I'm Back, Cutie Pies

[Capitalist Imperial]

What's up, pinko gadfly's?

Sorry I've been out awhile, and I apologize for starving you of actual logic (a difficult concept for you to comprehend) for so long, I have been changing employers (my skills have tremendous value in the free labor market, and I decided to take advantage of the benevolent capitalist concept of upward mobility), and purchasing a new home (in a bougeois neiborhood to say the least, with a pool, of course).

Just to let you know, I'm back, and will continue to monitor this site for insurgent behaviors and dissident commentary, and I will be relentlessly refuting self righteous, misguided, ill-informed, and frivolous leftist diatribes with a greater tenacity than ever.

By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

[ZeroPain]

By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

Oh common, CNN?

Al-Jizza?

Have you forgotten that by your logic we would not have cable/satellite because we would be hypocrites?

[Commie Girl]

Sorry I've been out awhile,

Didnt notice you were gone :lol:


typical red outlets such as CNN

???WTF??? Since when?


incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution

Anything done under occupation is irrelevant.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I think his wife got tired of the beatings.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 17 2005, 07:33 PM

Anything done under occupation is irrelevant.
There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Sep 17 2005, 01:48 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Sep 17 2005, 01:48 PM)
Commie [email protected] 17 2005, 07:33 PM

Anything done under occupation is irrelevant.
There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents. [/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol: We sure missed your humour!!

[Amusing Scrotum]

typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

Ones centre right, the other tries to be impartial and the thirds Islamic.

Someone seems not to know very much about Leftys and the news they read.


We sure missed your humour!!

Idiots say the funniest things. ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.

[Intifada]

Why on Earth have people even replied to this attention whore?

[ZeroPain]

Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

CNN is the left of the right.

BBC TRYS to be impartial.

[workersunity]

are you cappies for real, you actually think that we are liberating iraqis? shit you really are stupid, oh bush says it and the corporate news says it so it must be true, all praise be to god, fuck that, we arent liberating shit,
WMD's- none
Link to 9/11-nope
giving terrorists money-nope
threat to US- haa what a fucking joke,

Oh ya the elections are great, great for us imperialists, its to make the foolish people believe that they are getting a democracy, by the way you cant force democracy on people, they have to create it themselves. also how is killing shit loads of innocent civilians liberation? liberation from life perhaps, and who is the interim president of iraq, none other that a US corporate lapdog

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

Do me a favour, read some Socialist, Communist or Anarchist writings and then see if the views expressed on these news networks are in tune with leftist thought.
Plus, I presume your American. You see over here in Britain we are less right wing and reactionary than the American public. So in general the BBC is in the centre of Britains political spectrum.


You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.

I don't know your not an idiot. I've never met you and if you choose to call people on this board "Coimmie Pukes", spelt wrong by the way, then I will call you an idiot. Comprende.
You're logic, the same logic that views CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza (Spelt wrong) as leftist news programs. Give me a break you idiot.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 04:40 PM

Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

Do me a favour, read some Socialist, Communist or Anarchist writings and then see if the views expressed on these news networks are in tune with leftist thought.
Plus, I presume your American. You see over here in Britain we are less right wing and reactionary than the American public. So in general the BBC is in the centre of Britains political spectrum.


You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.

I don't know your not an idiot. I've never met you and if you choose to call people on this board "Coimmie Pukes", spelt wrong by the way, then I will call you an idiot. Comprende.
You're logic, the same logic that views CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza (Spelt wrong) as leftist news programs. Give me a break you idiot.
I'm gonna have to agree with AS on this. "Terrorist insurgents"? You DO know that the word "terrorist" is just a political word used to describe armed combatants that oppose or challenge U.S. interests? IDIOT!

[Decolonize The Left]

By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution?

:lol:

Constitution? What you mean the one they couldn't finish "on time", so they got an "extension", then they couldn't finish that one, and got another, then they postponed it indefinately?
What Constitution?
Elections? Do women have more rights now? Well they have been saying that the new elections don't help them much at all, seeing as how men are still in power.

So with 16,000+ innocent civilians dead,
hundreds of thousands more homeless,
an economy ruined,
and dare I say it, 1,800+ dead US soldiers...

Where is the success? Where is the word "incredible"? Well maybe "incredibly stupid and unecessary" would work...

After this comment, I don't see how you can call us names like "pukes", "pinko" and others, when you can't even see reality. Hypocritical? Maybe, but typical as well; I would expect nothing less than ignorant misguided words from a capitalist advocate like yourself.

So enjoy your pool, and your house, and the other aspects of your meaningless cappie life. When you die, and look back on your "success" you will see it really means nothing, and your heart will fill with sadness.

-- August

[Commie-Pinko]

What's up, pinko gadfly's?

Sorry I've been out awhile, and I apologize for starving you of actual logic (a difficult concept for you to comprehend) for so long, I have been changing employers (my skills have tremendous value in the free labor market, and I decided to take advantage of the benevolent capitalist concept of upward mobility), and purchasing a new home (in a bougeois neiborhood to say the least, with a pool, of course).

Wow. Next time you go on a vacation, you should think about picking up a grammar guide, for that is perhaps the biggest comma splice and run-on sentence in human history.

What Job do you have, because all this "horn-tooting" is merely an appeal to your own greatness.

What's a neiborhood? Is that a new, fancy gated community? I live in a neighborhood, but that's only were us lowely pseudo-capitalists reside.



Just to let you know, I'm back, and will continue to monitor this site for insurgent behaviors and dissident commentary, and I will be relentlessly refuting self righteous, misguided, ill-informed, and frivolous leftist diatribes with a greater tenacity than ever.

Well, by virtue that you are here, we can safely assume you are back. If you weren't back, you wouldn't be here.

As well, not all "lefties" are the same, so you can take your Hasty-Generalization fallacy and park it somewhere else. Extreme leftist propaganda is just as bad as extreme right-wing bullshit. Be realistic, not a label-machine. It takes more thinking to do the former.



By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

I am glad they are having elections, but I sorely hope they don't create some Islamic State. Muslim theocracies don't work, much like other forms of theocracy. From what I read and see on all major newsmedia networks, theocracy is a major "on-the-table" concern.

The latter portion of your paragraph, however, is a woefully obvious generalization fallacy unsupported by any real data. BCC and CNN aren't leftist. There is no "leftwing" bias in mainstream media. However, most printed materials tend to to be centre-left, while visual media tend to be rightwing. However, most media follows one thing: sensationalism.

It's also not called al-jizza.


You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.

You don't do much in the way of coherent debate. You and all your kind on the left and the right do a lot of bloviation, but not much good comes from it. Blah blah blah...nonsense self aggrandizement. That's all it is. Stop trolling.


There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents.

Definition of Occupation:

A.

1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

For quite some time, the military has been a major police and governmental force. It is only recently they are getting this changed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sorry I've been out awhile, and I apologize for starving you of actual logic (a difficult concept for you to comprehend) for so long,

Meaning we're gonna be showered in more pro-capitalist drivel.


I have been changing employers (my skills have tremendous value in the free labor market, and I decided to take advantage of the benevolent capitalist concept of upward mobility),

He's been fired :lol:


and purchasing a new home (in a bougeois neiborhood to say the least, with a pool, of course).

Here's to hoping he'll drown.


Just to let you know, I'm back, and will continue to monitor this site for insurgent behaviors and dissident commentary, and I will be relentlessly refuting self righteous, misguided, ill-informed, and frivolous leftist diatribes with a greater tenacity than ever.

He gets an ego boost from attacking strangers on the internet, how sad is that?

Will you make a few posts and then slink off, like the last time you said you were back?

[Urban Rubble]

Everyone's a critic, but hey they really respect your talent.
Have your manager call my manager, and we'll make records together.
At this level of success in entertainment, there are certain confrontations.
It's a "you give we take" relationship.
The kids just wouldn't understand it.
Come on now, how long do think this is really gonna last?
How long can you hold their attention? How long before they move on to the next band?
On the inside.
On the inside.
On the inside.
Do you wanna know how it feels on the inside?
On the inside.
On the inside.
On the inside.
Do you wanna know how it feels on the inside?

Coordinate the marketing, label, publicity, touring.
Consult on, timing and presentation.
Go ahead put this in context.
It's 3 points on production, 15% to management,
10% to the agent, 5% to legal representation.
We call it our insurance plan to stretch the inevitable as far as we can.
Gotta make your money while you got the chance,
do whatever it takes to sell it.

On the inside.
On the inside.
On the inside.
Do you wanna know how it feels on the inside?
On the inside.
On the inside.
On the inside.
Do you wanna know how it feels on the inside?
(Let's go)
Just how desperate can we be?
Go buy our record and see.
Just how angry can we seem?
Go buy our record and see.
Just how fucked up can it get?
Go buy our record and see.
Just how much can we bleed?
We're completely irrelevant on LP and compact disc.

[Commie-Pinko]

I hope this idiot is smarter than the other idiot who called himself a Lawyer. So far, the prospects for such states of being aren't promising.

[Ownthink]

So with 16,000+ innocent civilians dead,
hundreds of thousands more homeless,
an economy ruined,
and dare I say it, 1,800+ dead US soldiers...

I think it's more like 28,000+ dead, a shitload homeless, and 1,800 imperiliast pricks dead (but who cares? Oh yeah, their families. Lot of good that whole protesting bit did).

Oh yeah, Iraq is so much better off now! At least Saddam is gone! I mean, they had the most women's rights before we invaded! They MUST die!


/end_sarcasm



Here's to hoping he'll drown.


Here's to seconding that notion.

A well off cappie drowning in his pool outside the back of his huge home he doesn't need, full of bullshit he doesn't need. I hope the body is torn apart by birds.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 17 2005, 11:46 PM



Wow. Next time you go on a vacation, you should think about picking up a grammar guide, for that is perhaps the biggest comma splice and run-on sentence in human history.

What Job do you have, because all this "horn-tooting" is merely an appeal to your own greatness.

What's a neiborhood? Is that a new, fancy gated community? I live in a neighborhood, but that's only were us lowely pseudo-capitalists reside.



Just to let you know, I'm back, and will continue to monitor this site for insurgent behaviors and dissident commentary, and I will be relentlessly refuting self righteous, misguided, ill-informed, and frivolous leftist diatribes with a greater tenacity than ever.

Well, by virtue that you are here, we can safely assume you are back. If you weren't back, you wouldn't be here.

As well, not all "lefties" are the same, so you can take your Hasty-Generalization fallacy and park it somewhere else. Extreme leftist propaganda is just as bad as extreme right-wing bullshit. Be realistic, not a label-machine. It takes more thinking to do the former.



By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

I am glad they are having elections, but I sorely hope they don't create some Islamic State. Muslim theocracies don't work, much like other forms of theocracy. From what I read and see on all major newsmedia networks, theocracy is a major "on-the-table" concern.

The latter portion of your paragraph, however, is a woefully obvious generalization fallacy unsupported by any real data. BCC and CNN aren't leftist. There is no "leftwing" bias in mainstream media. However, most printed materials tend to to be centre-left, while visual media tend to be rightwing. However, most media follows one thing: sensationalism.

It's also not called al-jizza.


You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.

You don't do much in the way of coherent debate. You and all your kind on the left and the right do a lot of bloviation, but not much good comes from it. Blah blah blah...nonsense self aggrandizement. That's all it is. Stop trolling.


There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents.

Definition of Occupation:

A.

1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

For quite some time, the military has been a major police and governmental force. It is only recently they are getting this changed.

Wow. Next time you go on a vacation, you should think about picking up a grammar guide, for that is perhaps the biggest comma splice and run-on sentence in human history.

Oh, wow, here comes the English professor. I'm pretty confident that my command of English is on par with, and likely exceeds, yours. I was merely getting a quick missive out to my contemporaries here at RL. There used to be an unwritten rule that while in debate, one would not flame anothers on minor mispells, run-ons, and such. This lent itself well to the pace of debate. However, if you want to score-keep on prose and grammar, have at it. I'll beat you most of the time.


What Job do you have, because all this "horn-tooting" is merely an appeal to your own greatness.

No appeal is necessary, I was just informing you. Do with what you wish with the information.


Well, by virtue that you are here, we can safely assume you are back. If you weren't back, you wouldn't be here.

Ahh, we are quite the logistician, aren't we? For someone who so pretentiously insulted my English skills, it seems that you would recognize a rhetorical statement when you see one. Perhaps you were at a WTF protest on that schoolday.



As well, not all "lefties" are the same, so you can take your Hasty-Generalization fallacy and park it somewhere else. Extreme leftist propaganda is just as bad as extreme right-wing bullshit. Be realistic, not a label-machine. It takes more thinking to do the former.

"Hasty-Generalization fallacy", LOL, come on, man. Can you recite anything of original thought, or are you simply going to rehash the same terms that we all learned from the logic course we took to fill an elective credit?

You just got out of class, didn't you? Come on, you can tell me.


It's also not called al-jizza.

Wow, thanks a lot, where are you getting your Master's Degree? It was a freaking pun (Jazzera/Jizz, thus "Al"Jizza"). Please recognize cheap word humor when you see it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Hasty-Generalization fallacy", LOL, come on, man. Can you recite anything of original thought, or are you simply going to rehash the same terms that we all learned from the logic course we took to fill an elective credit?

You just got out of class, didn't you? Come on, you can tell me.

And here's the evasion I was expecting.

You really are a joke.

[Ownthink]

Wow, thanks a lot, where are you getting your Master's Degree? It was a freaking pun (Jazzera/Jizz, thus "Al"Jizza"). Please recognize cheap word humor when you see it.


It's not "Jazzera" either, moron. If you're going to make fun of it's name, at least get the real name right.





Idiot.

[Commie-Pinko]

"Hasty-Generalization fallacy", LOL, come on, man. Can you recite anything of original thought, or are you simply going to rehash the same terms that we all learned from the logic course we took to fill an elective credit?

You just got out of class, didn't you? Come on, you can tell me.


Note to forum members:

1. As you all can plainly see, his tactics in this debate are known as "Sophistry." Instead of addressing the argument or owning up to logical fallacies, he acts as if logical fallacies themselves are suspect, or he outright decries logic courses. This is irrelevant nonsense and a way of distracting the audience from his logical error. If you would like more information about this tactic in debate, read: How to win an Argument. It basically teaches people dishonest tactics to win debates.

His tactic is more clear if one uses the following hypothetical example:

His position:

IE. A. Everyone knows that evolution is wrong because most creationists believe so. If a lot of people believe it, it is therefore true.

B. That is logically invalid, because it is an appeal to numbers and the Relativistic Fallacy.

C. His position: HAH! You got that from a logic class! Own up!

****
Note how he doesn't address anything, but simply attacks the nature/source of the fallacy.
****

Explication"

It is Irrelevant where or from what source the fallacy had been learned. He is now switching the focus, a common sophistic tactic, by an Appeal to Ridicule. He is not actually amending fallacious reasoning, nor is he offering any rebuttle; rather, he attacks the accusation with irrelevant comments. Saying "be original" is an irrelevant rebuttle to accusations of fallacious reasoning. The fact that it is something one learns from a logic course is irrelevant to its nature.

You don't attack the logic; you amend your post, or you don't post at all. Fallacy therefore stands.

[Commie-Pinko]

Oh, wow, here comes the English professor. I'm pretty confident that my command of English is on par with, and likely exceeds, yours. I was merely getting a quick missive out to my contemporaries here at RL. There used to be an unwritten rule that while in debate, one would not flame anothers on minor mispells, run-ons, and such. This lent itself well to the pace of debate. However, if you want to score-keep on prose and grammar, have at it. I'll beat you most of the time.

I don't actually care about your grammar, but your post was irrelevant to anything important, and this is not a debate setting, so the same was fitting in response. You are correct insofar as standard, real debate practice goes. Grammar and spelling nitpicks are irrelevant, since such tactics would be an Appeal to Style over Substance. However, since there is no debate to be had here in this thread, it really does not matter.

Furthermore, I am not flaming you. This is far from it. Most likely, I will be on your side, to an extent, in many debates, because I hold the same base ideology as you. You are just going about it incorrectly. However, comma splices make sentences unreadable, and I would be happy if you would point out mistakes, where appropriate, since picking them out helps people prevent them.



No appeal is necessary, I was just informing you. Do with what you wish with the information.

The mentioning of your credentials is irrelevant to the discussion, so telling people what you are, how cool you are, or what you do is merely bloviation on your part. However, your unwarranted conduct and inane attitude dispel any notion that may suggest your bloviations are true.




Ahh, we are quite the logistician, aren't we? For someone who so pretentiously insulted my English skills, it seems that you would recognize a rhetorical statement when you see one. Perhaps you were at a WTF protest on that schoolday.


I know what you say is rhetorical, but there's nothing here of substance to address. THere are no points being made on a major issue, topic, or item. Therefore, all this talk is merely pointless trolling on your part. I don't pound my chest with frivolous appeals to how great I am, whereas you break out the pad and pen and furiously scribble down your credentials to leave in your wake. I don't know what your degree is, and you don't know mine. I am not claiming your are stupid; I cannot, for I have no data to suggest that. However, the way you are acting is completely unwarranted. Address topics, not people and credentials.

As you can, see, I am a restricted member. My moniker may be Commie-Pinko, but only because it's an inside joke with my friends. I am not really a Communist, nor am I anti-communist. I don't really give a shit. I don't tolerate bullshit from any political spectrum, regardless of whether it stems from the right or the left. However, it is quaint you are trapped in a world of black and white bifurcation from which you cannot extricate yourself. You don't see arguments, you see Left and Right,m which is ostensible from your generalization fallacy you chose to ignore. However, even using the terms "right" and "left" is completely inaccurate as an analysis, especially when one considers international political lexicons. The political spectrume is far more complex than such simple, crude dichotomizations. They are antedeluvian terms. In reality, The only thing important is how logical, fair arguments are. I don't make generalizations unsupportable by empirical data, and saying "all lefties this," and "all righties that," are contentless accusations.




Wow, thanks a lot, where are you getting your Master's Degree? It was a freaking pun (Jazzera/Jizz, thus "Al"Jizza"). Please recognize cheap word humor when you see it.

Your stuff isn't funny; it's incorrect, irrelevant, and trolling in poor taste. Such pointless remarks in combination with crimes against logic show your infantile mentality.

However, if you want to defend your joke, at least utilize the correct organization--Al-Jazeera. No one says you have to be perfect, but pretending to be "the grand master," and then fucking up so hilariously, is purely priceless.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 08:15 PM
Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.
Maybe you would be able to understand our logical side, our arguments, our respect, and our beliefs if you didn't come onto this board with insults in your words, and condescending bullshit. We're here to prove and disprove, we're not looking for a disrespectful right-wing Hun.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am not really a Communist, nor am I anti-communist. I don't really give a shit.

It doesn't work that way, either you are with us or against us.

And who is "us"? The proletariat, the majority.

[Raisa]

Capitalist Imeperial, I pissed in your pool.

[quincunx5]

Capitalist Imeperial, I pissed in your pool.


I suppose he will drown you in his pool filled with your piss.

Why don't you have anything intelligent to say?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 08:29 AM


Capitalist Imeperial, I pissed in your pool.


I suppose he will drown you in his pool filled with your piss.

Why don't you have anything intelligent to say?
Why don't you ask Capitalist Imperial that?

Careful Raisa, he might find that arousing :lol:

[Black Dagger]

No appeal is necessary, I was just informing you.

An evasion, answer the question. What is your occupation?
I am assuming that you are lying about your background (if you're not, well erm), how old are you? 24+?
Why would someone as old as you should be, with a 'career' and a 'new house' (and perhaps a family?), waste time posting on an internet discussion board for revolutionary leftists? (noting of course that you are not a revolutionary leftist). Are you unfulfilled in your relationship(s)? Alienated by your job/capitalist society? Erection problems? Weight problems? Surely, an intelligent, wealthy and well-educated individual such as yourself would have better, more important, interesting and fulfilling things to do?



Do with what you wish with the information. Ahh, we are quite the logistician, aren't we?

Logician?

[The Sloth]

capitalist imperial,

now that you're back, i'd like a reply to my rather long commentary on haiti (in case you've forgotten).

congratulations on your new home, but appeals to your position in society have no bearing on your intellectual substance. and, really, that's all that matters here.

anyway, let's get to the meat of the issue.


There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents.

"liberation," indeed. the so-called "liberation" came thirteen years after america's initial support of the dictator from 1979 until 1990. his maniacal campaigns of torture and human rights abuses were meaningless, of course; america continued to fund him with weapons and cash indefinitely. his only "sin," it seems, was the invasion of kuwait, and thus the subsequent threats on the much-desired oil reserves there.

truly, when one wants to discuss "liberation," a double standard is a bit much; we are somehow "supporting" liberation in iraq, but "forgetting" our support of, for example, the uncle-tomming mr. guy phillippe motherfucker in haiti (or, really, half of the other third-world nations on the planet).

if it were about "liberation," a double standard wouldn't exist. so, let's put it this way: freedom is a priority as long as it provides an economic benefit. such an explanation easily justifies, at least in american eyes, the corporate support, political, or military support of hitler, pinochet, abach, the duvaliers, haillie salassie, the contras, the taliban, indonesia's genocidal campaign in east timor, etc.

now, that sucks. and those nations that were supposedly "liberated" have been benefited how, exactly? is el-salvador a fine place yet? nicaragua? what about haiti after the 1915-1931 occupation under wilson through hoover?

so, the discussion turns to insurgency. the insurgents, i'm sure, understand the american interest in the middle east ever since oil was discovered in the '20s. "liberty" campaigns such as trading heroin with the taliban, overthrowing possible democracy in iran in the '50s, funding saddam hussein from 1979 to 1990, supporting the largest middle-eastern exporter of terrorism (israel), among other things, are well-known throughout the arab world. so, when america decides to invade a country that has been pounded with sanctions and bombing campaigns and fears of psych + personal safety due to saddam's u.s.-backed reign, what is only natural?

of course, the only natural thing is that a resistance forms.

and since america + europe have stagnated economic development in the middle east, as well as overthrown all democratic develoments there, this movement has to have a religious flavor. obviously, those are not my kind of revolutionaries. they aren't ideal; they are mostly nationalist and religious groups with a limited vision: get the occupation out. their religious nature is directly tied with the economic development of the region.

their brutality corresponds to the brutality of the occupation (100,000+ dead civilians is worse than 2,000 dead soldiers, as you well know). their crude strategy corresponds to civilian inexperience. their deals with shady groups corresponds to the american-forced exhaustion of all other options. who could they turn to? no one.

of course, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance. and no violence.

now, i'm sure if the situation were reversed, and america were under attack, you'd be one of the first people to defend yourself (or not; i don't know if you have self-respect or not, CI). in that situation, would you be a terrorist insurgent, or simply a defender of your home? if your answer is the latter, then you are a hypocrite, and you have officially turned "survival" into a commodity -- a "thing" that's only to be distributed to certain groups, such as american civilians, and denied to others, such as iraqis.


By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution?

now, even you admitted that this was a war purely of american interests. surely, when the first areas secured are oil reserves, and when most institutions are privatized, and when half (maybe the figure now is much higher) of iraqi banks are suddenly under foreign control (read -- britain and america), that does say something.

anyway, i think it best to quote chomsky here. you might be interested in the first couple of paragraphs, especially:


The US and Britain are naturally strongly opposed to any form of democratisation. So both the US and Britain were strongly opposed to elections in Iraq and tried in every way to prevent them. Right through the year 2004 there was effort after effort made to undermine and evade elections. Finally, both the US and Britain were compelled by popular resistance, and this is not insurgents - they don't care much about the bomb throwers - it's just non-violent resistance, just mass popular refusal to accept US/British orders. This was symbolised regularly by Ayatollah al-Sistani's fatwas, but when they bring a huge mass of people into the streets it's because they want to be there.

So the US and Britain had to back down and permit some kind of elections. Of course, once they had to permit them, they immediately took credit for them and counted on the media and the intellectuals to applaud - you know, just like normal - and immediately turned to try to subvert them. For example, every party leader, even the US candidate (who got creamed incidentally), had to have on his platform a call for a withdrawal of US/UK troops. Well, the day after the election in the Financial Times there was a big interview with Tony Blair and the first thing he says is there will be no timetable for a withdrawal of troops. In other words, we will make sure to subvert the elections, and Washington said the same thing. It wasn't hidden; it was open - we didn't want the elections, they were forced on us and now we have to subvert them. We have to make sure that there's no call for a withdrawal of troops. We have to try to make sure that the Iraqi political class which we've partially managed to put in power will accede to US/British demands to undermine the Iraqi economy, by opening up to foreign takeover, and we have to make sure that they don't resist that - that's the struggle that's going on in the background.

What will happen is very hard to say. It depends a lot on what the people of Britain and the United States decide to do. If they're willing and they act to support genuine Iraqi sovereignty then there's a possibility. Otherwise, the US and Britain will - as in the past - do what they can to prevent it from happening. You can understand why - it's not particularly obscure - democracy in a sovereign Iraq would be an utter disaster for the US and Britain. They would do anything to prevent it.

All you have to do is think what the policies would be of a relatively democratic, more or less sovereign Iraq. If it's at least marginally democratic, it'll have a Shi'ite majority. The Shi'ites of Iraq don't particularly love Shi'ite Iran, but they'd obviously rather have a friendly than a hostile neighbour, so they will patch up relations with Iran - the last thing that the US and Britain want. In addition, the existence of a relatively sovereign and Shi'ite Iraq is going to increase the agitation in the Shi'ite areas of Saudi Arabia for elimination of the bitter oppression of the US/British-backed regimes, and allow some degree of autonomy or freedom. Those happen to be the areas of Saudi Arabia where most of the oil is. So if you look a little bit off in the future you can imagine a Shi'ite alliance - Iraq, north eastern Saudi Arabia and Iran - which controls most of the world's oil. Are the US and Britain going to sit back and watch this?

Furthermore, Iraq is very likely to move, with any independence, to recover its natural position in the Arab world - namely as its leading power: the most educated, advanced, developed and wealthy state - a traditional position that goes back to biblical days in one or another form. So they'll probably move to restore that position, which means confronting the regional enemy, namely Israel - by now virtually an offshore US military base. They'll oppose the Israeli takeover of the West Bank and oppression of the Palestinians. That means they'll rearm and they may very well develop weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. Again, are the US and Britain just going to sit by and watch this happen?

They may have to, but only if it's really forced on them. So the idea of the US and Britain permitting a sovereign and democratic Iraq is so outlandish that you have to be deeply indoctrinated even to think about it. They may be forced to, just like they were forced to accept elections, but they're certainly not going to do it willingly and they'll resist it in every possible way. Actually, the foreign minister of Iran a couple of weeks ago stated that Iran is strongly in favour of a democratic, sovereign Iraq. Well, of course we laugh and dismiss it - you don't pay any attention to the leaders of states whether it's Iran or the G8 or anyone else. On the other hand, if you think about it, that's more credible than when Bush and Blair say it. I mean Iran wouldn't like it, but they could tolerate a democratic and sovereign Iraq. The US and Britain just couldn't tolerate it.

chomsky interview (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200507--.htm)

good day.

[Andy Bowden]

I suppose it will be nice to have one of your more traditional right-wingers on the forum, instead of all these kerazzzy Libertarians :D :P


PS: South Vietnam had some highly successful elections as well. An 83% turnout I believe.

[Commie-Pinko]

Marxism-Lenninism Wrote:


It doesn't work that way, either you are with us or against us.

And who is "us"? The proletariat, the majority.

Well, I would have to disagree here because Communism is an ideology based off of communal philosophy. There are myriad brands/versions of socialism and communism. To state that someone is either for us or against is what is known as as the Fallacy of Non-Exaustive Alternatives:

This fallacy takes place when you artificially separate people into opposing positions or when the assumption that a statement or description covers all the possibilities, when it does not.

Americans say this frequently when they attack other countries. You are either with the terrorists or against them," which is completely untrue.

Source: Google, Document: http://www.ilstu.edu/~aeveret/practiceA.doc.

As with any philosophy (including Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc), one can be a Utilitarian, Deontologist, Socialist, etc, but not support the philosophy fully. One can be a proponent of parts of various philosohpies, but never occupy the whole or be fully against the other parts.

I don't like SOME elements of Communism, and I don't like SOME elements of Capitalism. I like some elements of Both, both materially and ethically. Since I am not an expert in EITHER economic field, I cannot really say I am for or against; I don't have the ability to say that. I only know a little bit.

Philosophy belief does not easily lend itself to firm divisions as to exaustive proposals. It is not like saying "I am either dead or alive," or that "I am here or somewhere else." Those are clearly defined. I don't have to adhere to an entire philosophy or be totally against it. You can be both socialist and capitalist.

So, as a result, I am neither for you nor against you.


Black-Dagger wrote:


QUOTE

Do with what you wish with the information. Ahh, we are quite the logistician, aren't we?

Logician?


Just for clarification, it's the same thing, but he was playing his little semantic word game like usual. The post really had nothing substantial other than a barb against logic.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 03:11 PM
I'm back, coimmie pukes

What's up, pinko gadfly's?

Apparently, neither your spellchecker nor your sense of grammar bothered to make the trip with you. Sorry, I only debate literate rightwing fuckwits. Better luck next time, moran.

Miles

[spartafc]

I can feel my very faith quaking at the mere sight of your poorly articulated original post.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 07:48 PM
There is no occupation, only a liberation being compromised by terrorist insurgents.
Would you also say the same thing about the colonial army struggling against British rule during the American "Revolution"?

The "terrorists" want an Iraq that functions from Baghdad, not Washington D.C.


By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.

I see you've also taken up mind altering substances. Which one(s) if you don't mind me asking? Crystal meth? Cocaine? LSD? Heroin? "Red outlets" are not corporate owned, and are not part of the US propoganda machine like CNN. Comments like these make me wonder whether you really believe the crap you post here, or just having fun.

I'll show you some developments in Iraq which you don't see on "typical red outlets" as you put it: of the Iraqi Resistance (http://www.abolkhaseb.net/images/3loj/index.htm). Hope you enjoy it, and welcome back:)

[Colombia]

This topic has gotten a bit pointless. It seems obvious to everyone here that capitalist imperial truly has no idea of what he speaks of. So why bother to prove him wrong more?

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 07:11 PM
By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution? Of course, you'll never hear of such incredivble developments on your typical red outlets such as CNN, BBC, or Al-Jizza.
Well, as far as i know these incidents where widely reported in all of the medias you mentioned. What they didn’t report, as far as i know, [I'm not sure about 'Al-Jizza'] is that the US blocked the election all the way, and wrote the draft constitution. This provoked massive protests, a call for elections and a new constitution. So the US was forced to grant the election, but only after they had established a pro-US party, provided with a US-supported political campaign.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

By thew way, what do you pukes think of the incredible Iraqi elections and pending constitution?

Most boring and fake shit ever.

This is what happens when a "sovereign" Iraq tries to act sovereign. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4262336.stm

Mind you, that I have picked the BBC. You can't possibly accuse them of being "anti-British". I have no doubts on who you would rather believe: the British Army or the Iraqi government.

[rachstev]

Commie Girl,

When such a record number of people voted in the Iraqi election, why would action under occupation be irrelivant? If that were the case, and if the vast majority of Iraqis believe what you wrote, shouldn't they have boycotted the polls (not merely one group, but the entire country.) Their conduct on election day does not comport with irrelevancy.

Also, why didn't the Japanese and German governments throw out what was written under the U.S. and U.S./British/Soviet occupations. Ironically, many of the generation who came after their parents like the U.S. requirement in the late 40's that their constitution requiring women voting and a non-extra national army. The Japanese and Germans have not removed the languge in either case.

Iraq is not Japan or Germany in the late 40's, but still, your sweeping notion that nothing counts during the occupation is probably WAY off the mark.

The recent trial for Saddam's relation who got life in prison...after the U.S. leaves, will he be killed or released?

I could go on, but my main issue was written in pars 1 and 2:

Why did they come out and vote if they think like you;
Why does Japan and Germany maintain in their constitutions language forced on them by the Americans?

Oh, by the way, hi, how've you been?

Rachstev

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:27 PM
Apparently, neither your spellchecker nor your sense of grammar bothered to make the trip with you. Sorry, I only debate literate rightwing fuckwits. Better luck next time, moran.

Miles
miles,

now that's a snotty attitude.

it's even worse considering that you, yourself, haven't even bothered to "spellcheck" your shit, either.

the word is "moron," not "moran."

but, of course, it doesn't matter at all. i'm sure everyone knew what you meant, in the same way that everyone knew what CI meant when he made this thread.

what's next? will you attack my lack of capitalization?

sorry about making a big deal out of this, but seriously...people need to find something else to talk about, especially if their *only* posts in such a thread deal with grammar/spelling, and not the substance.

also, regarding other people's intelligence: really, calling folks "fuckwits" and "morons" is a bit hypocritical, no? while communist society notes intellectual differences between people, communist society does not treat these differences as elitist distinctions. by implying there is something "wrong" with a person of a lower intelligence, you're simply replacing one attitude (classism) with another one (intellectual elitism).

but, maybe you're right. CI does seem to have a bit of an ego problem (judging by the arrogant hostility of this thread, at least), so when his self-praised intellect is attacked, it merely shows that what he holds so dear to himself is actually irrelevant, and purely elitist, in the end.

question is, are you here to deflate such sick egos, or merely put yourself on an intellectual pedestal?

peace,

alex.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 20 2005, 12:27 PM
miles,

now that's a snotty attitude.

it's even worse considering that you, yourself, haven't even bothered to "spellcheck" your shit, either.

the word is "moron," not "moran."

but, of course, it doesn't matter at all. i'm sure everyone knew what you meant, in the same way that everyone knew what CI meant when he made this thread.

what's next? will you attack my lack of capitalization?

sorry about making a big deal out of this, but seriously...people need to find something else to talk about, especially if their *only* posts in such a thread deal with grammar/spelling, and not the substance.

also, regarding other people's intelligence: really, calling folks "fuckwits" and "morons" is a bit hypocritical, no? while communist society notes intellectual differences between people, communist society does not treat these differences as elitist distinctions. by implying there is something "wrong" with a person of a lower intelligence, you're simply replacing one attitude (classism) with another one (intellectual elitism).

but, maybe you're right. CI does seem to have a bit of an ego problem (judging by the arrogant hostility of this thread, at least), so when his self-praised intellect is attacked, it merely shows that what he holds so dear to himself is actually irrelevant, and purely elitist, in the end.

question is, are you here to deflate such sick egos, or merely put yourself on an intellectual pedestal?

peace,

alex.
Are you done? Good. Now then, first things first. "Moran" is different from "moron". I refer you to the attached image at the end of this message for the genesis of it.

As for being "snotty" toward capitalists, I have no problem with doing so. If you work for a living, then you know what it's like to have to put up with the arrogance and condescension of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. When we workers fight back, we are too often told to hold our tongues -- to "be nice", as someone once referenced it to me. Well, sorry. No. I will not hold my tongue, and I will not "be nice" to my exploiters and oppressors, or those who will alibi and apologize for them. The only way to get an oppressor off your back is to stand up, and that starts with telling them to go fuck themselves.

I came here to have good, comradely discussions with others who consider themselves revolutionaries, socialists and communists. I stayed here because I can have that and also torture defenders of the slave system they like to call "free enterprise". So, we all have our reasons.

Miles

[synthesis]

CI: You are a troll. I literally cannot remember the last time you contributed something productive to the discussion in this forum. Why you are not banned yet is beyond me.

[Comrade Hector]

Funny picture. Typical Republicans being their ignorant selves. One thing true about republicans that exposes their stupidity is their positions on Russia: 1/3 of them think that Russia and Germany are the one and same country (I've had to explain this countless times to local conservatives), 1/3 of republicans think that Russia is still "Communist" ("Putin nationalized Yukos oil, that's about as capitalist as the comintern"), half of the last 1/3 believe that Russia is an ally and a useful partner in the "War on Terrorism" while the other half want the USA to help the Chechen Rebels against "Russian Tyranny". Talk about "Morans".

[quincunx5]

85% of statistics on this forum are created out of thin air.

Hector, where are you getting these numbers?

[Lord Testicles]

85% of statistics on this forum are created out of thin air.

like that one? :lol:

[quincunx5]

Yes, like that one. I'm glad some people here have a sense of humor.

[Decolonize The Left]

I also would like to know where Hector got his stats.

-- August

[truthaddict11]

welcome back CI as you can see I am now caged, I "switched teams" a while ago

[Anarchist Freedom]

Class traitor.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:45 PM
As for being "snotty" toward capitalists, I have no problem with doing so. If you work for a living, then you know what it's like to have to put up with the arrogance and condescension of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. When we workers fight back, we are too often told to hold our tongues -- to "be nice", as someone once referenced it to me. Well, sorry. No. I will not hold my tongue, and I will not "be nice" to my exploiters and oppressors, or those who will alibi and apologize for them. The only way to get an oppressor off your back is to stand up, and that starts with telling them to go fuck themselves.

I came here to have good, comradely discussions with others who consider themselves revolutionaries, socialists and communists. I stayed here because I can have that and also torture defenders of the slave system they like to call "free enterprise". So, we all have our reasons.

Miles
unfortunately, you're not "torturing" anybody here. you merely pointed out a typo, and mentioned something about grammar, indirectly praised your own intellect, and then left.

it's not about "holding your tongue," nor do i believe in such nonsense, so the explanation wasn't necessary. we always have a reason to be critical, and rather offensive at times, but, as i said, intellectual elitism, while critical and offensive, is a bourgeois mentality. you haven't really addressed this, so let me say it again: making an elitist distinction, and not merely a factual judgment, about people of different intelligence isn't very egalitarian. you could embarass CI by poking holes in his weak argument, and you could do the same for any capitalist, but the second you emphasize your own superiority is the second you fall into the trap because you are, after all, giving credit to such a classist idea.

"being nice" really has nothing to do with it, and i don't care if someone wants to be offensive. there's nothing wrong with that, but my criticism of elitist distinctions between "this" and "that" intellect as a bourgeois attitude still stands. you could, of course, make the appeal that you're helping to bring down the system by making a big deal out of others' stupidity, and you could also make the appeal that you're "breaking free" from capitalist oppression by re-affirming your own intellectual prowess at the expense of the capitalist, but, realistically, i don't think it does much, and it especially doesn't offer freedom.

calling a promiscuous female capitalist politician a "whore" and a "cock-sucking slut" is not "being nice," either. but, of course, only an ego-crazy pig of a man would ever pretend that there's something wrong with sexual freedom, and, thus, every sensible person would erase such words from his vocabulary because they imply something very much contrary to egalitarianism. thus, if it were simply offensive, it wouldn't matter, but the problem is that it implies something rather sinister.

substitute a few words in the given example, and you would have the same argument against elitist intellectual distinctions.

- alex.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 21 2005, 12:25 PM
calling a promiscuous female capitalist politician a "whore" and a "cock-sucking slut" is not "being nice," either. but, of course, only an ego-crazy pig of a man would ever pretend that there's something wrong with sexual freedom, and, thus, every sensible person would erase such words from his vocabulary because they imply something very much contrary to egalitarianism. thus, if it were simply offensive, it wouldn't matter, but the problem is that it implies something rather sinister.

substitute a few words in the given example, and you would have the same argument against elitist intellectual distinctions.
Since this seems to be the crux of your argument, so I'll just respond to this. You are equating someone from the exploited using this language to that of someone from the exploiting. Would you argue that an African American using the word "n*****" is the same as a white person using it? I certainly would not.

It has a different social context. For a worker to question the intelligence of a bourgeois or petty bourgeois is to tear at the social fabric that contains class divisions. We live in a society where working people are naturally assumed to be of low intelligence, to be ignorant, to be stupid. And we're told as such -- explicitly and implicitly -- every day of our lives. It is a part of the ongoing cultural class war that we face every day.

This is where the whole "being nice" issue comes in. "Being nice" is, in fact, a weapon of class warfare. It is used as a cultural weapon against workers who are rebelling against the social hierarchy. It is used by owners and managers against workers who are standing up for their rights on the job. It is used by capitalist politicians confronted by outraged members of the community. It is used in schools, in churches, synagogues and mosques, and in the media. And it is always used against us errant and rebellious proles.

Your admonitions betray a petty-bourgeois approach to class issues. People with this kind of approach usually are the ones who, before, during and after a revolution, plead with all their might for workers to "be nice" and "be reasonable" ... and surrender.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:07 PM
Class traitor.
He would have to have been a worker to be a class traitor. I suspect he was not.

Miles

[quincunx5]

No. I will not hold my tongue, and I will not "be nice" to my exploiters and oppressors, or those who will alibi and apologize for them. The only way to get an oppressor off your back is to stand up, and that starts with telling them to go fuck themselves.


Just make sure that when you do it, your company is not during a 'loss' period. Otherwise you would be wrong to threaten them.

It's nice for leftists to always assume that the people they work for are always earning profits.

[Goatse]

While I'm not exactly contributing to the discussion, I'd like to say... I've never laughed so hard in weeks at some of the stuff CI said.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 08:15 PM
Armchair, to say that CNN is center-right or that the BBC is "impartial" is to expose your own idoiocy.

You can call me an idiot as much as you want, but we both know I am not. I've out-debated countless commie pukes in my years here, and you would be well advised to shut your mouth less you be out-done by my logic as so many others have.
You know I really forgot about what a lunatic you were! :lol:

All corporate news outlets are very right wing.

Canada has three godamn CNN stations now! :angry:

I see the effects and believe me they are right wing.

[JC1]

Just make sure that when you do it, your company is not during a 'loss' period. Otherwise you would be wrong to threaten them.


Why ? He is making his profit from the value of youre labour.

[timbaly]

Glad to see you back CI. Last time I remember seeing you around was when I was debating about the electoral college. I'm pretty sure you never responded to my last and most important point. Seems like more right wingers can always be used due to the frequent bannings that go on.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:40 PM


No. I will not hold my tongue, and I will not "be nice" to my exploiters and oppressors, or those who will alibi and apologize for them. The only way to get an oppressor off your back is to stand up, and that starts with telling them to go fuck themselves.


Just make sure that when you do it, your company is not during a 'loss' period. Otherwise you would be wrong to threaten them.

It's nice for leftists to always assume that the people they work for are always earning profits.
It depends, which business.

But even then, at the end of the year unless its some small "mom and pop" operation, they make a huge profit. A profit they strip right off of your back. It's usually quite obvious which employers are well off.

Either way, the workers class are certainly entitled to pimp the system.

[quincunx5]

It depends, which business.
But even then, at the end of the year unless its some small "mom and pop" operation, they make a huge profit. A profit they strip right off of your back.


So it doesn't depend on the business? You are not clear.

All non small "mom and pop" businesses make a profit? What fantasy world do you live in?

Let's pretend that that was the case (for fun's sake), why then the need for all the brokers, financial, analysts, bankers, mutual funds, hedge funds? All you'd have to do it just invest yourself - and you'd be a winner every time. Surely the communists would love a system where EVERYONE can profit.

Don't forget that profit for one given year is not overall profit. If you sunk 10 million bucks in a business venture, you better hope that you profit at least a million a year to get even in 10 years.



It's usually quite obvious which employers are well off.


Yes, but only if they work with you. They are workers, too.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:53 PM

It's usually quite obvious which employers are well off.

Yes, but only if they work with you. They are workers, too.
What color is the sky in your world?

Miles

[quincunx5]

What color is the sky in your world?


It varies.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 21 2005, 12:07 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 21 2005, 12:07 PM)
Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:07 PM
Class traitor.
He would have to have been a worker to be a class traitor. I suspect he was not.

Miles [/b]
nope I am a worker, I make money and I am going into buisness managment, who are workers too. I am not a "class traitor" because there is not such a thing.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 22 2005, 01:18 PM--> (truthaddict11 @ Sep 22 2005, 01:18 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:07 PM

Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:07 PM
Class traitor.
He would have to have been a worker to be a class traitor. I suspect he was not.

Miles
nope I am a worker, I make money and I am going into buisness managment, who are workers too. I am not a "class traitor" because there is not such a thing. [/b]
You're either a fool or a liar. My money is on the latter.

Miles

[quincunx5]

CommunistLeague is a bigot. To him, office/business people are not workers, even if they make up a substantial part of today's advanced society.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:44 PM
CommunistLeague is a bigot. To him, office/business people are not workers, even if they make up a substantial part of today's advanced society.
dont bother agruing with them anybody who makes more than a minimum wage or is above the lowest tier of a buisness is not a worker to them

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:44 PM
CommunistLeague is a bigot. To him, office/business people are not workers, even if they make up a substantial part of today's advanced society.
Office workers are workers. Businessmen are not. I would tell you to go to the "Learning" forum on this site and read what I've written on this issue, but I doubt you'd do it. You have your talking point, and you'll beat it like a cheap drum. I just hope all that Kool-Aid you drank was tasty.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:48 PM
dont bother agruing with them anybody who makes more than a minimum wage or is above the lowest tier of a buisness is not a worker to them
See above.

Miles

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 22 2005, 12:49 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 22 2005, 12:49 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 01:44 PM
CommunistLeague is a bigot. To him, office/business people are not workers, even if they make up a substantial part of today's advanced society.
Office workers are workers. Businessmen are not. I would tell you to go to the "Learning" forum on this site and read what I've written on this issue, but I doubt you'd do it. You have your talking point, and you'll beat it like a cheap drum. I just hope all that Kool-Aid you drank was tasty.

Miles [/b]
what about middle managment office and buisness people are they not workers?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:50 PM
what about middle managment office and buisness people are they not workers?
Nope. Overseers (managers, supervisors -- whatever euphemism you come up with) are not workers. They are appendages of the capitalist owners.

Miles

[quincunx5]

Now tell me CL, what is the percentage of WORKERS in an advanced capitalist society like US or Europe?

Where WORKERS is whatever fucked up definition of workers you concocted.

[Red Powers]

I'll answer for CL if you don't mind. I've recently read Working Class Majority by Michael Zweig. By carefully going through census data and Labor Dept. statistics he concludes that the US population is 62% working class, 35% petit bourgeoisie, and 2% capitalists. It was a very good read and I recommend it.

[quincunx5]

I'll answer for CL if you don't mind. I've recently read Working Class Majority by Michael Zweig. By carefully going through census data and Labor Dept. statistics he concludes that the US population is 62% working class, 35% petit bourgeoisie, and 2% capitalists. It was a very good read and I recommend it.


Thank you for trying to answer my question. The statistics are indeed intersting even though the categories are misleading. I refuse to accept that only rich people are capitalists. Chiefly because I'm not rich, and neither are my friends.

So now my question is how does he clearly define the difference? and why are these categories mutually exclusive?

How does he account for the fact that government, not capitalism produces such sharp distinctions?

Interesting, he apparently teaches at the same place I went to school for a semester. I never heard of him till now.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22 2005, 02:24 PM
I'll answer for CL if you don't mind. I've recently read Working Class Majority by Michael Zweig. By carefully going through census data and Labor Dept. statistics he concludes that the US population is 62% working class, 35% petit bourgeoisie, and 2% capitalists. It was a very good read and I recommend it.
While I think Zweig's book was great for what it was, I think his numbers were based on a more narrow reading of class than I have. For example, he considers all teachers to be in the petty bourgeois category, as well as a large portion of office workers. I would put the numbers like this:

Working class: 65 percent
Petty bourgeoisie: 30 percent
Bourgeoisie: 2 percent
Lumpen: 3 percent

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:54 PM
Thank you for trying to answer my question. The statistics are indeed intersting even though the categories are misleading. I refuse to accept that only rich people are capitalists. Chiefly because I'm not rich, and neither are my friends.
For communists, class is not based on income, but on relations to the means of production and relations with other classes.

Miles

[quincunx5]

For communists, class is not based on income, but on relations to the means of production and relations with other classes.


How is it possible to have these numbers if >80% of Americans own a capital asset?

You still have not answered why all these classes are mutually exclusive.

And you don't even mention that not all people stay in the same class in their lifetime.

[synthesis]

How is it possible to have these numbers if >80% of Americans own a capital asset?

If they still have to sell their labor to survive, (i.e. aren't living off stocks, etc) then they fit the proletarian definition fine.


You still have not answered why all these classes are mutually exclusive.

Because for the most part, you either work for someone else, have other people work for you, or work for yourself. That's more or less how class analysis is set up. Obviously you do run into exceptions (middle managers, lumpen) but they are relatively few and do nothing to invalidate the system of class analysis.


And you don't even mention that not all people stay in the same class in their lifetime.

Class mobility is a nice idea, I'll give you that.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 21 2005, 01:07 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 21 2005, 01:07 PM)
Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:07 PM
Class traitor.
He would have to have been a worker to be a class traitor. I suspect he was not.

Miles [/b]
He betrayed the proletariet.

[bezdomni]

People who are in business management are nothing more than apes of moderate intelligence that wear suits and try to feel important. Fulfillment does not come from pushing papers half of the day, and then returning to your neighborhood where all of the houses look the same and all of the people pretend to be your friends while talking shit about you behind your back. Joy does not come from having two used japanese cars in your attached garage. You might say your life is great, you might think that climbing the corporate ladder makes you happy. But in reality, it ends up going nowhere. We all end up in the ground, why waste our lives pushing useless papers for jerk-offs higher up than us. Why spend all of your good years worrying about finances and your "business major" (aka: math for morons). Why waste all of your money on useless shit like a twenty speed blender? Do something useful with your life! BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT IS SO HOLLOW!

[Morpheus]

Capitalists or bourgeoisie are those who make their living through ownership or power, without having to sell their labor to make a living. For example, someone who makes a living off stocks, land or factories they own is a capitalist. A capitalist may get a job anyway, 'cause they get bored sitting around doing nothing, but doesn't have to in order to make a living.

The working class or proletariat is someone who has to sell his or her labor to make a living but does not have the authority to hire or fire other workers. Most of the population in the "first world" is made up of workers.

The managerial or coordinator class is made up of those who still have to sell their labor to make a living, but they also have the authority to hire & fire workers. They're middle management & the like. Lackeys of the capitalist class, they help capitalists run the system.

The petty bourgeoisie are small capitalists, small business owners. They own and operate their own businesses, but those businesses are so small that they have to do some of the actual work involved in that business. They have authority over a small number of employees, but sometimes may also be exploited by capitalists via rent, the bank, etc.

The lumpenproletariat are the perpetually unemployed, like the homeless. They exist to scare the rest of us into submission. Defy the capitalist class and you could end up homeless.

Class is based on the social relationship involved in production, how people interact in a a hierarchical economy. It's not based simply on income - some of the wealthier workers (members of the "aristocracy of labor") can make as much money as a coordinator, but they play different roles in the economic hierarchy. Usually inocme correlates with class, though. The higher you are the more wealth you get.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 12:47 AM

He betrayed the proletariet.
and i got a nice lump of cash for selling all your secrets! :lol:

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:58 PM
People who are in business management are nothing more than apes of moderate intelligence that wear suits and try to feel important. . You might say your life is great, you might think that climbing the corporate ladder makes you happy. But in reality, it ends up going nowhere. We all end up in the ground, why waste our lives pushing useless papers for jerk-offs higher up than us. Why spend all of your good years worrying about finances and your "business major" (aka: math for morons). Do something useful with your life! BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT IS SO HOLLOW!
i took out all the useless garbage you put in your post

useful like how? be miserable as a wage worker? I started off at my company at the lowest level, and now am close to going to managment, plus i am taking college level buisness and economics courses so I can be a more effective buisness leader. I hope to possibly franchise a store or two years down the road. I love my company and want to see us be the best in the buisness. and why do you think all managers are in offices all day pushing papers? Thats not what I am going into, I am in the foodservice buisness, have been my entire worklife, it is something I enjoy and becoming a manager gives me more responsability and challange to make my company the best. I wont be having a "wasted life" if what I do is fulfilling to me

[Morpheus]

I'm sure you'll make a great slave driver.

[The Sloth]

You are equating someone from the exploited using this language to that of someone from the exploiting. Would you argue that an African American using the word "n*****" is the same as a white person using it? I certainly would not.

bad example -- "nigga," as said between friends, is not a term of racial insult.

(on a side note, my school was black. whites called their black friends "nigga," and i've never heard any protest. so, is it a purely racial issue anymore, or what?)

"idiot," on the other hand, has only two contexts: in the deflation of the insulted ego, or in the inflation of the insulter's ego. either way, it is almost always offensive, but in the former, it's both strategic and proper. obviously, i have no problem with the offense involved, only the implications (in case you missed this in my last post).

and i did ask under what context it was used. your response: silence.

now, although you claim that such words are a weapon of class warfare, i suspect that "after the revolution," you would denounce everyone you don't want to bother with as idiots anyway.

but, in the meantime, forget the revolution: your objective is "torture."

so, miles, do continue to "torture" the bourgeoisie with your piercing, and utterly hurtful attacks on their intelligence. you could even pretend that you're making their knees shake. and, you could even pretend that they care.


Since this seems to be the crux of your argument, so I'll just respond to this.

i do suggest you re-read my comments about "being nice" before you address me again; it might clear up some misunderstandings, and it might prevent any more ad-homs on your part...k?

good night.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 27 2005, 01:56 PM
i do suggest you re-read my comments about "being nice" before you address me again; it might clear up some misunderstandings, and it might prevent any more ad-homs on your part...k?

good night.
Fuck off.

Miles

[quincunx5]

Fuck off.


I'm wondering if the thought police (aka Mods) are going to give you a warning point. I'm thinking not, since 'Communist' is in your handle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:53 PM


Fuck off.


I'm wondering if the thought police (aka Mods) are going to give you a warning point. I'm thinking not, since 'Communist' is in your handle.
He was being facetious. Grow a sense of humor,as it's obviously been surgically removed.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:46 PM
I'm sure you'll make a great slave driver.
yup i am getting one with a custom handle :lol:

[bezdomni]

Personally I find that finances, business, accounting...etc are incredibly boring and dry. I don't see how anybody could feel fulfilled by that sort of profession. Most of the people I know who took that path at least somewhat regret it, or wish they had done something different.

I guess being a wage slave doesn't offer any fulfillment either, which is why it's wrong for the state and society to encourage an economic system that inherently provides alienation from species-essence and being-essence.

All work should offer fulfillment to the person who is doing the work. Work should not tear us away from our lives, it should be a welcomed part of our lives. If you truly feel fulfilled by your job, then good for you. You are the first person I have ever heard of who truly loves having a managerial-type job.

Good luck with your new "challange". ;)

[quincunx5]

it's wrong for the state and society to encourage an economic system that inherently provides alienation from species-essence and being-essence.


How does being an agent in helping to provide goods and services to the demands of society, including yourself, alienating?

It's extremely social.



I don't see how anybody could feel fulfilled by that sort of profession.


They may not be fullfilled so-and-so hours a week, but they will be on their off-time. Which is why they see it as a trade-off.

[Le People]

Lawyering always seemed dandy. Lenin was a lawyer, Fidel,stalin?, and a whole scores of other practice the profession.

[Patchy]

- Giggles -

Welcome back.

[Shift_6]

I remember Capitalist Imperial, he knows his stuff watch out lefties

[Latifa]

No, you are clearly mistaken. He is nothing more than a common troll.