I Object!

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

I object to the restriction of members of the 'opposition' to one forum. I am disappointed in the administration for doing this. On a forum that supposedly believes in equality, everyone should be given an equal chance to voice their opinion [excluding, of course, racism]. Not only does the restriction of capitalists et al. diminish the amount of intellectually stimulating debate that is possible, it also reflects badly on the forum in general.

While I understand that various persons on the board may tire of repititious debates about whether or not communism will work or similar things, this "problem" should be relatively easy to fix. It's called deleting the thread and creating an "announcement" thread including rules of this forum, among them being "Do not start threads relating to the following topics:..." and what not. You can then designate a special forum for such threads, should the demand grow large enough.

I originally left this forum because of tyrannical rule and stifling of anything that might be construed as opposing the status quo [and a large amount of 12-year-old wannabe leftists that couldn't fucking spell]. You can rant about how much you hate the status quo in the United States, or the world, or how capitalism forces people to conform, but look at what you are doing here. Please, I ask of you, do not be hypocrites, hypocrites disgust me.

EDIT: I further object to the placement of "Religion" as an oppositon ideology. Religion is NOT inherently opposed to communism. In fact, the first Christians were communists. Jewish Kibbutzim are communes.

Please rethink this cerebral flatuence.

[redstar2000]

Life is full of disappointments.

Get used to it.

:redstar2000:

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

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:09 AM
Life is full of disappointments. Get used to it.
I could say the same thing about communism or anything you hope or wish. You could say that about ANYTHING, but if everyone used that for everything, nothing would ever change. Rethink your statement and get back to me.

EDIT: Added emoticon to title.

[synthesis]

In fact, the first Christians were communists.

I wish you had put this at the beginning of your post, so I would have been able to recognize the bullshit right off the bat rather than having to trudge through the rest of that crap. Seriously, if I want to read someone whining about 'rants' and 'hypocrisy', I could have gone to Free Republic.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Don't get your panties in a wad. You could just say right off the bat that you lack the intelligence or mental power to counter ideological attacks from capitalists.

[Osman Ghazi]

Actually, I think it's good.

I mean, it's not like you can't talk about anything you want in OI. I mean, if you really want, you can post something about science or philosophy here, even though there are other threads for it. Personally though, I think that people should be allowed to start at least one thread to defend themselves in OI, a policy that does not currently have a lot of support from Mods or Admins.


Religion is NOT inherently opposed to communism.

Yes, it is. It exhorts people not only to believe in lies, but to submit themselves to non-existant beings. Far worse however, is the fact that every religion has a professional class who are dedicated to not only maintaining their 'flock' (I love how they openly call their followers sheep :lol: )but to expanding it, using any means necessary, including the sword.


In fact, the first Christians were communists.

No, they were communalists. there is a slight difference. Communists want some of the same things, only they want it for the whole world, rather than just for those who believe in the same fairytales as us.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Far worse however, is the fact that every religion has a professional class who are dedicated to not only maintaining their 'flock' (I love how they openly call their followers sheep laugh.gif )but to expanding it, using any means necessary, including the sword.

Wrong. There are many religions that do not have such things. For example, there is Quakerism. I reccomend that you look it up. Personally, I believe in QSJ [Quakerism Sans Jesus]. Don't generalise.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate [email protected] 25 2004, 08:18 PM
Don't get your panties in a wad. You could just say right off the bat that you lack the intelligence or mental power to counter ideological attacks from capitalists.
I wouldn't be talking about other people's intelligence while claiming that any form of Christianity is somehow comparable to Communism. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate Jujitsu+--> (Counter-Corporate Jujitsu)You could just say right off the bat that you lack the intelligence or mental power to counter ideological attacks from capitalists.[/b]

They attack us in this forum all the time -- and we meet and refute those attacks constantly.

On what grounds should we have to put up with their crap on the rest of the board? They are free to start a thread on any subject which they wish to discuss here -- and most of their threads are, in fact, mindless rants...often inspired by the hapless Ayn Rand.

On the rare occasions when they do start a serious thread...they often abandon it after a couple of posts -- they have no articulated/supported response to offer.


I further object to the placement of "Religion" as an opposition ideology. Religion is NOT inherently opposed to communism.

There is probably a giga-byte of material in past threads demonstrating why you are totally wrong in that assertion.

None of which you have taken the trouble to read...much less understood.

I recommend that you go to my site and read the series "Communists and Religion" (in 10 parts!)...and then "get back to me".


Osman Ghazi
Personally though, I think that people should be allowed to start at least one thread to defend themselves in OI, a policy that does not currently have a lot of support from Mods or Admins.

There are a couple of sticky threads in this forum where they can piss and moan to their heart's content...and they often do. :o

But it's not going to change anything -- when people get restricted to Opposing Ideologies, it's usually because they have openly defended capitalist ideas, but sometimes it's because their "leftism" is so pathetic that it's indistinguishable from pro-capitalism.

In past times, we have "uncaged" certain people...only to end up having to re-cage them when they started the same shit that got them caged in the first place.

Our patience is not infinite.

:redstar2000:

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

[Guest1]

Sorry, no chance.

This site is for debate amongst the radical left. Capitalists shouldn't be here at all, but we allow them an opportunity to debate with us in this forum.

We don't owe them more than that, the rest of this site is for debate between leftists, and for new leftists to learn and develop their ideas.

That's all.

What you're asking us to do is like a soccer site putting hockey threads in sections outside of the "other sports" cage :lol:

[NovelGentry]

On a forum that supposedly believes in equality, everyone should be given an equal chance to voice their opinion [excluding, of course, racism].

I don't think any of us here believe in equality for bourgeois people. After the revolution they will be "oppressed" (however you wish to take that is up to you). And for some of us, the support of class distinctions and classism is as bad as racism (dare I say worse)?


Not only does the restriction of capitalists et al. diminish the amount of intellectually stimulating debate that is possible, it also reflects badly on the forum in general.

Intellectually stimulating? Have you read the OI thread. It's full of troll posts (like the one I'm responding to) that do little more than to distract people who contribute useful discussion to the rest of the board. Such as I'm having to do now.


I originally left this forum because of tyrannical rule and stifling of anything that might be construed as opposing the status quo [and a large amount of 12-year-old wannabe leftists that couldn't fucking spell]. You can rant about how much you hate the status quo in the United States, or the world, or how capitalism forces people to conform, but look at what you are doing here. Please, I ask of you, do not be hypocrites, hypocrites disgust me.

The only hyprocrisy I see is supposed revolutionary leftists who want nothing more than to give bourgeois thinkers a soap box to shout from.


Religion is NOT inherently opposed to communism.

But it is.

[Xvall]

On a forum that supposedly believes in equality, everyone should be given an equal chance to voice their opinion [excluding, of course, racism].

So, you don't believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to voice their opinion here.

That aside, they are given an equal chance to voice there opinion; so long as they voice it in this part of the forum. They only need to be here, because there is no need for capitalists and non-leftists to be stating their opinion in places like "Chit-Chat", or in sections of the forum dedicated to leftist practices.


Not only does the restriction of capitalists et al. diminish the amount of intellectually stimulating debate that is possible, it also reflects badly on the forum in general.

It does not diminish any debating stimuli, because it all takes place in this part of the forum, where they are allowed. Reflects badly? To whom? Capitalists? Fascists? They already think ill of us, and this board being a forum for leftists, converting the opposition really isn't a priority for us right now. We can look nice for them later.


While I understand that various persons on the board may tire of repititious debates about whether or not communism will work or similar things, this "problem" should be relatively easy to fix. It's called deleting the thread and creating an "announcement" thread including rules of this forum, among them being "Do not start threads relating to the following topics:..." and what not. You can then designate a special forum for such threads, should the demand grow large enough.

Again. These threads are not unheard of. They happen all of the time, in this part of the forum, where they are supposed to.


Please, I ask of you, do not be hypocrites, hypocrites disgust me.

We're not trying too. Keep in mind that this is a discussion forum, and not a country. We aren't trying to emulate a nation; we're trying to maintain an internet community. What you are doing is equivalent to yelling at a communist because he doesn't let everyone run freely around his or her house, and isn't acting very communistic.


I further object to the placement of "Religion" as an oppositon ideology. Religion is NOT inherently opposed to communism. In fact, the first Christians were communists. Jewish Kibbutzim are communes.

Although we do not restrict people on the basis of their theological beliefs alone, most forms of organized religion are in opposition to or have expressed opposition to communism. Not a single church, synagouge, or mosque I've encountered has "endorsed" communism. A significant amount of modern christians, in particular, are very reactionary and conservative - fundamentalistic in nature.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

...There are many religions that do not have such things. For example, there is Quakerism. I reccomend that you look it up. Personally, I believe in QSJ [Quakerism Sans Jesus]. Don't generalise.

My post that I made a while back [if ANY of you had bothered to read it, which is now obvious that you haven't] has refuted pretty much all of your arguments that religion is inherenly opposed to leftism. Not COMMUNISM. LEFTISM.

[Zingu]

I'm against abolishing the restricted member's ..."restriction", (can we please rename the "Opposing Ideologies" to 'The Gulag" please please?!)

But I think we should open up some forums for the caged cappies, such as the philosophy and other a-political forums, which don't nessecarily focus on left wing discussion, like the chit chat forum, Science forum (if not already, what forums can they access?)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Che-Lives represents a sort of intentional community, to which nobody is obligated to belong, or in anyway coerced into joining. Upon joining, people consent to a certain set of restrictions, and, should they not respect those restrictions, there's nothing to prevent them from going elsewhere.
Like playing soccer, one is expected to play by the rules. If one wishes to play basketball instead, there is nothing stopping them from doing so instead, with like-minded people. I see nothing, in particular, wrong with this.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zingu
can we please rename the "Opposing Ideologies" to 'The Gulag" please please?!

A poll in the FF has been started on your suggestion.

I voted "yes". :D

:redstar2000:

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

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:09 AM
Life is full of disappointments.

Get used to it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Another perfect example of the 'revolution' becomming despotic.

[RedAnarchist]

Revolution becoming despotic?! :blink: :lol:

You are a sad, sad person AMIC. This is a simple Internet forum, not the Revolution!

You are under no obligation to join this forum. You are under no obligation to stay here. If you dont like it, leave.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:19 PM
You are under no obligation to stay here. If you dont like it, leave.
A favourite phrase of Republicans.

[RedAnarchist]

Is it? :blink: Do you have proof of that or is that just an insult?

I'm not American, and i'm certainly no Republican.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

It's been said to me multiple times by Republicans at my school. It's been said to me by Republicans/conservatives on the internet. Ask pretty much any other American leftist.

[RedAnarchist]

I didint know that. Anyway, a quick look at many of my posts, anyone would know that i am a Communist. :D

[Guest1]

He's being a retard.

Republicans say it about the US. If you don't like it leave it.

This, however, is not a country. It's someone's house, someone's party, someone's group of friends. If you don't like it, leave it, cause they aren't gonna change it for you.

[STI]

It's been said to me multiple times by Republicans at my school. It's been said to me by Republicans/conservatives on the internet. Ask pretty much any other American leftist.


Nobody's told me that since I was 14.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

America is a nation-state. Participation is not voluntary, and it has some bearing on yr life. Participation in this internet forum is voluntary, and you will suffer no ill if you chose not to participate. It is like any discussion, in the real world - if you don't want to talk to me . . . then don't! There's no parallel to patriotism there, haha.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Life is full of disappointments.

Get used to it.



You are under no obligation to stay here. If you dont like it, leave.

Where have we heard that crap before? :rolleyes:

:lol:


You are just as backward as the conservativers.
When it comes down to it, you use the exact same ignorant thinking as the rightwings, and in my opinion, you are just as narrow minded.


You are wannabee revolutionaries. Why do you think that about the only communists are teenagers? It's because they want to rebel. Rebel against their parents, against the kids at school, against the teachers, and they want to have a better life, a wage, space for their own, etc.


It's somewhat ironic that you go on and on talking about "revolution", and being "revolutionary", while you sit behind a computer, typing.



Just to play the devil's advocate:

No capitalist is restricting you to post here, so why should you restrict them?




Seeing it from a psychological perspective, restricting people you disagree with is your way to cling on to what little power you have left in the world. You manipulate your brain into believing that you actually have some power, while in reality, you have not. You my friend, have an inferiority complex.



I don't think any of us here believe in equality for bourgeois people. After the revolution they will be "oppressed"


That is just flexing muscles you don't have.

Why don't you pick up a gun, and start fighting? It ain't gonna happen before you cross that line, and when you do, you are digging your own grave.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
You are just as backward as the conservatives. You're revolutionary wannabees, but when it comes down to it, you use the exact same ignorant thinking as the rightwings, and in my opinion, you are just as narrow minded.

If that's your opinion, then why don't you show us "how it should be done" instead of just battering your keyboard?

Start a "non-ignorant" and "broad-minded" message board of your own and run it the way you think a message board "ought" to be run.

There are places that will host your board for free and furnish you a template...all you have to do is fill in the blanks and you're "in business".

When you have 8,000 members, send us an invitation to visit and we'll all come have a look.

Promise! :D


It's somewhat ironic that you go on and on talking about "revolution", and being "revolutionary", while you sit behind a computer, typing.

Actually, we sit in front of our computers...your "doggy-style" approach may serve to explain the quality of your posts.


Just to play the devil's advocate...

My experience has been that whenever people say that they're "playing devil's advocate", they're usually not playing.


No capitalist is restricting you to post here, so why should you restrict them?

Because they have really bad body-odor...they smell like money. :o


You my friend, have an inferiority complex.

No, I really am "inferior".

But not to you.


Why don't you pick up a gun, and start fighting?

To everything there is a season...something you may learn when you grow up.

Whenever that may be.

:redstar2000:

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

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If that's your opinion, then why don't you show us "how it should be done" instead of just battering your keyboard?



That is not my task. I'm not describing myself as "revolutionary".



Actually, we sit in front of our computers...your "doggy-style" approach may serve to explain the quality of your posts.


That's funny, you got me there, but hey, English is not my first language. Today, there are still 125 million children who never attend school, most of them does not speak English. Would you make fun of them too?

If I am allowed to opine.


To call yourself "revolutionaries", when you have no intention to fight at all, is to spit in the face of real revolutionaries. Being a real revolutionary is not something you do by just reading Das Kapital, or The Communist Manifesto, or wearing a Che-Shirt.

This is my personal feeling.

To me, the word "revolutionary" mean something. It is not something you just decide to be. It's a title that has to earned. To be a revolutionary is not just to pretend to be "radical". It's a whole new way of living. It's a condition.

Like you've said: "Respect has to be earned."



To everything there is a season...something you may learn when you grow up.



You had the chance during the Cold War. You have the chance now. One has to start at one point, right?

You could have joined a rebellion. You had plenty of choices. South America, Africa, Asia. Why didn't you?



But not to you.


I am.

I just don't pretend to be a "revolutionary monster", "scaring away the evil bourgeoisie".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
I'm not describing myself as "revolutionary".

A wise choice on your part.

What is your "task", by the way? Waging the righteous struggle for "free speech" on behalf of reactionaries?

You've come to the wrong board...try Stormfront.


English is not my first language.

The problem is not with your language...it's with your politics.


To call yourself "revolutionaries", when you have no intention to fight at all, is to spit in the face of real revolutionaries.

Are you terminally naive? Do you think anyone here is going to be so stupid as to post an account of a violent struggle that they may have been or are involved in?

And, as many of the members of this board are still in their middle or late teens, just how do you know what their "intentions" are?


To me, the word "revolutionary" mean something. It is not something you just decide to be. It's a title that has to earned. To be a revolutionary is not just to pretend to be "radical". It's a whole new way of living. It's a condition.

So you are suggesting that no one should be allowed to call themselves a revolutionary until they've taken part in one, in the actual physical struggle?

So Marx was "not a revolutionary", according to your standards?


You could have joined a rebellion. You had plenty of choices. South America, Africa, Asia. Why didn't you?

I didn't agree with them...they wanted socialism (if that) and I want communism.


I just don't pretend to be a "revolutionary monster", "scaring away the evil bourgeoisie".

Goody for you.

What I'm trying to figure out is just what you are pretending to be...besides a troll?

:redstar2000:

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

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:19 PM
Revolution becoming despotic?! :blink: :lol:

You are a sad, sad person AMIC. This is a simple Internet forum, not the Revolution!

You are under no obligation to join this forum. You are under no obligation to stay here. If you dont like it, leave.
Seems to me a large portion of revolutions become despotic. Seems to me that the people who run and lead the revolutions had a 'get used to it' attitude too.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is your "task", by the way? Waging the righteous struggle for "free speech" on behalf of reactionaries?


No, I have never said so.


You've come to the wrong board...try Stormfront.

I was banned after the first post.



Are you terminally naive? Do you think anyone here is going to be so stupid as to post an account of a violent struggle that they may have been or are involved in?

If they would be busy fighting, then I don't think they would be posting on the internet very much.



So you are suggesting that no one should be allowed to call themselves a revolutionary until they've taken part in one, in the actual physical struggle?


At least I don't think it's a word that should be abused just like the words "democracy", "freedom", and "human rights". They've turned into empty words.

Even social democratic parties are today called "revolutionary" and "radical". Kids with che-shirts are calling themselves "revolutionary". People at message boards, who would avoid getting into a revolution call themselves revolutionary (I know some of these personally).

People like Ernesto Guevara, Ulises Estrada Lescaille, Guido Peredo, and Harry Villegas are men I personally see as revolutionaries. No one can take that away from them. A lot of people go around and say "Hey, I'm revolutionary", and in turn, compare themselves to these revolutionaries who spilled their blood, and even sacrificed their life for the proletariat?


Although many may have the heart for it, there is a huge difference between picking up the gun, and the keyboard. Many people don't realize that before they are actually in that situation where they have to choose.



The problem is not with your language...it's with your politics.


What is wrong with my politics?



I didn't agree with them...they wanted socialism (if that) and I want communism.



So for you what is important is the system, not the end of exploitation and heighten the living standards that matters?







Jay Z, claimed a while ago that "I am like Che with bling bling on". He is rapping about drugs, prostitution, gangsters and all that crap while receiving millions of dollars, while Che actually did a hell of a lot of things in order to improve the situation in the world, while not demanding anything in return.


When people don't realize this difference, I believe our movement is diggin itself deeper in the pile of shit.

It's worse as it is. The "labor parties" being extreme rightwings, the "Socialist parties" being social democrats, and the communist parties proposing electing John Kerry and similar scum. When the difference between these people and us are washed out, and when the difference between those who fight and those who do not are invisible, then (from my perspective) we have burried ourselves.

If we continue to say "ooh, oh well, let's have some reforms", "let's propose Kerry as president because he is better than Bush", and "let's try to keep it the way it is because things are really good for me now and i can give away some money for charity and eventually everything will work out", and when we end it with "I'm revolutionary, but I won't pick up a gun", then we are dead.


If it is to continue like this, it wouldn't suprise me if we will see otherwise disiplined communist parties proposing regulated capitalism.


They've robbed the social democrats, the socialists, and now they want to corrupt our name, too.



And, as many of the members of this board are still in their middle or late teens, just how do you know what their "intentions" are?

I don't.

I'm happy every time I talk to a serious leftist (and often they are truly dedicated to the cause), but a lot of people just see it as a trend. Of course many of those not serious will get out of it eventually, and the serious will stay.


What I'm trying to figure out is just what you are pretending to be...besides a troll?



I am not pretending to be anything. I'm just a human being.

[DarkAngel]

Can you really blame them? All the other forums would be covered in ''WE *heart* BU$H'' spams... I think the system we have now, works fine...

[NovelGentry]

Although many may have the heart for it, there is a huge difference between picking up the gun, and the keyboard.

Yes, and right now, the keyboard is far more important. You said it yourself "and when you do, you are digging your own grave." I wouldn't dig my own grave before building my coffin. Nor would I dig my own grave 60 years before I may die.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
I'm just a human being.

Nice try...but no one past infancy is "just a human being". Your culture, family, school, etc. has shaped you into a particular human being.

There's no such thing as a "generic human being".


What is wrong with my politics?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. You began, if you'll recall, with a mindless rant about the fact that we keep the pro-capitalists caged up in this forum...as if that were some sort of "outrage".

Then you backed off on that one and switched to *****ing about how we're all posers because we're talking about revolution on a message board instead of, presumably, shooting at people.

I remind you that by your "definition", Marx was "not a revolutionary".

Now you seem to be backing down on that one as well.

So, you're not making it "easy" for us to understand "where you're coming from".


So for you what is important is the system, not the end of exploitation and heighten the living standards that matters?

Yes, you are right. What's important to me is the abolition of wage slavery -- not how many playstation2's you happen to be able to afford or how many SUVs in your garage.

I think there are two contradictory ways to look at what we propose to do.

The first stems from pity (and perhaps guilt): the world's peoples are suffering -- we should do whatever we can to alleviate it.

The second stems from a feeling of personal oppression and exploitation -- I want to be free from all bosses.

The first view leads to reformism and charity; the second view leads to revolution.

I have a suspicion that you incline to the former. For one thing, it would explain your desire for "a great dialog" with pro-capitalists.

:redstar2000:

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

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I remind you that by your "definition", Marx was "not a revolutionary".

Now you seem to be backing down on that one as well.


Where did I back down on that one?



Yes, you are right. What's important to me is the abolition of wage slavery -- not how many playstation2's you happen to be able to afford or how many SUVs in your garage.

What would you rather have?

A society without wages where people have an acceptable life, or one where currency is abolished, and people are suffering?


The Khmer Rouge abolished money and private property.


I have a suspicion that you incline to the former.

A little of both, first and foremost the former. I live in the privileged world. I would probably have more of the latter if I was living in extreme poverty.



The first stems from pity (and perhaps guilt): the world's peoples are suffering -- we should do whatever we can to alleviate it.


Do you think Guevara fought because he wanted to be free, or because he wanted to see an end to suffering? Did you ask him when you had the chance?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
Where did I back down on that one?

Sorry if I misunderstood; why don't you just make a clear statement on the matter and settle it.

Marx personally never took part in a revolutionary uprising. Was he still a revolutionary by your standards or not?


What would you rather have?

A society without wages where people have an acceptable life, or one where currency is abolished, and people are suffering?

That's incoherent; I think you mean a society with wages or, etc.

Anyway, you phrase that question unrealistically; there's no particular reason why people "should suffer" in the absence of wage-slavery...while we know very well that people do suffer under wage-slavery now.

But to answer your question, I prefer the abolition of wage-slavery. Freedom is better than abundance if such a choice must be made.


The Khmer Rouge abolished money and private property.

And civilization as well...peasant revolutions can get pretty crazy.

But that's hardly relevant to the transition between an advanced (and senile) capitalist system and communist (no wages/private property) society.


Do you think Guevara fought because he wanted to be free, or because he wanted to see an end to suffering? Did you ask him when you had the chance?

No I didn't...and it would have been a good question.

There is a good deal of "moral indignation" in his writings, no question about it.

Perhaps he was an "exception" to my "rule".

Or perhaps his acceptance of the Leninist paradigm made liberation from wage-slavery a "distant dream"...so he simply saw no realistic possibility for that in his own lifetime.

In any event, the priorities of "third world" revolutionaries do not greatly concern me except insofar as they help defeat U.S. imperialism and create a capitalist crisis here.

Such a crisis could precipitate a proletarian revolution and the abolition of wage-slavery here...and that's what I want.

But I can't figure out what you want...except to cheerlead for third world revolutions (or some of them). You say that you are "not a revolutionary yourself"...which suggests that, at best, you will be a reformist at home and a fan of revolutions in other countries.

Is that a fair summary?

:redstar2000:

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

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Sorry if I misunderstood; why don't you just make a clear statement on the matter and settle it.

Marx personally never took part in a revolutionary uprising. Was he still a revolutionary by your standards or not?

I don't know Marx personally. I don't know why he did not participate or create armed resistance. In my opinion, he who does not practice what he preach when the person is able to is a hypocrite.

He was a great theorist. He saw things and the mechanism in society that normal people would not see. But to me, he is only that, a theorist.



Anyway, you phrase that question unrealistically; there's no particular reason why people "should suffer" in the absence of wage-slavery...while we know very well that people do suffer under wage-slavery now.

Why does wage slavery to you equal suffering?


But that's hardly relevant to the transition between an advanced (and senile) capitalist system and communist (no wages/private property) society.



What I tried to say was that abolishing the wage slavery does not mean people will live a happy life.


Or perhaps his acceptance of the Leninist paradigm made liberation from wage-slavery a "distant dream"...so he simply saw no realistic possibility for that in his own lifetime.

I don't think so.

He once said that: "And if it were said of us that we're almost romantics, that we are incorrigible idealists, that we think the impossible: then a thousand and one times we have to answer that yes, we are"


In any event, the priorities of "third world" revolutionaries do not greatly concern me except insofar as they help defeat U.S. imperialism and create a capitalist crisis here.

Why is that?

Surely the working class (even the petty bourgeoisie) in the third world suffer much more than the proletariat in the Western nations.


My only incentive to fight would be to end suffering, and to create independence, consciousness and unity among the working class. It's that simple.


I do not see why we should concentrate on the Western part of the world, as they do not want a proletarian democracy.


Such a crisis could precipitate a proletarian revolution and the abolition of wage-slavery here...and that's what I want.


Why?



In any event, the priorities of "third world" revolutionaries do not greatly concern me except insofar as they help defeat U.S. imperialism and create a capitalist crisis here.


That is your opinion, and I respect that.

I don't see the world through borders, nationality or race. I only see potential for fighting, and in turn, the world in class relations.

To me, it does not matter what nationality imperialism is disguised in, although today, I believe US imperialism must be our main focus. Imperialism is imperialism, and we need to fight against this evil no matter what name it goes under.





But I can't figure out what you want...except to cheerlead for third world revolutions (or some of them). You say that you are "not a revolutionary yourself"...which suggests that, at best, you will be a reformist at home and a fan of revolutions in other countries.



I don't believe in reformism.

I only care about political power for the proletariat, and that the working class utilize this to their advantage. It is, the same for me if it happens through peaceful means or by a bloodbath. I just don't think getting political power (for the proletariat) by relative peaceful means are likely to happen, although it is possible.


And yes: As long as the working class in the Western world won't care for independence and unity, I won't care about them. If they support injustice (in whatever form that might be), they are my enemy.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

CyM
This site is for debate amongst the radical left. Capitalists shouldn't be here at all, but we allow them an opportunity to debate with us in this forum.
:huh:


You, comrade should try www.ernesto-guevara.com everyone of any ideological stance is free to roam without fear of being restricted.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
In my opinion, he who does not practice what he preach[es] when the person is able to is a hypocrite.

But what is "able to"?

Sometimes a kid will come to this board full of energy and dedication and enthusiasm and actually ask us to direct him to an ongoing "revolution" in which he can participate.

What can we say?

I try to explain to him that, as a rule, westerners are not trusted by third world revolutionaries (for good reason!).

Secondly, that unless he is fluent in the language of that area, he would be useless...they're not going to stop and give him language lessons.

Thirdly, he must have a way to get there and money to live on until he can make contact with the underground -- they don't have a recruiting stand at the airport.

But most importantly, as a westerner he would be most useful in preparing for revolution in the west -- not necessarily in his own country but in one that is a developed capitalist country. He has or can easily learn the political nuances, the customs, etc. He is less likely to blunder through ignorance.

It's easy enough to create romantic fantasies about "moving through the jungles" or "across the mountains" with a gun on one's shoulders...the realities of struggle, especially in the "third world", are much different.

As is, for that matter, revolutionary struggle anywhere. You seem to have this constricted definition in your own mind: "a revolutionary is someone currently engaged in armed struggle" and that's it.

My definition is much broader: a revolutionary is one who consciously attempts to advance the overthrow of the existing order by any means at hand...verbal, non-violent direct action, violent resistance, or insurrection.


But to me, [Marx] is only that, a theorist.

Only a theorist, eh? :o :o :o

I don't know if you are "gifted" or not, but you certainly are weird!


Why does wage slavery to you equal suffering?

Because it deprives you of freedom. You do not spend your productive life doing what, in your view, is intrinsically rewarding or useful; you spend it at the whim of your master.

It is degrading to be a wage-slave.

Of course, wage-slavery permits you to change masters (unlike chattel slavery) and sometimes we feel so outrageously oppressed that we do it. We tell the boss to take this job and shove it!

But over a lifetime, most working people I've known are very reluctant to quit even the most humiliating job...because of the fear that one might not be able to find another.

For most people, not having a steady job threatens hunger, homelessness, and an early and painful death from malnutrition and exposure.

That's not a risk that one takes lightly.


Surely the working class (even the petty bourgeoisie) in the third world suffer much more than the proletariat in the Western nations.

Indeed they do. Nevertheless, they lack the technology to support a communist society. They are presently where the "west" was in 1900 or 1800 or even 1700. The revolutions that they can make are only capitalist revolutions.

That's a progressive step for them...but not for me.


My only incentive to fight would be to end suffering, and to create independence, consciousness and unity among the working class. It's that simple.

I do not see why we should concentrate on the Western part of the world, as they do not want a proletarian democracy.

Neither do those folks in the "third world" -- though they may use the rhetoric. What they want (in objective terms) is a "capitalism of their own" -- freedom to develop their own economies without being strangled by imperialism.

People in the "west" may not "want" proletarian democracy at this time...but, as things get worse for them, they may come to look at the matter differently.

In any event, the "west" (including Japan) are the only places sufficiently developed to make communism possible...so, if you want communism, the "west" is the place to struggle for it.


Why?

You didn't understand my logic???

1. U.S. imperialism suffers massive defeats in the "third world"...

2. Thus causing a sharp economic contraction within the U.S. as well as discrediting the rulers as "losers of wars" and "wasters of American lives"...

3. Thus causing great discontent and a possible proletarian revolution in the U.S. itself.

That's not the only possible scenario, of course...but I think at this point it is a highly probable one.


...I believe US imperialism must be our main focus.

I agree with you.

It is the "fortress of world reaction" that stands behind and supports virtually every oppressive regime on the planet.


As long as the working class in the Western world won't care for independence and unity, I won't care about them. If they support injustice (in whatever form that might be), they are my enemy.

As you wish. You might want to have a look at something called the "Maoist Internationalist Movement" (look them up with Google). They think that all the western working classes are imperialists and implacable "enemies of the world revolution".

You might like them.

:redstar2000:

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