A question or two

[Gnosis]

What is your relationship to "the government"?
How do you see it in relation to yourself?
How do you interact with it, how do you feel and think about it?
How does it appear to feel and think and act toward you?

Is this a healthy relationship?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do not believe in a government which can "love you", or "be a part of your life", except during time of national emergency, war, and similar conditions.

I do not think in terms of a "relationship" between the government and myself. If I had to use a word it would be "businesslike".


A. Hamilton

[VonClausewitz]

What is your relationship to "the government"?
How do you see it in relation to yourself?
How do you interact with it, how do you feel and think about it?
How does it appear to feel and think and act toward you?

Is this a healthy relationship?

I - I didn't vote for them
II - They're the winners of a contest, my team lost
III - I try not to, too much, beaurocracy does my head in
IV - I'm a student, in England, and I'm not from somewhere else, so naturally it shits all over me any time I poke my head out of line.

V - Not really, they're going come next election, the tories will be back then.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I know I already commented, but after reading VonClausewitz's comment, I have to remind myself that we in the United States of America don't have a "government" based on the winning party versus the "loyal opposition".

We have the Bush Administration, the 108th Congress, and the Roberts Court. Together they make our government. The most powerful (though not be design) is the Roberts Court, as it has the final word. Also, Justice Roberts, being a young man (by government standards) could conceivably be on the Court for many decades. His leadership may be crucial in future important decisions.

But that must be fun being a "subject" instead of a citizen, and having a "Blair Government." It's very different from your cousins across the Pond.


A. Hamilton

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That's the most ignorant commentary I've ever heard in respect to the differences between the British and American governments. Jesus fucking Christ almighty.

Anyways, the government is inhenrently an enemy of working-class emancipation... however it can make conditions more or less favorable for the workers. I take part in electoral politics because I think that victories for the reformist left is something of a victory nonetheless.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Rosenpenis:

Though I naturally accept that you believe government to be an enemy of the working class, I assure you what I wrote (which, by the way, was not commentary, but literal fact) is very basic knowledge.

The parliamentary system allows for a nearly immediate change in government given a vote of no confidence, and the elections follow soon afterward. The UK's executive and legislative branches are fused into one organized group.

We may both, in the UK and the USA, support capitalism, and therefore, from your point of view, stand opposed to workers of the world, but in the United States, I promise you, current 37% approval ratings of G. Bush do not translate to a "vote of no confidence". Unless impeached, Presdient Bush will remain in office until January, 2009. If he were the best president in our history, he could not serve beyond that date.

Perhaps, Rosenpenis, you would have done well to state WHY you believed my "commentary" was, as you called it, ignorant. What did you mean by the comment?


A. Hamilton

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Americans have just as little influence over their government as do citizens of the UK. They are no more at the mercy of their elected representatives than you. Rather, if the British system involves slightly more direct representation, it would follow that it is Americans citizens who are less autonomous.

[Rollo]

George Bush is the president of Australia, I can assure you.

[colonelguppy]

i voted LP in the last election. they lost in all cases.

so basically i do as much illegal shit as possible without getting caught.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Rosenpenis,

I accept that you believe that both the USA and the UK have very little representation from cappie-controlled elected representitives. I even understand the Marxist reasoning behind this point of view, even if I disagree with it.

I merely commented the STRUCTURE was different. And every word of what I wrote was factual. I do not believe my comment to VonClausewitz deserved such a demeaning response.


A. Hamilton

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 27 2006, 04:00 PM
Rosenpenis,

I accept that you believe that both the USA and the UK have very little representation from cappie-controlled elected representitives. I even understand the Marxist reasoning behind this point of view, even if I disagree with it.

I merely commented the STRUCTURE was different. And every word of what I wrote was factual. I do not believe my comment to VonClausewitz deserved such a demeaning response.


A. Hamilton
I'm not talking about economic and social marginalization of the working class and the capitalist agenda of the bourgeois government. I'm talking objectively about government structure. Both the American and British governments are similar in terms of representation and structure.

[colonelguppy]

not really. there are very few similarities actually.

the only thing they really share with us is the single-member districting. the distribution of powers is almost completely different.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Rosenpenis,

I believe you did not respond to what I wrote, but went on a differnt tangent.

Be that as it may, I will discuss what I understand to be the GREAT differences in the USA versus the UK, where it comes to government.


You wrote:

I'm not talking about economic and social marginalization of the working class and the capitalist agenda of the bourgeois government. I'm talking objectively about government structure. Both the American and British governments are similar in terms of representation and structure.


So, we examine what I believe to be the differences between the two systems, removing the usual arguments (because, I do agree with the moderator's philosophy, we don't want a debate) over the notion that the whole democracy thing's a sham and only supports capital, blah, blah, blah...:


First of all, I think there are many aspects to the UK system that makes it wholly unlike the Constitution we have in the US. The UK government can organize nearly any bill it wishes to pass in a matter of days or weeks. Our bicameral system takes months usually, with the bill flying around in committee. It is nearly an endless process. Our Supreme Court (by accident more than design) is VERY powerful, and can rule ANY law or presidential action to be unconsituttional. THERE IS NO WAY TO OVERRIDE SUCH A RULING. While this is technically not an accurate way of stating this:

Abortions are legal because of the Supreme Court
School integration, now statute law, was first created by a ruling of the Supreme Court
Persons illegally in the U.S. get a free education for their children because of the Supreme Court.
Evidence illegally obtained in inadmissible because of the Supreme Court's exclusionary rule.

I could go on, but I won't. I am not saying the court is always right. There are plenty of cases where many feel the Court totally blew it. I am talking about the POWER of the Court, that it can thwart the will of all 535 legislators and President combined.

Then there are Constitutional protections for the citizen. And a caluse in the Constitution preventing states from interfering with contracts. (That's a cappie lifeline if ever there was one.)

I don't know membership in Parliament, or make up. I know they have majority rule, but the UK runs PARTY v. PARTY, and the particular person running is far less important than in the U.S., where we cross party lines as easily as changing the TV remote. 30% Don't care a wit about the party affiliation of our President, governors, and members of Congress.

We have, by design, a very conservative system, which is very hard to change. If the UK wished, they could democratically socialize anything it wished to. Constitutional language and the way such language has been interpreted protect private actions. When a person stands before the court to argue a civil case, they are more or less equal to the government. In our system, the needs of the many are often trumphed by the needs of the few, or the one. (And if you think I got that from Star Trek, you are sadly mistaken.)

The BIG one is that we never "change" government, and regardless of how popular one is, like it or hate it, they serve limited terms, and can't extend them. Our election cycle makes it difficult for the voters to act "radically", because people have to sustain their anger at the legislator for as much as 18 months, to "throw them out of office". George W. Bush has continued to be less and less popular, and many people believed he purposely deceived Americans over intelligence matters. But this alone cannot remove him from office. The legislature can't "remove him" based on popularity, only through impeachment. The Court has no power to remove him. Period.

The PM can be removed quickly, and sometimes such governments unravel in a few weeks.

Because of the Parliamentary system, lesser parties sometimes have legerage, and can require a party forming a government include more of their views in its cabinet.

I suppose I could go on. But these are REAL differences that, while not removing capital from its driving force in politics of both countries. But in the US, we're often not ashamed of our capitalism. Quite the reverse instead.

[Comrade J]

I don't agree with the British electoral system and thus don't plan to vote.

Because I turned 18 today, my friend who is the most bourgeois 'socialist' I've ever met (she's not committed at all, just jumping on the leftism-is-cool bandwagon) said "ooo now you'll be able to vote!" and I said I didn't particularly want to, then she became really mad at me :o
Not really sure how to respond, all I know is I oppose it and don't want to show any sort of acknowledgment of this system's authority and ability to 'change' things (supposedly.)

Anyone got any tips on how to win her round, or at least make her appreciate my position and stop giving me shit for it?

[colonelguppy]

your movement has virtually no political clout as it is, not voting is probably the most counter productive thing you can take a stance on.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Alexander Hamilton... those are rather mild differences, considering you called citizens of the UK "subjects".

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm pretty sure they are subjects, not citizens. But I don't claim to be an expert on International Law and Protocal.

We'll just have to disagree on the substance of the issue.


A. Hamilton

[Jazzratt]

We're technically subjects, I think. I'd have to check that though - I'll get back to you guys tomorrow.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:09 PM
your movement has virtually no political clout as it is, not voting is probably the most counter productive thing you can take a stance on.
Why?

My idea of 'productive' is not to replace the ruling class party with another ruling class party every so often, it's to scrap the system altogether.

By voting, I'm technically showing that I agree with this system's way of creating government, meaning the system appears to work, thus reducing the chance of it ever disappearing, which I would class as 'counter-productive.'

Of course, I can see the point of people who say you are choosing between the 'lesser evil' of the parties, but by voting, you are nonetheless acknowledging this system as one which you support, and as a personal choice I don't want to do that.

It's still an issue I have to consider anyway, but for the moment I don't plan to take part in the bourgeois electoral system.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade J+Sep 27 2006, 06:52 PM--> (Comrade J @ Sep 27 2006, 06:52 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 10:09 PM
your movement has virtually no political clout as it is, not voting is probably the most counter productive thing you can take a stance on.
Why?

My idea of 'productive' is not to replace the ruling class party with another ruling class party every so often, it's to scrap the system altogether.

By voting, I'm technically showing that I agree with this system's way of creating government, meaning the system appears to work, thus reducing the chance of it ever disappearing, which I would class as 'counter-productive.'

Of course, I can see the point of people who say you are choosing between the 'lesser evil' of the parties, but by voting, you are nonetheless acknowledging this system as one which you support, and as a personal choice I don't want to do that.

It's still an issue I have to consider anyway, but for the moment I don't plan to take part in the bourgeois electoral system. [/b]
so getting a government you agree more with in ways you disagree with is worse than getting a government you don't agree with in ways you don't agree with?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 28 2006, 12:05 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 28 2006, 12:05 AM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27 2006, 06:52 PM

[email protected] 27 2006, 10:09 PM
your movement has virtually no political clout as it is, not voting is probably the most counter productive thing you can take a stance on.
Why?

My idea of 'productive' is not to replace the ruling class party with another ruling class party every so often, it's to scrap the system altogether.

By voting, I'm technically showing that I agree with this system's way of creating government, meaning the system appears to work, thus reducing the chance of it ever disappearing, which I would class as 'counter-productive.'

Of course, I can see the point of people who say you are choosing between the 'lesser evil' of the parties, but by voting, you are nonetheless acknowledging this system as one which you support, and as a personal choice I don't want to do that.

It's still an issue I have to consider anyway, but for the moment I don't plan to take part in the bourgeois electoral system.
so getting a government you agree more with in ways you disagree with is worse than getting a government you don't agree with in ways you don't agree with? [/b]
It's not what I said.

I acknowledged I understand the opinion of those who say it's better to vote for the lesser of two evils (eg- Vote Labour over Conservative) but as I said, this only increases the number of years this ridiculous system carries on for: if people keep choosing which party they want to oppress them for the next term, the system is being 'fed' and will continue, as long as people think it can actually offer real change.

[colonelguppy]

that might work if you actually have a popular political movement backing you. you're on the fringe though, it would be much easier to use voting to get people to slide to the left anyways.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 27 2006, 07:55 PM
I'm pretty sure they are subjects, not citizens. But I don't claim to be an expert on International Law and Protocal.

We'll just have to disagree on the substance of the issue.


A. Hamilton
If so, it's a matter or tradition and doesn't reflect on the nature of the British government like you implied.

[Cryotank Screams]

What is your relationship to "the government"?

I have none, I am utterly disgusted with the government, and it has earned my complete hatred and disdain, and it is truly my enemy.


How do you see it in relation to yourself?

Me vs. government!


How do you interact with it, how do you feel and think about it?

I try my best to not interact with it, I feel they are shackle holders, and we the masses are like their property like cattle, or work horses, and that they place the yoke of ignorance over the masses, and brain wash them with their thought control which is spewed from the mouths of the teachers and text books, to which very few look outside what they are taught.

"You depend on our protection, Yet you feed us lies.."-System of a Down.


How does it appear to feel and think and act toward you?

See above.


Is this a healthy relationship?

Oppression and enslavement is never healthy.

[Raisa]

What is your relationship to "the government"?

I used to collect a nice check from them but now their just a bunch of fucking extortionists again.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Sep 28 2006, 01:27 AM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Sep 28 2006, 01:27 AM)
Alexander [email protected] 27 2006, 07:55 PM
I'm pretty sure they are subjects, not citizens. But I don't claim to be an expert on International Law and Protocal.

We'll just have to disagree on the substance of the issue.


A. Hamilton
If so, it's a matter or tradition and doesn't reflect on the nature of the British government like you implied. [/b]
Yeah it's a matter of tradition, to all intents and purposes we're (where we is British citizens, like me) are citizens.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Raisa,

Would I be too personal to ask what you meant by your comment?


A. Hamilton

[Gnosis]

I agree with Comrade J when it says that voting feeds the system, does not actually change anything. I believe not voting while holding that view is actually a productive form of protest.
Such protest changes one's relationship to the system.
Even though the dropping out of a single potential voter is really no worry to the system itself, it is a great statement in the life and character of the individual, which is far more relevent to that individual than the system should be.


I try my best to not interact with it, I feel they are shackle holders, and we the masses are like their property like cattle, or work horses, and that they place the yoke of ignorance over the masses, and brain wash them with their thought control which is spewed from the mouths of the teachers and text books, to which very few look outside what they are taught.

You cannot avoid it, you and the government exist in relation to each other and that is not to be escaped.

Knowing that a relationship with this concept is inescapable, one has a choice to make: Either conform to the standards set up by the system, or develop the individualized self through introspection and self expression.

Either way you are feeding or influencing the relationship, but in one way you pledge to the system your alligence despite the individual self, and in the other way you pledge alligence to your individual development despite the system.

By pledging your alligence to the flag you are taking on the system as your identity. But it is not an individual identity like that which forms through diciplined intropective contemplation, it is a social identity, more taken on as a creed than developed as a personality. It is taken on for extroverted social reasons, it is taken on in place of introverted self-analysis. It is taken on because it is a useful tool for getting things done, getting what you want, and interacting within the self-society relationships.
It is much less emotionally demanding to work a capitalist style job if you are a capitalist than it is to hold one if you are an anarchist. It is easier to accept the government delusion if you are delusional than it is to accept it if you see through the lie and know that you are the only master of your self.

By developing the introverted self, you inevitably put yourself into conflict with society and the governing system. Not necessarily because conflict is the aim of such introspection, but because of the attitude of the system toward other systems.
In developing yourself you are realising your own system, you are your own government. Your existence then does not tend to prove the 'omnipotence' of the social system at large, your existence means the death of mass delusion and the systematic ego, you are a poison to the system whether you speak out or not, whether you break the laws or not. You are a threat to be dealt with accordingly.

The existence of the social goverment depends on weakness, insecurity, vulnerability, fear and desire. If you are your own protection, if you are secure in yourself, if you don't need any outside opinion for truth, if you don't need to depend on anyone else for your self, if you're established and strong, then you are a threat.
The security of the individual is a threat to the security of the government.

But the government exists to keep the individual secure, does it not?
At least where I live in the US, the government is supposed to exist in order to protect the people (not the person) from harm.
Usually this is interpreted to mean the government exists for the security of the individual, (though it doesn't really say "By the person for the person", it says "By the people for the people"...) and that the security of the individual means the security of the government. But this cannot possibly be, because if the individual is secure in itself, then it has no need for the government.
It can't go both ways, its either the government is secure at the expense of the individual or the individual is secure at the expense of the government.

The government exists for itself, to sustain itself, and it does so by keeping insecure the collection of individuals who provide the source of its power: belief in 'authority' and emotional, intellectual, and physical dependency. Also by destroying any 'threat', making war against any concept or behaviour which takes away from its power or the source.
And the collective follow because the people identify with their government, they see it as an extension of their self, and they see anything that is a threat to it as a threat to their self.

So there is a constant conflict, and that conflict is what keeps the government alive. It is a conflict between society and the individual, between the collective identity and the individual identity, between what 'should be' according to popular opinion and what actually is according to individual self expressions.

The realitonship is a conflict between ideals and reality, between nostalgic tradition and inescapable truth.

This is not a healthy realtionship as I see it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:10 PM
I agree with Comrade J when it says that voting feeds the system, does not actually change anything. I believe not voting while holding that view is actually a productive form of protest.
Such protest changes one's relationship to the system.
Even though the dropping out of a single potential voter is really no worry to the system itself, it is a great statement in the life and character of the individual, which is far more relevent to that individual than the system should be.
WHat the fuck is this individualist crap? If somone is working for the downfall of a system primary in asessing their method of protest should not be wther or not it is a great statement in their "life and character" but whether or not it has any effect on the system in question.




I try my best to not interact with it, I feel they are shackle holders, and we the masses are like their property like cattle, or work horses, and that they place the yoke of ignorance over the masses, and brain wash them with their thought control which is spewed from the mouths of the teachers and text books, to which very few look outside what they are taught.

You cannot avoid it, you and the government exist in relation to each other and that is not to be escaped.

Knowing that a relationship with this concept is inescapable, one has a choice to make: Either conform to the standards set up by the system, or develop the individualized self through introspection and self expression. The choice is not between ;conformity' and self-interest, you forget that it can be changed in such a wy as to no longer be a problem, through revolution - the other two options are selfcentered shite.


Either way you are feeding or influencing the relationship, but in one way you pledge to the system your alligence despite the individual self, and in the other way you pledge alligence to your individual development despite the system. You know what happens then? Unless your indviduality happens to conform to a series of things the system has in place called 'laws' you get shafted by the pigs. Fuckwit.


By pledging your alligence to the flag you are taking on the system as your identity. But it is not an individual identity like that which forms through diciplined intropective contemplation, it is a social identity, more taken on as a creed than developed as a personality. It is taken on for extroverted social reasons, it is taken on in place of introverted self-analysis. It is taken on because it is a useful tool for getting things done, getting what you want, and interacting within the self-society relationships.
It is much less emotionally demanding to work a capitalist style job if you are a capitalist than it is to hold one if you are an anarchist. It is easier to accept the government delusion if you are delusional than it is to accept it if you see through the lie and know that you are the only master of your self. You're a fucking idiot you know that? This pseudo-philosophical self-agrandisment strikes me as a pathetic mishmash of indvidulist libertarian bollocks and some form of masochistic eastern philosophy.


By developing the introverted self, you inevitably put yourself into conflict with society and the governing system. Not necessarily because conflict is the aim of such introspection, but because of the attitude of the system toward other systems.
In developing yourself you are realising your own system, you are your own government. Your existence then does not tend to prove the 'omnipotence' of the social system at large, your existence means the death of mass delusion and the systematic ego, you are a poison to the system whether you speak out or not, whether you break the laws or not. You are a threat to be dealt with accordingly. You can't being down a system simply by being introverted, for fuck's sake that is self evident. The only time a system considers you a threat is when you do something genuinly threatening, break its code of conduct - which does not mean "introspection" it means "going outside, for once in your pathetic life, and commiting a crime". You present no threat to a system simply through your existence.


The existence of the social goverment depends on weakness, insecurity, vulnerability, fear and desire. If you are your own protection, if you are secure in yourself, if you don't need any outside opinion for truth, if you don't need to depend on anyone else for your self, if you're established and strong, then you are a threat.
The security of the individual is a threat to the security of the government. Indvidualist mental premature ejaculate, puure and simple. There are any number of survivalist fuckwits living in fucking fantasy worlds all over Europe and America thathave managed, thus far, to some how not bring about the end of their government through simply existing.


But the government exists to keep the individual secure, does it not?
At least where I live in the US, the government is supposed to exist in order to protect the people (not the person) from harm.
Usually this is interpreted to mean the government exists for the security of the individual, (though it doesn't really say "By the person for the person", it says "By the people for the people"...) and that the security of the individual means the security of the government. But this cannot possibly be, because if the individual is secure in itself, then it has no need for the government.
It can't go both ways, its either the government is secure at the expense of the individual or the individual is secure at the expense of the government. That's utter bollocks - demonstrably so.

We have our individual, they are cold and naked, their life sucks. Now they can band together with others, forming part of a 'people' and set up a code of pseudolaws to prevent this small prto-society falling apart making something resembling a crude government. In exchange for not fucking about this indvidual is granted clothing and food by the society in which it lives, the indvidual is protected and the society still exists.

Now I'm not the biggest fan of this government, but it will not be destroyed by mental masturbation alone.


The government exists for itself, to sustain itself, and it does so by keeping insecure the collection of individuals who provide the source of its power: belief in 'authority' and emotional, intellectual, and physical dependency. Also by destroying any 'threat', making war against any concept or behaviour which takes away from its power or the source.
And the collective follow because the people identify with their government, they see it as an extension of their self, and they see anything that is a threat to it as a threat to their self. You're personifying the idea of government, despite the fact there are many different flavours of government. You're also using a pretensious writing style which I can assure you is making some post-modernist anarcho-fuckwits wet. The final problem with your argument is you're taking the policy of one government and applying it to all governments. You're a failure.


So there is a constant conflict, and that conflict is what keeps the government alive. It is a conflict between society and the individual, between the collective identity and the individual identity, between what 'should be' according to popular opinion and what actually is according to individual self expressions. Wrong. The state is kept alive by antagonisms between classes, currently it is being used in the interest of the bourgeoise class, but soon it will be the proletariat's.


The realitonship is a conflict between ideals and reality, between nostalgic tradition and inescapable truth.

This is not a healthy realtionship as I see it. You're right, there is conflict between ideals (introversion is teh way forwads!1ONE1!!) and reality (materialst analysis of the state), between nostalgic tradition (indvidualism) and inescapable truth (materialsim).

Again with the fallacious personification...

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:10 PM
I agree with Comrade J when it says that voting feeds the system, does not actually change anything. I believe not voting while holding that view is actually a productive form of protest.


I'm a he, not an it ;)

[Gnosis]

I am an individual, my identity is made up of my own individual temperment and tendencies. My identity stands on its own without support from any social organisation.
There is no one else who can possibly represent me, no book, no party, no class, no struggle.
I am my own class if I am any class at all.
My class antagonism, if I have one at all, is between this class of one of which I am the sole representative and the whole rest of society with whom I must compete to survive.


If somone is working for the downfall of a system primary in asessing their method of protest should not be wther or not it is a great statement in their "life and character" but whether or not it has any effect on the system in question.

Nonparticipation does effect the system.
The effect is relative to one's perspective: From the perspective of the system, not much has changed, one drop-out is neglegable when there are fifty billion others still in participation.
But from the perspective of the individual, all of life has changed. The entire outlook has changed, the whole way of understanding and interacting with society and all its various mechenisms has changed.

You should be more important to you than the system is.
You are the one who has to die when you die.

Fighting for change does not change anything. People fight all the time, especially for 'change' what is the difference but the justification? It's still the same, and whatever comes of it will only lead to more fighting because nothing has actually changed.
'Revolution' is conformity.


Unless your indviduality happens to conform to a series of things the system has in place called 'laws' you get shafted by the pigs.

Not necessarily. And besides, I am worth dying for to me. I am more worth dying for than any other cause. I would rather die in the name of myself then for any other reason.


You can't being down a system simply by being introverted, for fuck's sake that is self evident. The only time a system considers you a threat is when you do something genuinly threatening, break its code of conduct - which does not mean "introspection" it means "going outside, for once in your pathetic life, and commiting a crime". You present no threat to a system simply through your existence.

You see, I don't need the system. I don't depend on the system for my identity. I don't need the system to tell me that I am a threat, I know it without being told. I would rather the system not know that I am a threat, but it does know, and that is why it is working so hard to erradicate individuality.
Individuality is the only threat to the organization.

Any one who looks inside themselves for answers instead of depending on other people's opinions for answers is a threat to the organisation which depends on you to give up your individual judgement and take on its standards as your own. If you don't do this, the system cannot exist.

Commiting a 'crime' is confoming to the system. There is no such thing as 'crime' unless you believe in the system and it's religion.


Indvidualist mental premature ejaculate, puure and simple. There are any number of survivalist fuckwits living in fucking fantasy worlds all over Europe and America thathave managed, thus far, to some how not bring about the end of their government through simply existing.

The authority of the government is an illusion through my eyes. It does not exist outside the minds of those who believe in the concept. By not believing in the concept, I have single-handedly brought down the government from my perspective without doing anything other than analyzing it.


The final problem with your argument is you're taking the policy of one government and applying it to all governments.

I see all delusion as the same delusion, I see all 'government' as one concept, one body. All of society is one society. This is not a fault, but a stength brought about by having an "individual-mind" rather than "social-mind".


I'm a he, not an it

Comarade J, you are an 'it' from my perspective, the only perspective I know. You are nothing but a light on a screen.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:49 PM
I am an individual, my identity is made up of my own individual temperment and tendencies. My identity stands on its own without support from any social organisation.
There is no one else who can possibly represent me, no book, no party, no class, no struggle.
I am my own class if I am any class at all.
My class antagonism, if I have one at all, is between this class of one of which I am the sole representative and the whole rest of society with whom I must compete to survive.
Do you always start with these annoylingly formated psuedo-philosophical wankfests in your posts? And if you do, couldn't you fucking stop?

Of course you're a fucking individual that is not in dispute, however being an individual does not preculde belonging to a class. The very act of existing within this sytem means you belong to a class, and judging by the kind of ideas you have you most likley belong to either the petit bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.

Now onto the rest of your stupid crap:




If somone is working for the downfall of a system primary in asessing their method of protest should not be wther or not it is a great statement in their "life and character" but whether or not it has any effect on the system in question.

Nonparticipation does effect the system. Bollocks it does, mass non participation, maybe, but just one person? Nope, indviduals just aren't that important.


The effect is relative to one's perspective:
From the perspective of the system, not much has changed, one drop-out is neglegable when there are fifty billion others still in participation.
But from the perspective of the individual, all of life has changed. The entire outlook has changed, the whole way of understanding and interacting with society and all its various mechenisms has changed. From a material, objective, postion the system is still there. One of its members happens to have pretensions about their own importance relative to the system. That's it. Change is not 'Relative'.


You should be more important to you than the system is.
You are the one who has to die when you die. 'The system' has more control over the world than you do. It can easily indicrectly and directly affect you.


Fighting for change does not change anything. People fight all the time, especially for 'change' what is the difference but the justification? It's still the same, and whatever comes of it will only lead to more fighting because nothing has actually changed. False. Consider, as one example, the Russian Revolution. It changed the system from Monarchy, to Socialism, to a deformed workers state & then to capitalism - all major changes.


'Revolution' is conformity. Yes, and?




Unless your indviduality happens to conform to a series of things the system has in place called 'laws' you get shafted by the pigs.

Not necessarily. And besides, I am worth dying for to me. I am more worth dying for than any other cause. I would rather die in the name of myself then for any other reason. A view that fails to take into account the existence of people before and after you. If you would not even die for your freedom, then you deserve none.



You can't being down a system simply by being introverted, for fuck's sake that is self evident. The only time a system considers you a threat is when you do something genuinly threatening, break its code of conduct - which does not mean "introspection" it means "going outside, for once in your pathetic life, and commiting a crime". You present no threat to a system simply through your existence.

You see, I don't need the system. I don't depend on the system for my identity. I don't need the system to tell me that I am a threat, I know it without being told. I would rather the system not know that I am a threat, but it does know, and that is why it is working so hard to erradicate individuality.
Individuality is the only threat to the organization. Wether or not you depend on it for your 'identity' is neither here nor there, you rely on it for food, shelter, an internet connection and so on. If the system does not view you as a threat, it will not treat you as such - if you are not treated as a threat than all you have is philisophical pretentions. Indviduality leads to primitivism, wether you like it or not you need organisation and society for technology to advance, and you certianly need it to make sure it does not regress.


Any one who looks inside themselves for answers instead of depending on other people's opinions for answers is a threat to the organisation which depends on you to give up your individual judgement and take on its standards as your own. If you don't do this, the system cannot exist. Ah so this is the reason your arguments are philosophically weak, you ignore all other writings that have come before you? But wait, didn't you mention liking Einstien's writings in one of your posts - didn't that colour your 'individual' view? If it did then your argument is stupid and void.


Commiting a 'crime' is confoming to the system. There is no such thing as 'crime' unless you believe in the system and it's religion. As far as the system is concerend there is such a thing, and guess what if you went outside and were truly as 'individual' as you claim you'd get done for at least one. They won't give a shit if you believe in them or not, they have batons and cells that are very easy to believe in.



Indvidualist mental premature ejaculate, puure and simple. There are any number of survivalist fuckwits living in fucking fantasy worlds all over Europe and America thathave managed, thus far, to some how not bring about the end of their government through simply existing.

The authority of the government is an illusion through my eyes. It does not exist outside the minds of those who believe in the concept. By not believing in the concept, I have single-handedly brought down the government from my perspective without doing anything other than analyzing it. Yes, governmental power is only there in the minds of people who believe in it, but whilst the people with guns believe in it then it has a very material existence that you cannot deny. You have not brought down anything, the government is still there and it can do whatever it likes as soon as you step out of line. Of course you've only "stepped out of line" in your head, and there is currently no policy on mental masturbation (maybe one day heh, although I wouldn't stake much on it).



The final problem with your argument is you're taking the policy of one government and applying it to all governments.

I see all delusion as the same delusion, I see all 'government' as one concept, one body. All of society is one society. This is not a fault, but a stength brought about by having an "individual-mind" rather than "social-mind". Then why have you made some arguments specific only to currently existing systems of government? Why have some of your arguments been very much centered on American government?

I would agree though you are indeed quite 'individual', I'd go as far to say that you had a very 'special mind', sort of 'special in the head' if you catch my drift...

[Gnosis]

An individual has definition only in relation to other individuals.
'Society' is the manifestation of the relationships between individuals.
Individuals define 'society' by the way they interact with each other.
The tendencies and temperments of the related individuals determines the style of the relationship, the 'society'.

"Society" is a relationship, not a thing in itself. It is the by-product of the existence of more than one person.

The point is not to erase society, not to do away with human relationships, but to change the temperment and the tendencies of the individuals so that the effects of the relationship are not so detrimental to the health of all those involved.

In changing myself, I have changed my relationship with you. In changing my realtionship with you, I have changed you because you have definition only through your relationships.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:31 PM
Of course you're a fucking individual that is not in dispute, however being an individual does not preculde belonging to a class. The very act of existing within this sytem means you belong to a class,
The problem is, class doesn't do much to explain the individuals who make it up beyond the superficial definitions of the class itself.

If you define a certain class as those people who work manual, low-skilled jobs, then you've defined those people only by their work. You as a communist seem to think you can use class to define the individuals in it far beyond that level, which is absurd. A working-class hard-core Christian who believes government should be limited to forcing everyone to be good Christians has almost nothing in common with a coworker who thinks like you do. Your belief that the two will come together to be part of your utopian society is laughably naive.

Class is superficial and has limited uses. Deal with it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:03 PM
An individual has definition only in relation to other individuals.
Wait I thought you supported some bullshit about the idividual defining itself.



'Society' is the manifestation of the relationships between individuals.
Individuals define 'society' by the way they interact with each other.
The tendencies and temperments of the related individuals determines the style of the relationship, the 'society'.
Yes, and this proves the shit you were spouting earlier in what way?


"Society" is a relationship, not a thing in itself. It is the by-product of the existence of more than one person. Pure semantics.


The point is not to erase society, not to do away with human relationships, but to change the temperment and the tendencies of the individuals so that the effects of the relationship are not so detrimental to the health of all those involved. WOuld that not be, in actuallity and to all intents and purposes changing society. As it stands your theory posists more change, to more entities than mine. (think Occam's Razor if you're having problems with the significance of this.)


In changing myself, I have changed my relationship with you. In changing my realtionship with you, I have changed you because you have definition only through your relationships. Now, disengaging the prentions for a second, could you explain exactly how you have concretelty changed yourself, and what the difference is in me. I suspect your answer will solidify a few assumptions about your line of argument here.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 04:00 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 04:00 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 06:31 PM
Of course you're a fucking individual that is not in dispute, however being an individual does not preculde belonging to a class. The very act of existing within this sytem means you belong to a class,
The problem is, class doesn't do much to explain the individuals who make it up beyond the superficial definitions of the class itself. [/b]
It doesn't claim to. Class is part of a definition of an individual and describes a) Their relationship to the means of production and b)their relative wealth.


If you define a certain class as those people who work manual, low-skilled jobs, then you've defined those people only by their work. You as a communist seem to think you can use class to define the individuals in it far beyond that level, which is absurd. Yes it is absurd. Nothing annoys me more than strawmanning, you fucking streak of piss, had I begun this argument with any respect for you it would have all disapeared at about the same time you made that ludicrous strawman.


A working-class hard-core Christian who believes government should be limited to forcing everyone to be good Christians has almost nothing in common with a coworker who thinks like you do. Your belief that the two will come together to be part of your utopian society is laughably naive. Read up on something called "class consciousness". The reactionary worker you just created has no class conscioussness and is in fact a class traitor - a reactonary to be either changed or crushed during the revolution.


Class is superficial and has limited uses. Deal with it. A blind assertion, not backed up in your empty post.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:32 PM
Read up on something called "class consciousness". The reactionary worker you just created has no class conscioussness and is in fact a class traitor - a reactonary to be either changed or crushed during the revolution.


I'll skip your childish personal insults and deal with this passage which is at the heart of the matter.

You admit earlier that certain "class" defintions relate only to a specific part of a person's existence. That makes it odd that you now try to state that something called "class consciousness" can - or should - get all people of that class to agree to the scope and purpose of a revolution, lest they be labelled a traitor and crushed in your fantasy revolution.

A highly-religious manual laborer may share with a communist manual laborer a certain relationship to their boss, or to the means of production, but that shared relationship has about .0003% as much importance as you try to give it. Again, that relationship is highly superficial and unlikely to result in any agreement over whether or not the current socio-political arrangement should be replaced.

That is because there are other classes to which these two men belong, and it is up to those two men - not to you - to determine which class has more importance for them. This is in fact why your fantasy revolution will never come to pass. For instance, the religious manual laborer also belongs to the classes "male", "white", "evangelical", "capitalist", "conservative", "American" and so on and so on. The other manual laborer may belong to "female", "hispanic", "atheist", "militant communist", "El Salvadoran", etc. You may find a few people like you who think "manual laborer" distinction is most important, but it's highly unlikely you're going to reach a critical mass of people who think that is the most important class distinction in their life.

It's cute that you wish otherwise though.

[Gnosis]

Wait I thought you supported some bullshit about the idividual defining itself.

The individual has control of itself, it is itself, and that is a relationship.
Relationship is definition.
In that way, the individual defines itself.


Yes, and this proves the shit you were spouting earlier in what way?

It is not my point to 'prove' anything.


WOuld that not be, in actuallity and to all intents and purposes changing society. As it stands your theory posists more change, to more entities than mine. (think Occam's Razor if you're having problems with the significance of this.)

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. But I think I can answer by saying:
The individual is the foundation upon which the empire "Society" rests.
I am part of the foundation.
If I change, then the foundation has changed.
If the foundation has changed, the empire has changed.
If I look at the statistics, then by the change of one unit in relation to the state of over six billion other units it does not appear as though anything much has changed at all.
But If I consider it from my own personal perspective, the only real perspective I may ever know, then by changing myself I have changed the entire universe because I have changed the way I filter it, the way I see it, interpret it, relate to it. By changing the way I relate to it, I have changed the way it is defined in relation to me, thus also changing the way I am defined in relation to it.


Now, disengaging the prentions for a second, could you explain exactly how you have concretelty changed yourself, and what the difference is in me. I suspect your answer will solidify a few assumptions about your line of argument here.

If we had come into this conversation with each other two years ago, our reactions to each other and thus our interpretations of each other and our relationship would take on an entirely different character, as I was not the same person then and niether were you.

The characters of our selves gives defintion to the character of our relationship.
The character of our relationship gives definition to the character of our selves.
In this way the individual defines itself.
In this way the society defines the individual.
It is never a 'one-way street', but more like a sphere, a single self-enclosed entity, there is no seperation, only relationship.

Every relationship/experience defines "you" in some way.
If our temperments and tendencies were not as they our, then our interaction would not be as it is.
This relationship/experience would be different, defining us in ways other than it has.

This is what I mean by "In changing myself I have changed you."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 07:45 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 07:45 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 07:32 PM
Read up on something called "class consciousness". The reactionary worker you just created has no class conscioussness and is in fact a class traitor - a reactonary to be either changed or crushed during the revolution.


I'll skip your childish personal insults and deal with this passage which is at the heart of the matter.

You admit earlier that certain "class" defintions relate only to a specific part of a person's existence. That makes it odd that you now try to state that something called "class consciousness" can - or should - get all people of that class to agree to the scope and purpose of a revolution, lest they be labelled a traitor and crushed in your fantasy revolution.

A highly-religious manual laborer may share with a communist manual laborer a certain relationship to their boss, or to the means of production, but that shared relationship has about .0003% as much importance as you try to give it. Again, that relationship is highly superficial and unlikely to result in any agreement over whether or not the current socio-political arrangement should be replaced.

That is because there are other classes to which these two men belong, and it is up to those two men - not to you - to determine which class has more importance for them. This is in fact why your fantasy revolution will never come to pass. For instance, the religious manual laborer also belongs to the classes "male", "white", "evangelical", "capitalist", "conservative", "American" and so on and so on. The other manual laborer may belong to "female", "hispanic", "atheist", "militant communist", "El Salvadoran", etc. You may find a few people like you who think "manual laborer" distinction is most important, but it's highly unlikely you're going to reach a critical mass of people who think that is the most important class distinction in their life.
[/b]
So what you're essentially saying, is that you don't know what class consciousness is. This is illustrated by your idea that people with a class conscious mind will hold onto reactionary views and by your belief that their superficial differences would mean anything. Class consciousness in its most basic form is knowledge of and agreement with communism, at least with the working class. Bourgeoise class consciousness is of course very different but more fully realised, as illustrated by the liberal society we have today. Although there are some bourgeoise and petit-bourgeoise class traitors they have the advantadge of being a much more class conscious group.


It's cute that you wish otherwise though. Says he that accused me of personal attacks and has now decided to go for the 'patronising' fuckwittery.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:32 PM

Wait I thought you supported some bullshit about the idividual defining itself.

The individual has control of itself, it is itself, and that is a relationship.
Relationship is definition.
In that way, the individual defines itself.
You've completely changed the tac of your argument, you've changed from the individual itself defining itself to an individual being part of its own definition, rather than the whole.




Yes, and this proves the shit you were spouting earlier in what way?

It is not my point to 'prove' anything. So you lost on that point. Try to be mature about it.



WOuld that not be, in actuallity and to all intents and purposes changing society. As it stands your theory posists more change, to more entities than mine. (think Occam's Razor if you're having problems with the significance of this.)

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. But I think I can answer by saying:
The individual is the foundation upon which the empire "Society" rests.
I am part of the foundation.
If I change, then the foundation has changed.
If the foundation has changed, the empire has changed.
If I look at the statistics, then by the change of one unit in relation to the state of over six billion other units it does not appear as though anything much has changed at all.
But If I consider it from my own personal perspective, the only real perspective I may ever know, then by changing myself I have changed the entire universe because I have changed the way I filter it, the way I see it, interpret it, relate to it. By changing the way I relate to it, I have changed the way it is defined in relation to me, thus also changing the way I am defined in relation to it. Again this is entirely subjectivist pap of the highest order, you assume that a material condition can be changed simply through a subjective viewpoint shift. It is a material fact that society remains the same, even when an individual changes - as illustrated by the constant flux of idividuals as compared to the rigidity of society.



Now, disengaging the prentions for a second, could you explain exactly how you have concretelty changed yourself, and what the difference is in me. I suspect your answer will solidify a few assumptions about your line of argument here.

If we had come into this conversation with each other two years ago, our reactions to each other and thus our interpretations of each other and our relationship would take on an entirely different character, as I was not the same person then and niether were you.

The characters of our selves gives defintion to the character of our relationship.
The character of our relationship gives definition to the character of our selves.
In this way the individual defines itself.
In this way the society defines the individual.
It is never a 'one-way street', but more like a sphere, a single self-enclosed entity, there is no seperation, only relationship.

Every relationship/experience defines "you" in some way.
If our temperments and tendencies were not as they our, then our interaction would not be as it is.
This relationship/experience would be different, defining us in ways other than it has.

This is what I mean by "In changing myself I have changed you." Fair enough, this still does nothing to prove your main point, as I had suspected, unless you define society as a single entity, which would also invalidate your argument.

Glad to see you stopped starting replies with the pointless psuedo-philosophical wankefest :D Thanks.

[t_wolves_fan]

So what you're essentially saying, is that you don't know what class consciousness is.

No, I know what it is. I'm telling you that if it exists, which I doubt, it is very weak and will never be strong enough to result in your fantasy revolution.


This is illustrated by your idea that people with a class conscious mind will hold onto reactionary views

That's because they do. I've met plenty of working-class stiffs who are quite religious and quite opposed to socialism or communism.

You act like I'm making this stuff up. I'm not. This is reality and it exists and, no matter how much you wish it would change so you and all your angry little friends could have your kick-ass revolution, it's probably not going to.

Just so you are clear sport, you're trying to define reality in a way that your proclamations make sense. It makes you look foolish.


and by your belief that their superficial differences would mean anything.

Um, they do. Religious, political, or ethnic differences (unfortunately for you) trump societal class similarities for most people.



Class consciousness in its most basic form is knowledge of and agreement with communism, at least with the working class.

Which will not exist to the level you dream it will.


Bourgeoise class consciousness is of course very different but more fully realised, as illustrated by the liberal society we have today. Although there are some bourgeoise and petit-bourgeoise class traitors they have the advantadge of being a much more class conscious group.

OK, whatever.


Says he that accused me of personal attacks and has now decided to go for the 'patronising' fuckwittery.

Um, you called me a steak of piss. I'm not accusing you, you did use personal attacks.

Still, your fantasies are cute. Like Care Bears.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 3 2006, 06:26 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 3 2006, 06:26 PM)
So what you're essentially saying, is that you don't know what class consciousness is.

No, I know what it is. I'm telling you that if it exists, which I doubt, it is very weak and will never be strong enough to result in your fantasy revolution.[/b]
Thus showing you don't really understand the concept, thus any argument with you is a waste of time. Still, I don't have much to do with my evening so I'll continue.




This is illustrated by your idea that people with a class conscious mind will hold onto reactionary views

That's because they do. I've met plenty of working-class stiffs who are quite religious and quite opposed to socialism or communism. Showing that they're not class conscious and thus irrelevant, or class traitors.


You act like I'm making this stuff up. I'm not. This is reality and it exists and, no matter how much you wish it would change so you and all your angry little friends could have your kick-ass revolution, it's probably not going to. A) I have not denied the existence of non class conscious workers (mainly because here in the UK they are the majority). Don't talk down to me motherfucker, it makes you look like an arrogant little shit.


Just so you are clear sport, you're trying to define reality in a way that your proclamations make sense. It makes you look foolish. Can you lay down the strawmen for just a minute? I've just illustrated how this is not the case, so you can ram that strawman sideways up your arse.

(emphasis mine)


and by your belief that their superficial differences would mean anything.

Um, they do. Religious, political, or ethnic differences (unfortunately for you) trump societal class similarities for most people. Most people aren't class conscious. You stupid, stupid shitheap.




Class consciousness in its most basic form is knowledge of and agreement with communism, at least with the working class.

Which will not exist to the level you dream it will. Material evidence for your wild assertion?



Bourgeoise class consciousness is of course very different but more fully realised, as illustrated by the liberal society we have today. Although there are some bourgeoise and petit-bourgeoise class traitors they have the advantadge of being a much more class conscious group.

OK, whatever. Another one that can't concede a point? Is there a farm that breads idiot cappies like you?



Says he that accused me of personal attacks and has now decided to go for the 'patronising' fuckwittery.

Um, you called me a steak of piss. I'm not accusing you, you did use personal attacks. You were being a strawmanning streak of piss, it was merely an observation you knobber.


Still, your fantasies are cute. Like Care Bears. Oh, just fuck off and die.

[t_wolves_fan]

Thus showing you don't really understand the concept, thus any argument with you is a waste of time. Still, I don't have much to do with my evening so I'll continue.

You are confusing disagreement with misunderstanding. Please understand that intelligent people are capable of understanding a theoretical point (or in this case fantasy) while still disagreeing with it.



That's because they do. I've met plenty of working-class stiffs who are quite religious and quite opposed to socialism or communism. Showing that they're not class conscious and thus irrelevant, or class traitors.

You can define them as you wish, but it doesn't really matter. Your faith in this idea is curious. I know plenty of people who do exactly what I do, meaning that we're in an identical class. It's impossible to imagine that simply because we're in this identical class that we'll ever agree to much. It's just not that simple. We as people, individuals, are much more complex than our relationship to the ownership of the means of production; especially when you consider that at pretty much any time any of us from any class is capable of becoming an owner ourselves.



You act like I'm making this stuff up. I'm not. This is reality and it exists and, no matter how much you wish it would change so you and all your angry little friends could have your kick-ass revolution, it's probably not going to.
A) I have not denied the existence of non class conscious workers (mainly because here in the UK they are the majority). Don't talk down to me motherfucker, it makes you look like an arrogant little shit.

But you're denying why some workers are not class conscious the way you wish them to be, ace. You're denying the simple reality that people place more value in other identifying traits, such as political persuasion, ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. than they do socioeconomic class. And when it comes to socioeconomic class, you have a hard time selling the idea that people in the same class can come together because people are not locked into any given class over a long period of time. Anyone in the in the industrialized world can go quit their job tomorrow and start their own business, effectively moving from one class to another. Just about everyone, except you and the other communists on this board, know that. That is why they reject the idea that they belong with you in this mythical "class", which is why your movement only polls well with idealistic college kids and drug-addled burnouts.


Most people aren't class conscious. You stupid, stupid shitheap.

And they're probably never going to be. Your anger and need to resort to childish namecalling suggests that you know this.




Class consciousness in its most basic form is knowledge of and agreement with communism, at least with the working class.

Which will not exist to the level you dream it will. Material evidence for your wild assertion?

Let's see who is making the wild assertion, sport.

You: People's ethnicity, socio-economic status (since even high wage-earners are proles according to your philosophy), race, educational status, nationality, and religion are effectively inconsequential. What really matters is people's relationship to the means of production. If only everyone, on earth, realized that because they don't own the means of production they are, ahem, just like every other person in the class of non-owners of the means of production, then we could transform society so that everything would be free, work would be at most 2 hours a day and nobody would take anything more than they need.

Me: People care a lot more about other identifying traits, in combination with others (from the list in your fantasy), than they do about their relationship to the means of production. Because of this, they are unlikely in the future - as they have been throughout human history - to suddenly drop religion, nationality, ethnicity, and socio-economic status as their primary identifier in favor of the fact that none of them specifically owns the means of production. This is especially true because, especially in the west, a large portion of wage earners (including many manual laborers) actually do own capital in the form of stock and are at any given time moving between the two classes (owner of the means of production vs. non-owner).

Really ace, tell me which is the far-fetched assertion, if you would.




Bourgeoise class consciousness is of course very different but more fully realised, as illustrated by the liberal society we have today. Although there are some bourgeoise and petit-bourgeoise class traitors they have the advantadge of being a much more class conscious group.

OK, whatever. Another one that can't concede a point? Is there a farm that breads idiot cappies like you?

I don't concede any point because there was no point to be conceded. I can't even discern what it was you were talking about, quite frankly.

Serious question, how did you get hooked on this stuff? What about it made you stop and say, "Hey, this makes sense!"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:16 PM
You: People's ethnicity, socio-economic status (since even high wage-earners are proles according to your philosophy), race, educational status, nationality, and religion are effectively inconsequential. What really matters is people's relationship to the means of production. If only everyone, on earth, realized that because they don't own the means of production they are, ahem, just like every other person in the class of non-owners of the means of production, then we could transform society so that everything would be free, work would be at most 2 hours a day and nobody would take anything more than they need.
I have a three strikes and you're out policy on stawmanning fuckwits. I'm not going to bother with this anymore . Seriously, try arguing against what people are actually saying next time.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 3 2006, 08:41 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 3 2006, 08:41 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 08:16 PM
You: People's ethnicity, socio-economic status (since even high wage-earners are proles according to your philosophy), race, educational status, nationality, and religion are effectively inconsequential. What really matters is people's relationship to the means of production. If only everyone, on earth, realized that because they don't own the means of production they are, ahem, just like every other person in the class of non-owners of the means of production, then we could transform society so that everything would be free, work would be at most 2 hours a day and nobody would take anything more than they need.
I have a three strikes and you're out policy on stawmanning fuckwits. I'm not going to bother with this anymore . Seriously, try arguing against what people are actually saying next time. [/b]
Explain specifically how I have mischaracterized your argument.

[Gnosis]

Again this is entirely subjectivist pap of the highest order, you assume that a material condition can be changed simply through a subjective viewpoint shift. It is a material fact that society remains the same, even when an individual changes - as illustrated by the constant flux of idividuals as compared to the rigidity of society.

I say that if the individual changes, then society changes with it, as society is but a by-product of the existence of more than one individual.
Society is a relationship, an expression of more than one self and the interactions between them, it is not a thing in itself.
There are material consequences of the interaction between the selves when people decide to work together to change the material environment. Expressions of relationship (society), these are symbols to be interpreted and the interpretation depends on the individual viewing them.

A political ceremony is an expression of a state of mind and a relationship between people, but the ceremony is not the people and it is not the relationship between them. It's an expression, and the interpretation depends on your state of mind as an individual.

You can change the definition of the expression simply by changing your mind, because the interpretation does not exist any where else.
It is possible that you can change your mind because you have control over it.


You've completely changed the tac of your argument, you've changed from the individual itself defining itself to an individual being part of its own definition, rather than the whole.

It's not that I know something and I'm trying to argue with you so that you'll know as I do. It's not that I know something and wish you to convert. Rather, I have an idea or two, and I've found that one good way to sort out my mind is to talk it over with someone else, see my idea in relation to the ideas of others. In this way, the idea is given a bit more definition.
So I am trying to define something, to sort out what it is that I percieve so that I might better understand it and be better able to communicate it.
I'm not trying to 'prove', I'm trying to define.
And you're helping.