things are right or true, I care whether we can achieve a society which is both fair and free. The best way to do that, in fact the only way is to destroy capitalism, the state and create a communist society. These are facts. I see them clearly as such based on the world around me. I see the effects of capitalism and the state with my own eyes, and whether Michael Foucault etc have dedicated their lives to finding out these meanings, these truths means nothing to me accept in the abstract. Boring, endless talk and thinking is irrelevant. Soon, you'll die, as did many of these philosophers, and what will be the point to all your searching. Nothing.


Then which side are you taking in the debate? You are confusing me in your words, make it clear.

I can't make my point any clearer.


Stop attempting to stifle debate in this way.

I don't mean to do that.


So you can’t answer the original question?

Re-read what I put elijah, it isn't that difficult to understand. There are forms of authority which can be justified, such as stopping someone from raping a child, walking infront of a moving vehicle or even submitting to sado-masochism.

[elijahcraig]

I disagree.

You've already admitted some domination is justified--for instance the car and the guy in the road, or whatever the exact example was.


What are you using as an example of pleasure and pain?

Sex first of all. All pleasure is in some way, directly or indirectly, sexual.


A mutual decision between two people to do something like this is not a problem.

What if the agreement entails killing the other person, as Leopold's did?


Philosophy is interesting in the abstract, confined to internet message boards or diner parties, in reality it serves only to entertain people with more time on their hands than sense. Call me dogmatic if you will, but all this talk is time consuming and irritating. Partly because I don't understand it, and partly because I think its irrelevant.

But you should be able to present your arguments without contradicting yourself, as you have done.


I care not whether things are right or true, I care whether we can achieve a society which is both fair and free.

Would you also like to know if that is at all possible, or if your ideas of fair and free are philosophically justifiable, or mere rabble rousing?


The best way to do that, in fact the only way is to destroy capitalism, the state and create a communist society.

Simplistic and unrealistic. At least in the way you idealize it as happening.


These are facts.

You said before there is no truth, which statement do you stand by?


I see them clearly as such based on the world around me. I see the effects of capitalism and the state with my own eyes, and whether Michael Foucault etc have dedicated their lives to finding out these meanings, these truths means nothing to me accept in the abstract. Boring, endless talk and thinking is irrelevant. Soon, you'll die, as did many of these philosophers, and what will be the point to all your searching. Nothing.

What a pathetic attitude. The same could be said of your want of a communist society.


I can't make my point any clearer.

No, I think it's the exact opposite.

You have combined solipsist subjectivism, Sartre, Foucaultian power theories (unknowingly), hardline rationalism, and dogmatic anti-intellectualism. How do you justify these numerous contradictions? If you retreat on this point, you might as well abdicate in this debate, as you can't hold your points to a core without rambling different ideas together and contradicting yourself.


Re-read what I put elijah, it isn't that difficult to understand. There are forms of authority which can be justified, such as stopping someone from raping a child, walking infront of a moving vehicle or even submitting to sado-masochism.

What in society justifies some things, why other things are not justified? You often quote the Russian nihilist who proclaims "he will be immoral," how do you define moral and immoral, and how do you use these concepts to define what is justified in society and what is not?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 09:15 AM
What if the agreement entails killing the other person, as Leopold's did?
If it is a mutual decision between two consenting adults, who cares.


But you should be able to present your arguments without contradicting yourself, as you have done.

Where, elijah, have I contradicted myself? Only in the realm of philosophical fantasy have I not made myself clear. Show me where I appear to contradict myself because I genuinely cannot see it?


Would you also like to know if that is at all possible

Creating a communist society is possible by the very fact we can believe it. Human beings are intelligent animals. We can make it work. I work for a humanitarian organisation, which started in the 70’s with a group of hippy Maoists who challenged the Danish government who were attempting to build nuclear power plants. This group, which may have had 20 or 30 people in it, built the very first windmill, which turned public opinion forcing the government to abandon its plans. They had one objective after that. Development work. Now, thirty years later they have up to 5000 members with over five million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone directly benefiting from their work. They operate in every continent and that was from a dream. They had an ideal and they made it work. Anything is possible Elijah. Anything!


if your ideas of fair and free are philosophically justifiable

Fairness and freedom are justifiable, regardless of any philosophical truth you think you have attained. Subjective concepts they may be, but subjective concepts we all want.


Simplistic

Good. It's better that way.


unrealistic.

It's obviously a matter of opinion.


You said before there is no truth, which statement do you stand by?

The statement, there is no truth, was confusing. It was a bad choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that this endless philosophical searching is pointless. There is truth in everything if you search hard enough, as you have proven to me on many occasions. What is important is finding an ideal and fighting for it. I have found mine. You appear to still be searching.


The same could be said of your want of a communist society.

Inconsequential.


No, I think it's the exact opposite.

Ok, so instead of batting this back and forth can you please explain what it is you don't find clear.


How do you justify these numerous contradictions?

I didn't realise I was trampling on so many philosophers toes. You keep telling me i'm making contradictions but that's about all. Where are these contradictions?


how do you define moral and immoral

In the context of the Nihilist he is saying that morality is a man made concept, and that choices made by humans shouldn’t be defined in such a way. I want to take drugs and get fucked in the ass, this is immoral by status quo standards, but why is that any more moral than not doing it? Indeed what is morality. There's no answer, except more man made concepts. They are simply choices that people make. Choices which have been defined by humans and that ultimately mean nothing.


how do you use these concepts to define what is justified in society and what is not?

There are universal basic things that people do and do not want, that allow us to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. The difficulty is getting everyone to realise that. Nobody wants to be cold, starved or forced to sell their labour, yet they are. Everyone wants to be able to do what it is they desire, yet they are restricted. Why? That shouldn't be the case, and the only way to stop that from being the case is to remove the systems which make it so.

I think to dig deeper than that outside internet message boards and drinking with your friends is pointless. And you are making me realise that even more.

[elijahcraig]

If it is a mutual decision between two consenting adults, who cares.

Are people always sane? Do people then also have the right to form religious bonds, etc?


Where, elijah, have I contradicted myself? Only in the realm of philosophical fantasy have I not made myself clear. Show me where I appear to contradict myself because I genuinely cannot see it?

You have taken a theory of subjectivist want of explanation when “there is no truth,” at the same time sticking to your hardline position of rationalism on the subject of religion and society. These are two polar opposites which you have not reconciled.

Stop being ridiculous with the “philosophical fantasy” comments…you’re not RedStar, and should just respond like a person who isn’t trying to backpeddle and evade questions.


Creating a communist society is possible by the very fact we can believe it.

Some Christians believe that Jesus will return to earth and save us all—does that make it possible? Your logic is horribly flawed.


They operate in every continent and that was from a dream. They had an ideal and they made it work. Anything is possible Elijah. Anything!

Reform ain’t revolution, and revolution won’t magically produce your imagined utopia. Sorry to tell you.

Are you also saying that God could exist, and that you are an agnostic?


Fairness and freedom are justifiable, regardless of any philosophical truth you think you have attained. Subjective concepts they may be, but subjective concepts we all want.

I’ll just leave it at that, as we have reached a dead end.


Good. It's better that way.

That’s what the Christians say—there’s a god! there is no complex answer.


The statement, there is no truth, was confusing. It was a bad choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that this endless philosophical searching is pointless. There is truth in everything if you search hard enough, as you have proven to me on many occasions. What is important is finding an ideal and fighting for it. I have found mine. You appear to still be searching.

No, I am not “searching”…I have a set philosophical thought…I DO NOT agree that the goal in life is “finding an ideal and fighting for it”…as I find it wasteful and no better than devoting a life to the church.


Ok, so instead of batting this back and forth can you please explain what it is you don't find clear.

I’d rather drop it, I’ve tried to get this communicated to you several times…it seems to be a permanent confusion, getting tired of it actually.


I didn't realise I was trampling on so many philosophers toes. You keep telling me i'm making contradictions but that's about all. Where are these contradictions?

Did you see my list of different things you’ve combined? Foucaultian, solipsism, subjectivism, rationalism, etc?


In the context of the Nihilist he is saying that morality is a man made concept, and that choices made by humans shouldn’t be defined in such a way. I want to take drugs and get fucked in the ass, this is immoral by status quo standards, but why is that any more moral than not doing it? Indeed what is morality. There's no answer, except more man made concepts. They are simply choices that people make. Choices which have been defined by humans and that ultimately mean nothing.

I view it as more of a Freudian/Nietzschean result, but very close to yours.


There are universal basic things that people do and do not want, that allow us to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. The difficulty is getting everyone to realise that. Nobody wants to be cold, starved or forced to sell their labour, yet they are. Everyone wants to be able to do what it is they desire, yet they are restricted. Why? That shouldn't be the case, and the only way to stop that from being the case is to remove the systems which make it so.

I think to dig deeper than that outside internet message boards and drinking with your friends is pointless. And you are making me realise that even more.

I view this is somewhat simplistic, but I don’t see us debating this to any end other than a dead one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected]n 20 2004, 07:57 AM
Are people always sane? Do people then also have the right to form religious bonds, etc?
People have the right to do what they want, when they want, as long as no one is being directly harmed by those actions. I people want to create some kind of religious bond then I can, or you cannot force them to accept otherwise. As long as people are joining this bond by consent and it is not activly attempting to subvert society how can we stop it.


Stop being ridiculous with the “philosophical fantasy” comments…you’re not RedStar, and should just respond like a person who isn’t trying to backpeddle and evade questions.

I'm not evading your questions, I just think your questions are pointless, as I have already mentioned.


Some Christians believe that Jesus will return to earth and save us all—does that make it possible? Your logic is horribly flawed.

Believing the son of god will come down from heaven is not the same as desiring to live in a free society.


Reform ain’t revolution, and revolution won’t magically produce your imagined utopia. Sorry to tell you.

I never said it would.


Are you also saying that God could exist, and that you are an agnostic?

No!


That’s what the Christians say—there’s a god! there is no complex answer.

They're wrong.


No, I am not “searching”…I have a set philosophical thought…I DO NOT agree that the goal in life is “finding an ideal and fighting for it”…as I find it wasteful and no better than devoting a life to the church.

Internet message boards are far more appealing then are they?


I’d rather drop it, I’ve tried to get this communicated to you several times…it seems to be a permanent confusion, getting tired of it actually.

The only think i'm confused about are your endless goings on about contradictions. Thus far you haven't made yourself clear.


Did you see my list of different things you’ve combined? Foucaultian, solipsism, subjectivism, rationalism, etc?

And then.......

[elijahcraig]

Believing the son of god will come down from heaven is not the same as desiring to live in a free society.

Then you don't agree with your original statement?


No!

What happened to subjectivism and "anything is possible...anything"?


They're wrong.

That's not the point, though. I am commenting on 'simple' answers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:44 AM
Then you don't agree with your original statement?
No!


What happened to subjectivism and "anything is possible...anything"?

I think you understand what i'm trying to say, your just being belligerent.

[elijahcraig]

No!

You confuse and prolong debate with your pour use of words! Damn ye, little one, damn ye!


I think you understand what i'm trying to say, your just being belligerent.

NO. I am trying to see how you justify or reconcile hardline rationalism with hardline subjectivism. Do it for me and we can end this thread.

[Daymare17]

Everyone in this thread is arguing with false facts introduced by bourgeois and Stalinist falsifiers of the history of Bolshevism. The general problem is that people equate Marxism and Leninism with Stalinism and Maoism. Everyone interested in learning the truth (or, if you don't believe it, learning another side of the story) should read this (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part1.html), it disposes of the lies.

[elijahcraig]

More articles by Alan Woods, or...?

[Daymare17]

No, it's by Ted Grant.

Why do you ask?

[elijahcraig]

Because you have posted like 5 articles by these guys in one day.

Gets old and sickening.

[Daymare17]

Why don't you go to another forum then?

[elijahcraig]

Why would I do that?

[Daymare17]

Because you're unpleasant

[elijahcraig]

That's what they tell me.

[Daymare17]

Well why don't you do something about it?

Seriously and semi-comradely dude, what do you get from acting like a rotted prick?

[elijahcraig]

Pleasure.