Shift in Capitalist Rhetoric

[EwokUtopia]

I was wondering if any capitalists could explain to me why the Conservatives speech patterns have made a definate shift in the last decade or so.

What I am talking about is how people like Bush and Reagan throw around meaningless terms like Good and Evil every which way. The way Bush has worded his speaches in the past horrible 6 years has made the war on terror sound like a much more poorly written Lord of the Rings. Examples:

Axis of Evil
Evil Doers
Evil Empire
"This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail."


These are a few examples which have been repeated by Neocons ad nausium. So whats with this sudden decline in professionalism? The old conservatives were bastards as well, but at least they didnt bring their manners of speaking down to the level of trying to make themselves seem like white knights fighting back the savage hoards of the evil East. They have dumbed politics down to some poorly written fantasy novel, but I guess thats what you get with a dumbed down fantasy democracy like the United States.

[synthesis]

It is because their arguments have little logical basis and seem cynical and patronizing when put in realist terms, but can be quite potent when reduced to an emotional, "mythic" plea for consent to pretty much do whatever the fuck they want.

[encephalon]

As stated, they no longer have a foundation from which to speak. Conservatism is even emptier than liberalism.

[Zero]

Well, if you look at the foundational structure of Neo-Conservative thought by Strauss he clearly and explicitly says that the world is divided into "Good" countries and "Bad" countries. Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' BBC doc.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 am
Well, if you look at the foundational structure of Neo-Conservative thought by Strauss he clearly and explicitly says that the world is divided into "Good" countries and "Bad" countries. Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' BBC doc.
Yes, Ive seen that, but Strauss didnt say the world is divided into good and evil. He said that the American people must believe that their country is fighting for ultimate good against ultimate evil, no matter how much truth there is in that belief.

[Severian]

Is this new? It goes back at least to the 80s - you mention Reagan. Maybe further?

If it is to a degree new, it probably has to do with the rise of the "Christian Right" - that is the Pat Robertson types. But that's still just a variant of the age-old business of claiming God is on your side.

[Zero]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+December 16, 2006 06:44 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ December 16, 2006 06:44 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 am
Well, if you look at the foundational structure of Neo-Conservative thought by Strauss he clearly and explicitly says that the world is divided into "Good" countries and "Bad" countries. Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' BBC doc.
Yes, Ive seen that, but Strauss didnt say the world is divided into good and evil. He said that the American people must believe that their country is fighting for ultimate good against ultimate evil, no matter how much truth there is in that belief. [/b]
Whoops. Thats what I meant, thanks.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

i think, besides from the fact that they have no logical, rational explanation for their actions/beliefs, they're trying to appeal o the mass of their supporters: christians. it's a modern day crusade.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 am
Well, if you look at the foundational structure of Neo-Conservative thought by Strauss he clearly and explicitly says that the world is divided into "Good" countries and "Bad" countries. Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' BBC doc.
Is that a metaphysical definition or a flexible subjective definition based on realism? If it is metaphysical, it is a mirror image of nazbolism, even more striking since nazbols often claim themselves to be "evil".

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:01 am
I was wondering if any capitalists could explain to me why the Conservatives speech patterns have made a definate shift in the last decade or so.

What I am talking about is how people like Bush and Reagan throw around meaningless terms like Good and Evil every which way. The way Bush has worded his speaches in the past horrible 6 years has made the war on terror sound like a much more poorly written Lord of the Rings. Examples:

Axis of Evil
Evil Doers
Evil Empire
"This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail."


These are a few examples which have been repeated by Neocons ad nausium. So whats with this sudden decline in professionalism? The old conservatives were bastards as well, but at least they didnt bring their manners of speaking down to the level of trying to make themselves seem like white knights fighting back the savage hoards of the evil East. They have dumbed politics down to some poorly written fantasy novel, but I guess thats what you get with a dumbed down fantasy democracy like the United States.
Damn conservatives think they have the "One ring that will rule them all"

[Zero]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 17, 2006 03:51 pm--> (Serpent @ December 17, 2006 03:51 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 08:01 am
Well, if you look at the foundational structure of Neo-Conservative thought by Strauss he clearly and explicitly says that the world is divided into "Good" countries and "Bad" countries. Watch 'The Power of Nightmares' BBC doc.
Is that a metaphysical definition or a flexible subjective definition based on realism? If it is metaphysical, it is a mirror image of nazbolism, even more striking since nazbols often claim themselves to be "evil". [/b]
My guess is it is based on economic differences; perceived or otherwise. Nazbols stick to an ideology (if you could call it that), I have a hard time believing that Neo-Conservatives really have an ideology, rather than just a money/patriot fetish.

[Springmeester]

Damn was I in in capitalist rhetoric again... :unsure:

[colonelguppy]

neoconservatives don't really represent capitalist idealogy.

i guess they say these things because thats what politicians do.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 10:09 pm
neoconservatives don't really represent capitalist idealogy.

i guess they say these things because thats what politicians do.
yah
well i have to agree with you really.

They dont represent capitalism as in capitalism-the-theory.
All they care about is wealth, thus power, and couple that with a rhetoric about how right they are (whether or not they believe it themselves). That does mean however they do represent capitalism as in what capitalism is in practice; the war of all against all (bellum omnes contra omnia), and those who end up on top doing everything to hold on to power and expand it

[Zero]

Neo-Conservative thought is mainly based on shoddy economic schemes to boost their own wealth, and carry out Neoclassical Liberalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:01 am
I was wondering if any capitalists could explain to me why the Conservatives speech patterns have made a definate shift in the last decade or so.

What I am talking about is how people like Bush and Reagan throw around meaningless terms like Good and Evil every which way. The way Bush has worded his speaches in the past horrible 6 years has made the war on terror sound like a much more poorly written Lord of the Rings. Examples:

Axis of Evil
Evil Doers
Evil Empire
"This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail."


These are a few examples which have been repeated by Neocons ad nausium. So whats with this sudden decline in professionalism? The old conservatives were bastards as well, but at least they didnt bring their manners of speaking down to the level of trying to make themselves seem like white knights fighting back the savage hoards of the evil East. They have dumbed politics down to some poorly written fantasy novel, but I guess thats what you get with a dumbed down fantasy democracy like the United States.
They're practicing base politics, which means making simplistic us-vs.-them arguments that appeal to an unthinking lowest common denominator.

The trailer park-ization of the GOP reached its golden moment with Zell Miller's speech at the '04 presidential convention.

Of course, this us-vs.-them simplistic hackery is not limited to the right *cough class traitor cough*.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 02:49 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 02:49 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 05:01 am
I was wondering if any capitalists could explain to me why the Conservatives speech patterns have made a definate shift in the last decade or so.

What I am talking about is how people like Bush and Reagan throw around meaningless terms like Good and Evil every which way. The way Bush has worded his speaches in the past horrible 6 years has made the war on terror sound like a much more poorly written Lord of the Rings. Examples:

Axis of Evil
Evil Doers
Evil Empire
"This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail."


These are a few examples which have been repeated by Neocons ad nausium. So whats with this sudden decline in professionalism? The old conservatives were bastards as well, but at least they didnt bring their manners of speaking down to the level of trying to make themselves seem like white knights fighting back the savage hoards of the evil East. They have dumbed politics down to some poorly written fantasy novel, but I guess thats what you get with a dumbed down fantasy democracy like the United States.
They're practicing base politics, which means making simplistic us-vs.-them arguments that appeal to an unthinking lowest common denominator.

The trailer park-ization of the GOP reached its golden moment with Zell Miller's speech at the '04 presidential convention. [/b]
:rolleyes: Couldn't resist that blatantly anti-working class comment could you, capitalist ****?


Of course, this us-vs.-them simplistic hackery is not limited to the right *cough class traitor cough*. Now there is a concept you've managed to utterly fail to grasp, not that it comes as a surprise. A revolutionary movement must at some point recognise that it has enemies, in the form of the current order and its supporters, there is no getting around this. Our enemies want us gone, either for us simply to not be revolutionaries or for us as people to actually go - depending of course on the material circumstances of a country (for example, most of the US establishment does not try to kill revolutionaries yet because the revolution is, to put it bluntly, very unlikley, whereas the tsarists in russia did want us gone, because the revolution was close at hand.) - as such it becomes nescessary to identify political opponents. Where do class traitors fit into this? Simple really, they have given up on the ideas of a revolution, by leaving the class with the most revolutionary potential, using methods antithetical to revolutionary politics, so they now represent an obvious part of the established order, which is of course what we are opposed to and what stands in opposition to us.
This, obviously, is a very simple anlysis and ignores things such as the maoist idea of oppressed and oppressor nations, which can sometimes lead to alliances with the oppressor nation. It also ignores the question of the lumpenproletariat and petiit-bourgeoise who can be identified neither as enemy or friend to the Communist movement as a whole, although some theories dismiss one or both groups (which in my view is foolish, as it leads to removing a large group for percieved lack of 'revolutionary potential'.).
Our rhetoric also tends to differ from that of the capitalists, often avoiding terms like 'evil' and so on (this is by no means universal, just as the capitalist rhetoric illustrated here is by no means universal to capitalism) in favour of factual descriptors such as 'exploitative'.

[t_wolves_fan]

:rolleyes: Couldn't resist that blatantly anti-working class comment could you, capitalist ****?

It's not an anti-working class comment, it's an anti-people like you comment.



Now there is a concept you've managed to utterly fail to grasp, not that it comes as a surprise. A revolutionary movement must at some point recognise that it has enemies, in the form of the current order and its supporters, there is no getting around this.

Right. The problem is, your ideology, like almost every other ideology, is a fantasy world. And you make up the perceived evil "other" to gain supporters to your side, regardless of the truth of anything you say.

And I know you believe in your heart of hearts that what you say is all true, which makes it all even cuter.

In effect, your ideology is like religion. It's emotional, there isn't a lot of fact involved, you don't have much evidence that it works, and there's an evil "other" out there who will seduce you into hell. It's quite humourous that in another thread you boasted that your emotional needs are met without religion, when in fact they're obviously met with the religion of your ideology.

:lol:


Our enemies want us gone, either for us simply to not be revolutionaries or for us as people to actually go - depending of course on the material circumstances of a country (for example, most of the US establishment does not try to kill revolutionaries yet because the revolution is, to put it bluntly, very unlikley, whereas the tsarists in russia did want us gone, because the revolution was close at hand.)

So you are now claiming the Soviet Union as communist? I was kind of under the impression that because of all its faults, it wasn't really communist.


- as such it becomes nescessary to identify political opponents. Where do class traitors fit into this? Simple really, they have given up on the ideas of a revolution, by leaving the class with the most revolutionary potential, using methods antithetical to revolutionary politics, so they now represent an obvious part of the established order, which is of course what we are opposed to and what stands in opposition to us.

Right, which is what hacks do. Us vs. them. Side vs. Side. You're either with us or against us. Because it's not the individual issue that matters, it's power. Ideology is power. No given ideology works across all issues, this is plain fact. But people like you aren't interested in working on issues. You're interested in making people think they belong to a "class" and that this class has identical interests. On everything! How magical. If they buy into this preposterous proposition, then they buy your message and you gain power. Nevermind that what you're selling doesn't work, isn't realistic, and is based more on emotion than on anything factual or practical.

So just like George W. Bush preaches that all "good" Americans love tax cuts and spreading democracy by force, even though they don't work all that well, you preach that all "good" working class people love communism and radical feminism and blah blah blah even though they don't work particularly well either.

I skipped the end because it was a bunch of jargon that said nothing of any value.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:29 pm

:rolleyes: Couldn't resist that blatantly anti-working class comment could you, capitalist ****?

It's not an anti-working class comment, it's an anti-people like you comment.
That's what I said. Although I don't live in a trailer park.




Now there is a concept you've managed to utterly fail to grasp, not that it comes as a surprise. A revolutionary movement must at some point recognise that it has enemies, in the form of the current order and its supporters, there is no getting around this.

Right. The problem is, your ideology, like almost every other ideology, is a fantasy world. And you make up the perceived evil "other" to gain supporters to your side, regardless of the truth of anything you say. It's a concrete politcal system you stupid twat. It's quite obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that there is a system currently in place and that system is not communism, as communists it is our aim to change this state of affiars. Therefore anyone who exists in defense of that system is obviosuly an enemey of communists as they have utterly opposing goals. Got that, you motuh breathing pisspole?


And I know you believe in your heart of hearts that what you say is all true, which makes it all even cuter. I don't resort to emtionalisms like 'heart of hearts'. I know what I say is true, because I have yet to see evidence otherwise. Cappie's like you on the other hand are all too quick to resort to gross emotionalisms, and in this case a patronising personal attack. (I have no problem with the personal attack part, the fact you choose to be condescending when you're clearly asn idiot is both irritating and vaguely amusing.).


In effect, your ideology is like religion. :lol: I thought you were opposed to hollow slogan shouting as a form of argument. YOu cannot say that this is not a slogan of the anti-communists with a straight face, surely?
It's emotional, there isn't a lot of fact involved, you don't have much evidence that it works, and there's an evil "other" out there who will seduce you into hell. It's quite humourous that in another thread you boasted that your emotional needs are met without religion, when in fact they're obviously met with the religion of your ideology.
I'd call that a question-begging analogy, where you have of course assumed that communism is a religion, which I have not stated in the debate and you have failed to prove. Dignifiying such a stupid argument with reply makes me feel slightly soiled.



Our enemies want us gone, either for us simply to not be revolutionaries or for us as people to actually go - depending of course on the material circumstances of a country (for example, most of the US establishment does not try to kill revolutionaries yet because the revolution is, to put it bluntly, very unlikley, whereas the tsarists in russia did want us gone, because the revolution was close at hand.)

So you are now claiming the Soviet Union as communist? I was kind of under the impression that because of all its faults, it wasn't really communist. The revolution was communist, even Stalin was attempting to push for communism but khurschev and the like pretty much betrayed that revolution.



- as such it becomes nescessary to identify political opponents. Where do class traitors fit into this? Simple really, they have given up on the ideas of a revolution, by leaving the class with the most revolutionary potential, using methods antithetical to revolutionary politics, so they now represent an obvious part of the established order, which is of course what we are opposed to and what stands in opposition to us.

Right, which is what hacks do. Us vs. them. Side vs. Side. You're either with us or against us. YOu cannot be even partially 'with' somone if you want to see them fail at create the society they want. You are failing to recognise that there exist actual opponents to ideas.
Because it's not the individual issue that matters, it's power. Ideology is power. No given ideology works across all issues, this is plain fact. But people like you aren't interested in working on issues. You're interested in making people think they belong to a "class" and that this class has identical interests. On everything! How magical. If they buy into this preposterous proposition, then they buy your message and you gain power. Nevermind that what you're selling doesn't work, isn't realistic, and is based more on emotion than on anything factual or practical. Based on emotion rather than anything factual? I'd take that up with the people who use marxist theory in all forms of analysis. Of course you, knowing nothing about anything, probably didn't know quite how respected marxism is, especially in fields such as sociology and history. What you appear to be arguing for is the ultimate in political sophistry. Fuck all political integrity just do whatever will be most popular on specific issues. An entire governement based on the bandwagon fallacy, fantastic.


So just like George W. Bush preaches that all "good" Americans love tax cuts and spreading democracy by force, even though they don't work all that well, you preach that all "good" working class people love communism and radical feminism and blah blah blah even though they don't work particularly well either. I'm not though, and you know it. Just like you know you're shit (I direct you to the chant I supplied you with when you were going through you phase of crying 'sloganeering' whenever somone was beating you in an argument.).


I skipped the end because it was a bunch of jargon that said nothing of any value. Ah so the bit that didn't fit neatly into your predetermined idea that I use a simple us and them paradigm was 'nothing of value'.

Tell me, do you ever feel bad for trying desperatley to continue your fallacious little tirades when you know full well that you're either wrong or lying?

[t_wolves_fan]

There was only a bunch of noise about how you have been saved by the truth of the Lord...ooops I mean your ideology (I get you folks confused since you're essentially the same) up to this point, so it's ignored.


What you appear to be arguing for is the ultimate in political sophistry. Fuck all political integrity just do whatever will be most popular on specific issues. An entire governement based on the bandwagon fallacy, fantastic.

Actually no. I value actual analysis and data and considering a wide variety of options. I do not subscribe to any given "ideology" because as I've said, ideology is about power, not solving problems. There is actually a very simple, non-political formula for policy analysis that is quite effective. You on the other hand would rely first on an ideology and then build your policy analysis from there, which would lead to failure as it always does.

What is most hilarious is that I've had this exact same charge leveled at me by religious fundamentalists and hard-core laissez-faire capitalists, which further proves my point. They were convinced that if only everyone were Christian or if the government were essentially eliminated, the world's problems would be solved. They were also convinced that actually solving problems was somehow worse than having ideological "principals". Wow the house burned down, but I lived up to my principal of not asking for help! Wooopppeee!


Tell me, do you ever feel bad for trying desperatley to continue your fallacious little tirades when you know full well that you're either wrong or lying?

I'm not wrong about you. There's no difference at all between you and a religious fundamentalist or a hard-core laissez-faire capitalist or any other ideologue, except for the product you're selling. You all start with the basic assumption that your ideology is fact and then view reality through that perceptive filter. Your filter says anything that does not support your ideology is to be labeled as a lie spread by the evil other (Satan) to disuade people from seeing your truth. God is your ideology and vice versa.

That's why you said in the religion forum that people shouldn't be free to determine their own consciousness, isn't it? Just like the Christian fundamentalist doesn't want people to burn in hell, you don't want people to succumb to a false consciousness do you? You're quite the little evangelizer.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:22 pm
There was only a bunch of noise about how you have been saved by the truth of the Lord...ooops I mean your ideology (I get you folks confused since you're essentially the same) up to this point, so it's ignored.


What you appear to be arguing for is the ultimate in political sophistry. Fuck all political integrity just do whatever will be most popular on specific issues. An entire governement based on the bandwagon fallacy, fantastic.

Actually no. I value actual analysis and data and considering a wide variety of options. I do not subscribe to any given "ideology" because as I've said, ideology is about power, not solving problems. There is actually a very simple, non-political formula for policy analysis that is quite effective. You on the other hand would rely first on an ideology and then build your policy analysis from there, which would lead to failure as it always does.

What is most hilarious is that I've had this exact same charge leveled at me by religious fundamentalists and hard-core laissez-faire capitalists, which further proves my point. They were convinced that if only everyone were Christian or if the government were essentially eliminated, the world's problems would be solved. They were also convinced that actually solving problems was somehow worse than having ideological "principals". Wow the house burned down, but I lived up to my principal of not asking for help! Wooopppeee!


Tell me, do you ever feel bad for trying desperatley to continue your fallacious little tirades when you know full well that you're either wrong or lying?

I'm not wrong about you. There's no difference at all between you and a religious fundamentalist or a hard-core laissez-faire capitalist or any other ideologue, except for the product you're selling. You all start with the basic assumption that your ideology is fact and then view reality through that perceptive filter. Your filter says anything that does not support your ideology is to be labeled as a lie spread by the evil other (Satan) to disuade people from seeing your truth. God is your ideology and vice versa.

That's why you said in the religion forum that people shouldn't be free to determine their own consciousness, isn't it? Just like the Christian fundamentalist doesn't want people to burn in hell, you don't want people to succumb to a false consciousness do you? You're quite the little evangelizer.
It's pointless arguing with you, because you never debate honestly. You draw false or question begging analogies or you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your backward world view as hackery or sloganeering.

I'm surprised you have friends, ****casket.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:47 pm
It's pointless arguing with you, because you never debate honestly. You draw false or question begging analogies or you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your backward world view as hackery or sloganeering.

I'm surprised you have friends, ****casket.
That's ok, your sermonizing is getting boring anyway.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 05:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 05:50 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2006 05:47 pm
It's pointless arguing with you, because you never debate honestly. You draw false or question begging analogies or you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your backward world view as hackery or sloganeering.

I'm surprised you have friends, ****casket.
That's ok, your sermonizing is getting boring anyway. [/b]
How did you develop such a sense of misplaced arrogance? Spoilt as a child?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 18, 2006 05:51 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 18, 2006 05:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:50 pm

[email protected] 18, 2006 05:47 pm
It's pointless arguing with you, because you never debate honestly. You draw false or question begging analogies or you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your backward world view as hackery or sloganeering.

I'm surprised you have friends, ****casket.
That's ok, your sermonizing is getting boring anyway.
How did you develop such a sense of misplaced arrogance? Spoilt as a child? [/b]
Arrogance? Am I the one who has decided that I know what form of "consciousness" is best for everyone else?

I don't think that was me, to be honest.

No, I wasn't spoilt. I probably grew up poorer than you did.

I just want to know what drives people to have faith in their ideologies, especially after those ideologies are proven to be impractical or just plain absurd time and time again. An analogy I like is that each ideology is a toolbox. You've got something wrong with your house, and someone who follows a different ideology has a tool that might work. But you refuse to use it because you believe the tool and the toolbox are evil, and so you go on using the wrong tool from your own toolbox simply so you can feel superior knowing you followed your "principles".
Why do you do that? Why do you assume that you know what is best for everyone and that only your ideology should be acceptable for others? You tell me I am arrogant, yet you don't see me telling you that society should ridicule or ban your pet ideology. You don't see me telling you that how you're living your life is wrong. You don't see me telling you that because you belong to a certain class and because I've defined that class' interests a certain way, you had better believe what I believe or else you're a class traitor or that you're evil. Do you? Do you see me saying that?

Your ideology is stupid, I will say that. But if you want to live by it, go for it. I wish you luck.

[blueeyedboy]

t wolves fan, I also want to know what drives people into believing in certain ideologies, even when evidence is heavily against it. I don't put people down for believing in ideals, as everyone has a right in beleiving in certain things. I was talking to a buisnessman a few weeks ago about capitalism and buisness and he offered a solution to why I believe in socialism and such like. The answer came from a question I asked. I basically asked him, "Why do so many people beleive in socialism"?
He simply answered it was a 'trendy' concept to beleive in. t wolves fan, do you know what he means by this.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 08:19 pm
t wolves fan, I also want to know what drives people into believing in certain ideologies, even when evidence is heavily against it. I don't put people down for believing in ideals, as everyone has a right in beleiving in certain things. I was talking to a buisnessman a few weeks ago about capitalism and buisness and he offered a solution to why I believe in socialism and such like. The answer came from a question I asked. I basically asked him, "Why do so many people beleive in socialism"?
He simply answered it was a 'trendy' concept to beleive in. t wolves fan, do you know what he means by this.
I can take a guess.

Assuming you are young, he meant that many young people are into socialism and communism because it's a form of rebelling against their parents and the establishment. People wear Che Guevara shirts and attend protests because it has shock value and because it's part of a counter-culture. Of course these folks also believe in this stuff because it sounds good, but due to their youth and inexperience they don't quite understand why it won't really work.

Basically, for most kids it's a phase.

I've kind of figured out that ideology is simply part of the human need to belong. We all want to belong, whether it be to a family, a group of friends, a clan, a nation, a movement, and so on and so on. People adhere to ideology because they and their fellow ideologues are part of a "struggle", and nothing makes one feel needed and important like being involved in a struggle. This need to belong makes people personalize their ideology. Just as you'd be offended if someone attacked your family, you get offended when they attack your ideology.

The problem is that belonging to a family or a group of fans of a sports team doesn't have much of an effect on other people. Ideology does, which is why I think there's also a control element involved. People who are strong ideologues feel threatened by the world around them. Whether it's far-left or far-right, people see the world as a dangerous place full of chaos and enemies. Perceiving this threat, they believe if only their ideology can be applied to everyone then the world will be a far less threatening place.

[Marsella]

Of course these folks also believe in this stuff because it sounds good, but due to their youth and inexperience they don't quite understand why it won't really work.

Really, this is a poor argument. Why is 'experience' necessary to form a valid political stance? And if that was the case, then the only valid political stance that could be formed would be a capitalist one because that is the only one you could experience. Also, the vast majority of youth support capitalism. That doesn't necessarily make capitalism void because of their youth. The youth of today are far more intelligent than youth 20-30 years ago. Needless to say, they are far more intelligent than the adults of today. If we only listened to the views of the elderly (and thus conservative) society would evolve very very slowly...actually that is the case...

Youth are primarily attracted to revolutionary politics because: They are young and are forming their own political opinions. Therefore, it is no small wonder that the majority of protesters are young. By being young they don't accept everything on face value. They still have the faculty of wonder & criticalness. Some kids wear Che shirts. I've never met a Communist who has worn one however.


I've kind of figured out that ideology is simply part of the human need to belong. We all want to belong, whether it be to a family, a group of friends, a clan, a nation, a movement, and so on and so on. People adhere to ideology because they and their fellow ideologues are part of a "struggle", and nothing makes one feel needed and important like being involved in a struggle. This need to belong makes people personalize their ideology. Just as you'd be offended if someone attacked your family, you get offended when they attack your ideology.

Don't prance around as if society is apolitical; that society in general has no political opinions. Their whole consciousness is an ideology. But because it is the 'norm' it isn't labelled as an ideology. Therefore, radical stances are labelled ideologies to show their abnormalness. Don't forget the capitalism was (and still is in certain areas) a radical ideology which the feudality fought to the death. It may suprise you that some leftist radicals don't just adhere to their stances because of a need to fit in and feel all big and fuzzy.


Ideology does, which is why I think there's also a control element involved. People who are strong ideologues feel threatened by the world around them. Whether it's far-left or far-right, people see the world as a dangerous place full of chaos and enemies. Perceiving this threat, they believe if only their ideology can be applied to everyone then the world will be a far less threatening place.

Full of chaos and enemies? Personally, I don't feel threatened by any group. I see capitalism as a necessary stage, not some evil phenommenon. And as far as applying my views to everyone else...your own views are not autonomous. You didn't invent them. You have had a miniscule amount of input into them. So much for your 'freedom' of thought. And as far as creating a less-threatening place, why wouldn't that be something to strive for?

[jasmine]

The revolution was communist, even Stalin was attempting to push for communism but khurschev and the like pretty much betrayed that revolution.

If you admire Stalin you may want to take a look at Let History Judge by Roy Medvedev. This guy was (not sure if he's still alive) a dissident Russian Marxist historian. His book documents Stalin's terror in great empirical detail. It's probably available through the local library system.

[Marsella]

Side Note: How can a revolution be 'betrayed'?

A revolution is a fundemental and irrevocable change in the mode of production. (NB: In this sense the American (independence) 'revolution' was not a revolution because the basis of property didn't change: it simply went from British to American)

A revolution cannot be betrayed by individuals because a revolution can not be made by individuals; it must be by the majority of a particular class; notably the working class.

If the fate of a 'revolution' can be changed by the changing of leadership it is no revolution.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 04:59 pm

The revolution was communist, even Stalin was attempting to push for communism but khurschev and the like pretty much betrayed that revolution.

If you admire Stalin you may want to take a look at Let History Judge by Roy Medvedev. This guy was (not sure if he's still alive) a dissident Russian Marxist historian. His book documents Stalin's terror in great empirical detail. It's probably available through the local library system.
Thanks, but i've got a lot of historical reading to be getting on with. I'll certianly give it a read through at some point.

EDIT: While we're recommending reading materials, have you ever read this (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)? It's a fairly decent, neutral, piece.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 05:09 pm
Side Note: How can a revolution be 'betrayed'?
I worded that incorrectly.

I would aargue that a revolution's changes could be reversed as was certianly the case in the USSR.

[t_wolves_fan]

Really, this is a poor argument. Why is 'experience' necessary to form a valid political stance?

I did not say youth cannot have a valid political stance. What I meant is that from the perspective of people who are older and more experienced, radical stances in the youth look "trendy" because so many youth grow up and leave their radical stances behind.


Don't prance around as if society is apolitical; that society in general has no political opinions. Their whole consciousness is an ideology. But because it is the 'norm' it isn't labelled as an ideology. Therefore, radical stances are labelled ideologies to show their abnormalness. Don't forget the capitalism was (and still is in certain areas) a radical ideology which the feudality fought to the death. It may suprise you that some leftist radicals don't just adhere to their stances because of a need to fit in and feel all big and fuzzy.

Of course society is not apolitical. It's very political. However, that doesn't mean it's ideological.

Look at the United States. 12 years ago we voted for the GOP in a landslide Congressional election. 10 years ago we elected a Democratic President in a landslide. 6 years ago we barely elected a GOP President and we repeated that 2 years ago. Just a month ago we elected the Democrats in a landslide into the legislature. What does that mean? We're into politics, but for (I'd say) the majority of us, we have a somewhat open mind. We're willing to compromise and we're willing to vote for the person over the issues. That is political but it's not ideological. Now, certainly we are all ideological to a degree - we have our beliefs and our principles. But when it's clear that those principles aren't feasible, a non-ideologue will accept reality and moderate his or her opinion out of necessity.

One need not be ideological to be involved in politics. Ideology is politics taken to the extreme. That is why extremist (radical) views are ideological. Yes, new views crop up and revolutionize society. But they do so only when the situation is ripe - people are fed up with the current system on a massive scale. This is not ideological because its politically feasible. Radical views that are not politically feasible, like advocating communism in the United States, are ideological because they ignore political reality. Instead of leading a fed up populace, communists shout at the rain.

Ideologues view this acceptance of political reality as unprincipled weakness, which is a defense mechanism. I'm sorry, but if it's impractical to build a building or dig a tunnel or write a software program and you keep doing it anyway, you're rightly labeled a nutcase who is wasting time and resources. But somehow if you keep pushing an unrealistic political position, you're "principled".


Full of chaos and enemies? Personally, I don't feel threatened by any group. I see capitalism as a necessary stage, not some evil phenommenon.

You feel threatened by the current system otherwise you'd have no desire to change it. You push for a new system because it meets your interests.


And as far as applying my views to everyone else...your own views are not autonomous. You didn't invent them. You have had a miniscule amount of input into them. So much for your 'freedom' of thought.

These are two different issues. I learned about politics and the ideologies of other people from other people yes. But I chose my political opinion myself. Ideology on the other hand seeks to forcibly apply a political opinion onto others. I of course advocate an open marketplace of ideas where people share information, ideology would eliminate that marketplace and make one single product available.

It's not about views being autonomous, it's about understanding that people are autonomous. People are going to make choices and live their life in ways I'd never do and don't agree with. But where an ideologue and I differ is that they'd use the political process, the power of government and the power of society to compel those people to live like they think they should live. Ideology in any form rejects the idea of individual autonomy. Even communism.


And as far as creating a less-threatening place, why wouldn't that be something to strive for?

Yes, but you do not do it by advocating policies that are not politically feasible. Imagine someone claiming that the solution to our energy problems is to build a fusion reactor that works the same as the sun. Well, um, we don't know how to build such a reactor, so that won't work right now. That is a nice goal in the long-term, but we need something in the short term. An ideologue says no, build the fusion reactor and build it right now.

Basically, ideologues like to ignore political reality.

[Marsella]

I would aargue that a revolution's changes could be reversed as was certianly the case in the USSR.

I know this is getting a bit particular, but I don't think that Stalin 'reversed' the actions of Lenin & co. Whilst I don't criticise Lenin for the NEP it couldn't be argued that Russia was a Communist country. Did Stalin reverse this? Clearly not: mass industrialisation via the numerous five year plans and a growth in bureacracy and the ruling class.

Can a 'true' revolution be reversed? No in my opinion (excluding foregin intervention). Is it concievable that the capitalist revolutions could be overturned, for example, in France and Britain and a feudal monarchy re-instated? Clearly not. Why? Because capitalism has introduced notions of equality and abrogated our so-called 'natural rulers.' I would say the same applies for communism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 05:28 pm

I would aargue that a revolution's changes could be reversed as was certianly the case in the USSR.

I know this is getting a bit particular, but I don't think that Stalin 'reversed' the actions of Lenin & co. Whilst I don't criticise Lenin for the NEP it couldn't be argued that Russia was a Communist country.
IOf course it couldn't a communist country is like a square circle. It was however a socialist country in a tranistional period.


Did Stalin reverse this? Clearly not: mass industrialisation via the numerous five year plans and a growth in bureacracy and the ruling class. The growth in beuaracy and ruling class claim ins fairly contentious, but I understand what you're trying to say.


Can a 'true' revolution be reversed? No in my opinion (excluding foregin intervention). Is it concievable that the capitalist revolutions could be overturned, for example, in France and Britain and a feudal monarchy re-instated? Clearly not. Why? Because capitalism has introduced notions of equality and abrogated our so-called 'natural rulers.' I would say the same applies for communism. Do you remember what happened to the first republican revolution?
Consider that a revolution is not simply the armed sturggle part, it is also the part in which society is radically overhauled - this is the point where it was betrayed by khruschev.

[Marsella]

radical stances in the youth look "trendy" because so many youth grow up and leave their radical stances behind.

Who? Think about it: do you know a radical leftist who simply disbanded their ideals? I agree that some young democrats turn republican...maybe that is what you mean by radicals 'wising-up.' This view that it is just a 'trend' goes along with the stereotype that all Communists are rich college students and doesn't deserve real merit.


Of course society is not apolitical. It's very political. However, that doesn't mean it's ideological.

I'm not sure what your getting at because we clearly don't agree on our terms of ideology. I was taking to mean that ideology= the consciousness of a particular era. You take ideology to mean 'i-am-right.you-are-wrong-and-fuck-you-too' stance; ideology to you is an illogical support where it does not fit the political reality.


Look at the United States. 12 years ago we voted for the GOP in a landslide Congressional election. 10 years ago we elected a Democratic President in a landslide. 6 years ago we barely elected a GOP President and we repeated that 2 years ago. Just a month ago we elected the Democrats in a landslide into the legislature. What does that mean? We're into politics, but for (I'd say) the majority of us, we have a somewhat open mind. We're willing to compromise and we're willing to vote for the person over the issues. That is political but it's not ideological.

I agree that voting democrat versus republican and so forth is a political activity. It is not an ideological struggle because both stand for the same thing; capitalism.


One need not be ideological to be involved in politics. Ideology is politics taken to the extreme. That is why extremist (radical) views are ideological.

But I already proved to you that capitalist views were once considered radical, extreme and unpractible; they were once considered a dangerous ideology!

Essentially you are trying to prove that politics is practical but ideology isn't. But history has proven that the most illogical and bizarre political orders have existed; take the idea that a King is divinely appointed which was sincerly believed. In that case your analysis fails because the political order is ideological. Essentially, what I am trying to get at is that your views on ideology are relative to your circumstances.



You feel threatened by the current system otherwise you'd have no desire to change it. You push for a new system because it meets your interests.

Threatened? No- it is they who should be threatened because they have the most to lose. But yes I push for a new system because it meets the interests of the working class. This is no different from the bourgeoisie pushing for a democratic constitution because it met their interests.


But I chose my political opinion myself. Ideology on the other hand seeks to forcibly apply a political opinion onto others. I of course advocate an open marketplace of ideas where people share information, ideology would eliminate that marketplace and make one single product available.

You chose your political opinion yourself? Let me ask a question: what made you choose? You will probably reply 'my values.' Where are your values from? They are societies values. I don't doubt that you actually chose what you believe in but the range of choices were dictated by society...as was your choice.

And once again, you know my stance on imposing values on others. It is totally contrary to Marxist thought.

I think I covered everything.

[Marsella]

in a tranistional period.
Yes I agree that it had the makings of a communist country. But after the October revolution (really, a coup) where the Bolsheviks seized power on behalf of the workers it became destined to be the workings of a party- which is liable to collapse.


Do you remember what happened to the first republican revolution?
Not being American/French and never studied it I would have no clue.


Consider that a revolution is not simply the armed sturggle part, it is also the part in which society is radically overhauled
Totally agree.


- this is the point where it was betrayed by khruschev.
I only studied Russian history up until WW2, but if you think that the revolution was 'betrayed' by Khruschev you have ignored the period of 1922 onwards. Not offence, but I'm getting the feeling that your a Stalinist.

And likewise, if it was a true revolution with the unequivocal support of the working masses, would there be leaders 40 years on? It is disgusting that you can proport that a revolution can be betrayed because you then characterise it as the workings of an elite few.

[t_wolves_fan]

What, you want names?

Why is it that when I went to protest rallies in DC, 95% of the attendees were under 25? These marches were on weekends, where were the older members? Remember, fighting the establishment has been around for a good 40 years now, so where are the 65 year-old communists? There are a few here and there, but I have yet to meet a single one.

That's because most of them grew up, got jobs and had families. They realized their dream wasn't going to come true and gave up, I'll bet. Oh I'm sure most of them ended up as liberal Democrats, but I'm willing to wager the revolutionary fire died out quickly once the property tax bill arrived.

On ideology, yes, that is my definition. I don't see how your definition makes any sense.


Essentially you are trying to prove that politics is practical but ideology isn't. But history has proven that the most illogical and bizarre political orders have existed; take the idea that a King is divinely appointed which was sincerly believed. In that case your analysis fails because the political order is ideological. Essentially, what I am trying to get at is that your views on ideology are relative to your circumstances.

You ignored what I said, either willfully or accidentally.

The political order is not an ideology. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, or maybe you made it up yourself. Ideology is political opinion, a set of beliefs; not a set of circumstances that exist in reality.


Threatened? No- it is they who should be threatened because they have the most to lose. But yes I push for a new system because it meets the interests of the working class. This is no different from the bourgeoisie pushing for a democratic constitution because it met their interests.

Of course you're threatened. You want the working class to be in power, that belief is threatened by an extension of the status quo. I'm not talking specifically about the threat of some evil-doer knocking on your door to take you to room 101, I'm talking about the threat that you may not be in charge, that your specific interests and in your case your ideology may not be adopted. The status quo is a threat to you because it doesn't give you what you want. To you that threat is much greater than it is to me, because I have no ideology that I want to see implemented. The status quo doesn't bother me, and your ideology is not a threat because its presently powerless.

[jasmine]

EDIT: While we're recommending reading materials, have you ever read this? It's a fairly decent, neutral, piece.

This is a complicated thread isn't it? I've taken a quick look at your link Jazzratt. At first glance Í would say its format seems neutral but what we're given are 'facts' with little or no context. The 'facts' seem very carefully selected in order to paint a picture of Stalin as a democrat fighting against an out of control bureaucracy and secret police.

There is a mass of historical research that speaks against this. In a sense it doesn't much matter what Stalin the individual did. It matters more what the state apparatus as a whole did. But Stalin was the head of that state so he can't exactly be blameless.

The in-fighting in the Soviet bureaucracy was so labyrinthine in this period who knows why Stalin signed this or that decree at this or that moment?

True some of the evidence against Stalin, Molotov and Beria in particular is cold war propaganda, some of it from writers like Trotsky could be seen to be politically motivated but taking the evidence as a whole denying the gulags and mass murder of 1930's Russia during enforced collectivisation (I'm not saying you are doing this, I have no idea what you think) is like denying the Holocaust.

[Marsella]

What, you want names?

Why is it that when I went to protest rallies in DC, 95% of the attendees were under 25? These marches were on weekends, where were the older members? Remember, fighting the establishment has been around for a good 40 years now, so where are the 65 year-old communists? There are a few here and there, but I have yet to meet a single one.

Common, you are laying down some fallacies now.

Not all protestors are Communists and more importantly not all Communists are Communists. But this is getting off-hand, but yes Communists do have a family, earn money. I've never read anything that proposes that a Communist must remain single and be unemployed and protest until his deathbed. Are you maintaing that because Communists 'conform' (have kids, job!) their political stance is weak? This really is a shaky ground, I can name numerous examples of politicians who don't do as their prescribed ideology states.



Essentially you are trying to prove that politics is practical but ideology isn't. But history has proven that the most illogical and bizarre political orders have existed; take the idea that a King is divinely appointed which was sincerly believed. In that case your analysis fails because the political order is ideological. Essentially, what I am trying to get at is that your views on ideology are relative to your circumstances.


You made no response to this brilliant comment.


The political order is not an ideology.

This is starting to get frustrating. The political order- i.e. liberal democracy, feudal monarchy comes from somewhere. Yes...its ideology.


Of course you're threatened. You want the working class to be in power, that belief is threatened by an extension of the status quo. I'm not talking specifically about the threat of some evil-doer knocking on your door to take you to room 101, I'm talking about the threat that you may not be in charge, that your specific interests and in your case your ideology may not be adopted. The status quo is a threat to you because it doesn't give you what you want. To you that threat is much greater than it is to me, because I have no ideology that I want to see implemented. The status quo doesn't bother me, and your ideology is not a threat because its presently powerless.

Mate, this is getting particularly annoying and rude. Don't try and force what feelings you think I have or what feelings you want me to have.

Your really being wish-washy with your terminology...I cannot be threatened by capitalism because it does little to defend itself against communism. Capitalism gives me exatly what I want: centralisation of power in a few hands, maximization of the labor day, etc- all the things that are necessary to the application of communsim.


because I have no ideology that I want to see implemented.
Of course you don't have an ideology that you want implemented; because your ideology is already implemented in the form of capitalism.

Lets get this straight because you seem to not get the message (I will type in large):

YOU HAVE VIEWS WHICH WERE ONCE RADICAL AND YES IDEOLOGICAL.

And you completely ignored my other comments.

[t_wolves_fan]

We seem to be going around in circles because we have different definitions of ideology.

I view ideology as a political opinion that is uncompromising, you view it as a system. Whatever, we'll just have to agree to disagree because we're not very close.

[Marsella]

I view ideology as a political opinion that is uncompromising, you view it as a system. Whatever, we'll just have to agree to disagree because we're not very close.

OK- agree to disagree. But even under your definition I wouldn't class Marxism as uncompromising. I doubt that Marx would make the same conclusions as he did 150 years ago if he were alive today. After all, Marxism is about analysing and contrasting periods to see patterns.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:18 pm

EDIT: While we're recommending reading materials, have you ever read this? It's a fairly decent, neutral, piece.

This is a complicated thread isn't it? I've taken a quick look at your link Jazzratt. At first glance Í would say its format seems neutral but what we're given are 'facts' with little or no context. The 'facts' seem very carefully selected in order to paint a picture of Stalin as a democrat fighting against an out of control bureaucracy and secret police.
Obviosuly nothing is perfectly neutral, but I was raising this as a counterpoint. I assume that the 'context' we have to work with is our knowledge of the soviet union during Stalin's era - which I would say is a weakness of the piece as it ignores that there are several historical views on the 'truth' of what happened.


There is a mass of historical research that speaks against this. In a sense it doesn't much matter what Stalin the individual did. It matters more what the state apparatus as a whole did. But Stalin was the head of that state so he can't exactly be blameless. Naturally, but the historical mainstream has taken a major shift since the cold war - as a lot of what was taken as 'fact' has proved to be anti-communist propaganda. Stalin's power as head of state was, if this essay and several others I have read (including some by commited anti-communists) a little too limited with the hindsight of history and especially in light of his attempts to introduce a more democratic system.


The in-fighting in the Soviet bureaucracy was so labyrinthine in this period who knows why Stalin signed this or that decree at this or that moment? A very good point.


True some of the evidence against Stalin, Molotov and Beria in particular is cold war propaganda, some of it from writers like Trotsky could be seen to be politically motivated but taking the evidence as a whole denying the gulags and mass murder of 1930's Russia during enforced collectivisation (I'm not saying you are doing this, I have no idea what you think) is like denying the Holocaust. I would disagree on this. I do not deny the existance of gulags, or indeed most of the charges of mass-murder - I view these, naturally, as mistakes never to be repeated. I do question the numbers in some cases, especially in statements like "Communism killed 30 million" (or whatever number it is at the moment.). The nature of the gulags and the mass murders however is a lot more historically, shall we say "up in the air" than the holocaust (which does not have any significant evidence against it.).

I'm not pretending to be an expert on Soviet history, I don't actually know a hell of a lot about it but I'm trying to learn - do you have any other books that would help with that?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:07 pm

in a tranistional period.
Yes I agree that it had the makings of a communist country. But after the October revolution (really, a coup) where the Bolsheviks seized power on behalf of the workers it became destined to be the workings of a party- which is liable to collapse.
I'll have to try to avoid the guilt by association fallacy on this one :P (If you don't know why it's because the 'coup' argument is often used by the bourgoise and their lapdogs to discredit the bolshevic revolution.).

I would have to disagree, probably violently, with the idea that the bolshevik revolution was a coup. There was a lot of popular resentment for the current order or soviets in the time between the febuary and ooctober revolutions. I would say that however that 'coup' is a useful word to bear in mind for later, when the workers state is completely deformed by Stalin's cabinet and of course when khurschev destroys any hope of bringing in a true workers democracy.




Do you remember what happened to the first republican revolution?
Not being American/French and never studied it I would have no clue. King Charles II came back, dug up Cromwell and cut his head off. Not every attempt to institute a new order is successful.



- this is the point where it was betrayed by khruschev.
I only studied Russian history up until WW2, but if you think that the revolution was 'betrayed' by Khruschev you have ignored the period of 1922 onwards. Not offence, but I'm getting the feeling that your a Stalinist.

And likewise, if it was a true revolution with the unequivocal support of the working masses, would there be leaders 40 years on? It is disgusting that you can proport that a revolution can be betrayed because you then characterise it as the workings of an elite few. Well, to understand what turly caused the fall of the revolution you have to understand that there are problems inherent in the vanguard party structure. I agree that a full democracy should have been in place before Lenin died, but I think there was still hope, slim though it may have been, during Stalin's reign that was completely destroyed when Khurschev came in. By the time Gorbachev dealt his killing blow to the soviet union everyone knew it was near enough capitalist anyway.

I'm not offended by the label Stalinist, although I find it terribly innacurate.

[jasmine]

I'm not pretending to be an expert on Soviet history, I don't actually know a hell of a lot about it but I'm trying to learn - do you have any other books that would help with that?

The best standard work (imo) is E.H. Carr's 'A History of Soviet Russia.' This is however very long (lots of volumes, not sure how many) but you don't have to read it all, you can choose the periods that interest you. It's well written and the research is amazing. Also he doesn't have a major axe to grind (not to say there is no bias) - a true academic.

I also enjoyed Isaac Deutscher's 3 volume biography of Trotsky - The Prophet Armed, The Prophet Unarmed, The Prophet Outcast. It tells the story of the rise of Stalin from Trotsky's perspective.

If you are reading about the French Revolution you may be interested by Deutscher's discussion of Lenin's doubts about whether the Bolsheviks were making the same mistake as the Jacobins - ie making the revolution too soon, when society wasn't ready.

The problem is that so much has been written. For a pro-capitalist viewpoint you could read Alan Bullock's 'Stalin and Hitler: Twin Lives' or Robert Conquest, 'The Great Terror'

Personally I think Carr is the best but you need the time to read it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:36 pm


I'm not pretending to be an expert on Soviet history, I don't actually know a hell of a lot about it but I'm trying to learn - do you have any other books that would help with that?
Let me get this straight:

In one thread you claim you don't know a whole lot about Soviet history, and in the next you bloviate that any claims about Soviet ethnic cleansing are made-up lies?

Do you understand why this contradiction would erode your credibility?

[jasmine]

I would disagree on this. I do not deny the existance of gulags, or indeed most of the charges of mass-murder - I view these, naturally, as mistakes never to be repeated.

These were not mistakes, they were deliberate actions. Conscious policy. This is the problem when you have the 'truth', be it the revolutionary truth, or the religious truth, on your side. Everything is permissable in defence of that truth.

The revolution must succeed even if 100,000 peasants, people with families and children must die. Zinoviev made a speech sometime in the early twenties declaring that he was prepared to murder millions in order to ensure the survival of Soviet rule.

There is no truth that is worth a single human life. In my humble opinion. Fuck the truth.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:21 pm
These were not mistakes, they were deliberate actions. Conscious policy. This is the problem when you have the 'truth', be it the revolutionary truth, or the religious truth, on your side. Everything is permissable in defence of that truth.


Exactly.

It's entertaining to see how ideologues - of all stripes - will go to the ends of the earth to justify what happens in systems they support while condemning the very same things in the most brutal terms imaginable when done by the opposition.


I'm reminded of Henry Hyde.

[TG0]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 08:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 08:52 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 07:36 pm


I'm not pretending to be an expert on Soviet history, I don't actually know a hell of a lot about it but I'm trying to learn - do you have any other books that would help with that?
Let me get this straight:

In one thread you claim you don't know a whole lot about Soviet history, and in the next you bloviate that any claims about Soviet ethnic cleansing are made-up lies?

Do you understand why this contradiction would erode your credibility? [/b]
Hahahaha..ownage in its purest form

[jasmine]

In one thread you claim you don't know a whole lot about Soviet history, and in the next you bloviate that any claims about Soviet ethnic cleansing are made-up lies?

t wolves fan - first of all is 'bloviate' a word? Secondly, what does it mean?

Also, why attack Jazzratt for asking a simple question?

What's more important, to state your point, to win or to make a connection? :mellow:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 19, 2006 08:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 19, 2006 08:52 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 07:36 pm


I'm not pretending to be an expert on Soviet history, I don't actually know a hell of a lot about it but I'm trying to learn - do you have any other books that would help with that?
Let me get this straight:

In one thread you claim you don't know a whole lot about Soviet history, and in the next you bloviate that any claims about Soviet ethnic cleansing are made-up lies? [/b]
he only value of your post is that I looked up and learned the word "bloviate". I find that it fits your posting style a fuck of a lot more than mine, being that it is

To speak or write at length in a pompous or boastful manner.

I find all your posts have been created in a lenghty and ostentatiously holier-than-thou pompous style to befuddle those that fall easily into the trap of the Style over substance fallacy.

Onto your main point: One must be a fucking expert on soviet history to see that it's entirely possible that most claims about the USSR that have been taught in US schools where the curriculumn is weighted toward the US anti-communist ruling class, may well be a bunch of lies made up in favour of that class.

If you ever get the time log off of this account and browse the History forum on this site, where Stalin's "crimes" are discussed at length.

EDIT: Just had a look at the thread in question, where you rsorted to questioning one of my detractors on this board, well done you. Of course you were going to getting something close to my fucking views weren't you, fucking prick.

(P.S Thanks for you post jasemine, I'm glad to see that bad blood does not carry over from other debates with you, but I don't really mind about t_wolves' post - we have something of a feud/[issing contest going that's far too much fun to let go.)

[jasmine]

I don't really mind about t_wolves' post - we have something of a feud/[issing contest going that's far too much fun to let go.

I'm sure you two will be very happy together as long as you never meet!

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 10:48 pm

I don't really mind about t_wolves' post - we have something of a feud/[issing contest going that's far too much fun to let go.

I'm sure you two will be very happy together as long as you never meet!
:lol: It'll all end in tears...

[Marsella]

the 'coup' argument is often used by the bourgoise and their lapdogs to discredit the bolshevic revolution

What a typical response; claiming that I am using a bourgeoisie argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise that it was a coup. Just because it has popular assent is irrelevent (note the recent coup in Thailand has popular asssent). All that happened was a transfer in power- from SRs and Kadets etc to Bolsheviks. Some revolution...


completely deformed by Stalin's cabinet and of course when khurschev destroys any hope of bringing in a true workers democracy.

I'll ignore the point that you referred to Stalin's cabinet, not specifically Stalin. Do you honestly think that ANY party which gains power will willingly give their power over to workers?


King Charles II came back, dug up Cromwell and cut his head off. Not every attempt to institute a new order is successful.

Ah yes, I did study English history. And if you understood it too, you would realise that Cromwell (and his 'Commonwealth') was no different to the English monarchy and was in many ways worse. You confuse a revolution with a change in the political leadership. Revolution = change in mode of production. There was no English revolution with the establishment of the commonwealth. Also, Charles' II brother James II was deposed soon after- e.g Glorious Revolution.


Well, to understand what turly caused the fall of the revolution you have to understand that there are problems inherent in the vanguard party structure.

The vanguard party structure is the fucking problem.


I agree that a full democracy should have been in place before Lenin died, but I think there was still hope, slim though it may have been, during Stalin's reign that was completely destroyed when Khurschev came in.

You dipshit, do you honestly think that Stalin would have implemented a democratic system? And if he did it would be an incorrect move anyway because communism aims at control by workers, not control by elected officials. If this was such an ambition of Stalin it would have been done in an instant. Stalin, remember, meticulously destroyed his opposition, yet you claim that in his 25 year reign he couldn't get elections because of opposition!


I'm not offended by the label Stalinist, although I find it terribly innacurate.
I find it accurate.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 12:45 pm

the 'coup' argument is often used by the bourgoise and their lapdogs to discredit the bolshevic revolution

What a typical response; claiming that I am using a bourgeoisie argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise that it was a coup. Just because it has popular assent is irrelevent (note the recent coup in Thailand has popular asssent). All that happened was a transfer in power- from SRs and Kadets etc to Bolsheviks. Some revolution...
Listen shitheap, my argument was nothing to do with whether or not the bourgeoise use that argument, it was an observation.

I'm fully aware that a coup can be popular, by coups are not characterised by mass uprising. The word coup is just a shorthand for coup de'tat (or however the fuck one spells it) - the second bit beng french for 'head' it implies a small, often violent struggle between two elite which the russian revolution was most emphatically not.



completely deformed by Stalin's cabinet and of course when khurschev destroys any hope of bringing in a true workers democracy.

I'll ignore the point that you referred to Stalin's cabinet, not specifically Stalin. Do you honestly think that ANY party which gains power will willingly give their power over to workers? Yes. If not, well then I'm afraid we're fucked - after all unless your really off your fucking head you'll realise that there will be no spontaneous uprising without a party of some sort. I mentioned Stalin's cabinet because his officials had as much hand in the mistakes he made as he did.



King Charles II came back, dug up Cromwell and cut his head off. Not every attempt to institute a new order is successful.

Ah yes, I did study English history. And if you understood it too, you would realise that Cromwell (and his 'Commonwealth') was no different to the English monarchy and was in many ways worse. You confuse a revolution with a change in the political leadership. Revolution = change in mode of production. There was no English revolution with the establishment of the commonwealth. Also, Charles' II brother James II was deposed soon after- e.g Glorious Revolution. Bollocks. You're simply shifting the goal posts with your own fantasy definition of revolution as "any radical change in structure" to "any radical change in structure that wasn't defeated, betrayed or overurned and that martov agrees with".



Well, to understand what turly caused the fall of the revolution you have to understand that there are problems inherent in the vanguard party structure.

The vanguard party structure is the fucking problem. How utterly persuasive, dumbfuck.



I agree that a full democracy should have been in place before Lenin died, but I think there was still hope, slim though it may have been, during Stalin's reign that was completely destroyed when Khurschev came in.

You dipshit, do you honestly think that Stalin would have implemented a democratic system? And if he did it would be an incorrect move anyway because communism aims at control by workers, not control by elected officials. If this was such an ambition of Stalin it would have been done in an instant. Stalin, remember, meticulously destroyed his opposition, yet you claim that in his 25 year reign he couldn't get elections because of opposition! YOu really have no fucking clue of the political realities of the time, I'm no expert but my analysis runs deeper than your "OMGZ STAlIN WAS TEH EVIL MAN WITH UNLIMITEEED POWARR!!!ZOMGGULAGS!!" bollocks. I don't think Stalin was some god or anything, but I think it's stupid that all the anti-communists can simply get away with what is basically slander in the guise of historical fact.



I'm not offended by the label Stalinist, although I find it terribly innacurate.
I find it accurate. Then you're a cretin and arguing with you is fruitless.

[Marsella]

I'm fully aware that a coup can be popular, by coups are not characterised by mass uprising. The word coup is just a shorthand for coup de'tat (or however the fuck one spells it) - the second bit beng french for 'head' it implies a small, often violent struggle between two elite which the russian revolution was most emphatically not.

Yes: you answered it yourself: coups are not characterised by mass uprising. Was the Bolshevik 'Revolution' a mass uprising? It was chiefly the storming of the Winter Palace, with a handful of casualties and the disabandment of the Provincial government. Yes it was a struggle between two factions: the Bolshevik Party and the Provincial govenment. Go go revolution!


Yes. If not, well then I'm afraid we're fucked - after all unless your really off your fucking head you'll realise that there will be no spontaneous uprising without a party of some sort. I mentioned Stalin's cabinet because his officials had as much hand in the mistakes he made as he did.

Well history has proven you repeatedly wrong; the Russian/Chinese/ Cuban/Vietnamese 'Communists' never relinquished control. Why? Because they are as just as power-hungry and arrogant as you. Of course there will be political parties; but their role is to 'rouse' the working class into revolutionary action, not to gain control for themselves. I suggest you sit down and read the Communist Manifesto and Theses on Feurbach. Spontaneous revolution? There is no such thing. A revolution is the result of long growing inequalities in society, not the whim of a few.


Bollocks. You're simply shifting the goal posts with your own fantasy definition of revolution as "any radical change in structure" to "any radical change in structure that wasn't defeated, betrayed or overurned and that martov agrees with".

No, that is what a revolution is: a change in the MOP. You clearly have no understanding in how Marx divided history into certain epochs, a change in epochs was defined as a revolution. Therefore, the Bolshevik 'Revolution' was scarcely one. (Thats not even to mention to state-capitalistic nature of the USSR)


How utterly persuasive, dumbfuck.

Would you like me to give you a detailed account on how so-called revolutionary parties applying the vanguard structure have completely disintergrated? Oh yeah...history has already proven that. You, like others before you, put yourselves superior to the working class, claiming that their lack of consciousness and your obvious class consciousness means that you can take power on their behalf. It is an arrogant assumption and one which Marx clearly repudiated.


YOu really have no fucking clue of the political realities of the time, I'm no expert but my analysis runs deeper than your "OMGZ STAlIN WAS TEH EVIL MAN WITH UNLIMITEEED POWARR!!!ZOMGGULAGS!!" bollocks. I don't think Stalin was some god or anything, but I think it's stupid that all the anti-communists can simply get away with what is basically slander in the guise of historical fact.

I studied Russian history so yes I do understand the political realities. And my analysis wasn't "OMGZ STAlIN WAS TEH EVIL MAN WITH UNLIMITEEED POWARR!!!ZOMGGULAGS!!" Stalin absolutely solidified the Soviet regime, that's not to mention attacking all political dissent in the form of show-trials. THAT is historical fact and is unexcusable( so much for your 'slander') , so please shut the fuck up. You are clearly anti-communist by supporting such a system.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 12:45 pm

the 'coup' argument is often used by the bourgoise and their lapdogs to discredit the bolshevic revolution

What a typical response; claiming that I am using a bourgeoisie argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise that it was a coup. Just because it has popular assent is irrelevent (note the recent coup in Thailand has popular asssent). All that happened was a transfer in power- from SRs and Kadets etc to Bolsheviks. Some revolution...


completely deformed by Stalin's cabinet and of course when khurschev destroys any hope of bringing in a true workers democracy.

I'll ignore the point that you referred to Stalin's cabinet, not specifically Stalin. Do you honestly think that ANY party which gains power will willingly give their power over to workers?


King Charles II came back, dug up Cromwell and cut his head off. Not every attempt to institute a new order is successful.

Ah yes, I did study English history. And if you understood it too, you would realise that Cromwell (and his 'Commonwealth') was no different to the English monarchy and was in many ways worse. You confuse a revolution with a change in the political leadership. Revolution = change in mode of production. There was no English revolution with the establishment of the commonwealth. Also, Charles' II brother James II was deposed soon after- e.g Glorious Revolution.


Well, to understand what turly caused the fall of the revolution you have to understand that there are problems inherent in the vanguard party structure.

The vanguard party structure is the fucking problem.


I agree that a full democracy should have been in place before Lenin died, but I think there was still hope, slim though it may have been, during Stalin's reign that was completely destroyed when Khurschev came in.

You dipshit, do you honestly think that Stalin would have implemented a democratic system? And if he did it would be an incorrect move anyway because communism aims at control by workers, not control by elected officials. If this was such an ambition of Stalin it would have been done in an instant. Stalin, remember, meticulously destroyed his opposition, yet you claim that in his 25 year reign he couldn't get elections because of opposition!


I'm not offended by the label Stalinist, although I find it terribly innacurate.
I find it accurate.
Right.

I'm bored of you already, you're clearly an anit-communist with the brain power of a blob of wax, arguing with you is analogous to pounding my head repeatedly into a brick wall.

[Marsella]

Right.

I'm bored of you already, you're clearly an anit-communist with the brain power of a blob of wax, arguing with you is analogous to pounding my head repeatedly into a brick wall.

Well, firstly you copied by post before the last...its not that difficult you know...

Secondly, you gave no reasons against my argument that a revolution can not be dictated by a few. Your 'critical' response proves that you really have no logic behind your arguments.

And no, I'm not an anti-Communist. I'm just a Communist who understands what it actually means, as opposed to YOU.

Jazzratt I forgive you for Kruschev betrayal ways!

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:09 am

I studied Russian history so yes I do understand the political realities. And my analysis wasn't "OMGZ STAlIN WAS TEH EVIL MAN WITH UNLIMITEEED POWARR!!!ZOMGGULAGS!!" Stalin absolutely solidified the Soviet regime, that's not to mention attacking all political dissent in the form of show-trials. THAT is historical fact and is unexcusable( so much for your 'slander') , so please shut the fuck up. You are clearly anti-communist by supporting such a system.

Those who defend the vanguard argue that it is neccessary in order to:

1. Defend the revolution against counterattacks by the bourgeoise, and its agents.
2. Unify the workers around a common new MOP, and protect against deviations from the same.

Given the absolute fractious nature of the "Left" at a time when there is zero possibility of victory, one can assume that that sort of fracture can only increase, and perhaps grow more venemous, as victory approaches. Without the vanguard, how do you propose to hurdle the above problems?

[groundinghubris]

If I may get back on topic here:
The change in capitalist rhetoric has to do with more subtle approach to control. We in US have realized this.
The greatest way to control masses is through fear of a common or preceived enemy. It began in 79, knowing that us "old" radicals would climb out of our wheelchairs and fight what was being planned.
Slowly all our news turned to crime scenes, we were bombarded by how unsafe the world is. gradually that expanded to the us and them we have now.

For those who may not know this: the US owns 51% of the world bank (giving them financial control of worlds gov's monies)
They have not only built the most powerful military force in the world, but have the best mercenary group on payroll (Blackwater).
They have passed bills and enacted laws aimed at detaining citizens. No longer needing warrants nor trial by juries. built up 800 detention camps, empty but fully staffed and opened across the US.
They have manipulated our voting system so that we have not elected our own president in at least 7yrs. not only federal elections but key state ones also.
This has given rise to the worst possible scenerio, one government rule. it is not only possible but it is being set into motion.
The rhetoric has changed for a very good reason. The motives have changed.

and as wonderful as it is for people to get together and spew opposite rhetoric, and regurgitate old theories, idealogies, and philosophies, it will not stop what is happening.
the world has moved way past the people taking over production. we are a world ran by technology. computers, satilites, and interdependant upon each other now for basic resources.

maybe it is time to move leftist thinking into 21st century. capitalist have changed theirs, is it not time to begin to rethink and change ours?

[t_wolves_fan]

t wolves fan - first of all is 'bloviate' a word? Secondly, what does it mean?

Yes it is a word. As Jazzratt illustrated, it basically means to be a blowhard.


Also, why attack Jazzratt for asking a simple question?

It was not an attack, it was a fair question.

In another thread, a poster claimed that the Soviet Union never engaged in ethnic cleansing. When I told him to ask descendents of the many ethnic groups that were cleansed by the USSR after World War II, Jazzratt piped up and said everything I know about Soviet history came from bourgeoisie schools, a non-sequitr that obviously implies it is a lie that the Soviet Union engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Then on this thread, she admits she knows next to nothing about Soviet history.

Now notice her response in this thread: does she admit she may have been wrong about ethnic cleansing? No, she doesn't. Does she provide any evidence to refute my claim that the USSR engaged in ethnic cleansing? No, she doesn't. Istead she uses a tried-and-true deflection tactic: she says "go look elsewhere for a discussion of the Soviet Union's crimes...", which means "I'm neither admitting I was wrong nor providing evidence for why I am right, I'm just hoping you'll go away so that my indiscretion is forgotten".

Think about it: what good would it do me to go find a discussion of the Soviet Union's crimes? Is Jazzratt involved in that discussion? I don't know, maybe she is. But if Jazzratt has already had this discussion and knows all the facts, why would she have insinuated that stories of ethnic cleansing are a lie taught in bourgeoisie schools?



What's more important, to state your point, to win or to make a connection? :mellow:

To make a point that is based at least somewhat on fact. Simply throwing stuff out hoping it will stick because the other party isn't paying attention is pathetic.

[Marsella]

Firstly, I support the notion of a party which via various means (e.g. propoganda) promote class consciousness. What Jazzfuck here proposes is that the vanguard is the be-all end all.


To us Communists, power is only a means. .
Rosa Luxembourg


1. Defend the revolution against counterattacks by the bourgeoise, and its agents.

What bourgeoise? A Communist revolution makes it impossible for a Capitalist to be...well, a capitalist.

As for the more imminent threats of the bourgeoise and their 'agents'. What we are really getting at here is foreign intervention & civil war (as was the case in Russia). All revolutions have had foreign intervention. In the case of Communist revolutions capitalist aggression from various countries will unify the working class. This was clearly demonstrated in the Russian revolution and numerous other examples. A revolution will not succeed without the support of the working class, and likewise, attacks against a revolution will not succeed with the support of the working class.

More importantly, why can't the working class defend themselves against capitalist aggression? Remember: it was them that took to arms in the first place and should do so again in the face of such threats.

Essentially, the vanguard proposes more problems than it can solve.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:06 am
Firstly, I support the notion of a party which via various means (e.g. propoganda) promote class consciousness. What Jazzfuck here proposes is that the vanguard is the be-all end all.


To us Communists, power is only a means. .
Rosa Luxembourg


1. Defend the revolution against counterattacks by the bourgeoise, and its agents.

What bourgeoise? A Communist revolution makes it impossible for a Capitalist to be...well, a capitalist.

As for the more imminent threats of the bourgeoise and their 'agents'. What we are really getting at here is foreign intervention & civil war (as was the case in Russia). All revolutions have had foreign intervention. In the case of Communist revolutions capitalist aggression from various countries will unify the working class. This was clearly demonstrated in the Russian revolution and numerous other examples. A revolution will not succeed without the support of the working class, and likewise, attacks against a revolution will not succeed with the support of the working class.

More importantly, why can't the working class defend themselves against capitalist aggression? Remember: it was them that took to arms in the first place and should do so again in the face of such threats.

Essentially, the vanguard proposes more problems than it can solve.
Unless there is to be a spontaneous, overnight communist revolt, there will always be lag time, so to speak.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:06 pm
Firstly, I support the notion of a party which via various means (e.g. propoganda) promote class consciousness. What Jazzfuck here proposes is that the vanguard is the be-all end all.
No I don't.

What part of


there are problems inherent in the vanguard party structure.

do you not understand, hunchbrain?

By the way "Jazzfuck"? Couldn't you have tried something vaguely amusing and clever like Jizzratt? Even your insults are crap.

Anyway, further proof that you have all the cognitive power of a stuffed penguin.

[Marsella]

For those who may not know this: the US owns 51% of the world bank (giving them financial control of worlds gov's monies)
They have not only built the most powerful military force in the world, but have the best mercenary group on payroll (Blackwater).
They have passed bills and enacted laws aimed at detaining citizens. No longer needing warrants nor trial by juries. built up 800 detention camps, empty but fully staffed and opened across the US.
They have manipulated our voting system so that we have not elected our own president in at least 7yrs. not only federal elections but key state ones also.
This has given rise to the worst possible scenerio, one government rule. it is not only possible but it is being set into motion.
The rhetoric has changed for a very good reason. The motives have changed.

Yes I agree that America has engaged in some disgraceful behaviour. However, the examples/statistics that you give are trivial and are mainly utilised by liberals. It goes along with the same old stance that 'Oh-My-God-Bush-Is-A-Nazi.' Liberal democracy has always been one-government rule. Trial by jury? Tell that to the poor souls who were lynched years back.


the world has moved way past the people taking over production. we are a world ran by technology. computers, satilites, and interdependant upon each other now for basic resources.

Don't know what computers and 'satilites' have to do with anything. The world is not 'ran' by technology and the like.

Where do you think that all these problems stem from? You simply attack the US without attacking the causes of such problems.


maybe it is time to move leftist thinking into 21st century. capitalist have changed theirs, is it not time to begin to rethink and change ours?

Capitalists haven't changed their stances: profit is still king.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:06 pm
Firstly, I support the notion of a party which via various means (e.g. propoganda) promote class consciousness.
Propaganda being what it is (untruth), you seem to admit that "class consciousness" is not something natural, which would suggest that you pursue it to aggrandize your own power. Yes?

[Marsella]

Propaganda being what it is (untruth), you seem to admit that "class consciousness" is not something natural, which would suggest that you pursue it to aggrandize your own power. Yes?

Propaganda isn't simply untruth. Propaganda is an effective means to convince people of a particular stance. Its a shortcut instead of getting a person to sit down and read 500 pages of Das Kapital!

Class consciousness is typically a result of conflict between 'who owns what and who does what.' For example, in the feudal area, feudal property simply couldn't supply the wealth to the rising bourgeoisie. There lies class consciousness; a realisation of your classes position.

In the capitalist era, we recognise class consciousness as the realisation, on the part of the workers, that the capitalist is unnecessary, that capitalism aims for their (workers) detriment and the capitalists enrichment.

The problem, as Lenin pointed out, is that such a class consciousness hasn't arised. There lies the role of the vanguard.

Why? IMO because capitalism has implanted the idea that 'we can all succeed if we just try hard.' This is of course true to some extent. Futhermore, Marx was relying on the notion that the worker was only paid a wage equivalent to his bare survival. This is not the case. Workers are paid more than the cost of their existence and therefore are oblivious to their exploitation or simply uncaring.

I have gone of track a bit, but as I have previously mentioned, I don't want power; I want the working class to have complete power. I don't think that a vanguard, however, can conceptualise that.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, as I've said before that argument if implemented would about as well as herding cats, because I don't think you can have a worldwide revolution of so many people based on one shared circumstance when their opinions and beliefs on so many other issues are incredibly diverse.

There's also the problem that a lot of the global proletariat is better off than they were a few years ago or their parents were, which makes it hard for people to believe they're getting hosed.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:21 pm

For those who may not know this: the US owns 51% of the world bank (giving them financial control of worlds gov's monies)
They have not only built the most powerful military force in the world, but have the best mercenary group on payroll (Blackwater).
They have passed bills and enacted laws aimed at detaining citizens. No longer needing warrants nor trial by juries. built up 800 detention camps, empty but fully staffed and opened across the US.
They have manipulated our voting system so that we have not elected our own president in at least 7yrs. not only federal elections but key state ones also.
This has given rise to the worst possible scenerio, one government rule. it is not only possible but it is being set into motion.
The rhetoric has changed for a very good reason. The motives have changed.

Yes I agree that America has engaged in some disgraceful behaviour. However, the examples/statistics that you give are trivial and are mainly utilised by liberals. It goes along with the same old stance that 'Oh-My-God-Bush-Is-A-Nazi.' Liberal democracy has always been one-government rule. Trial by jury? Tell that to the poor souls who were lynched years back.


the world has moved way past the people taking over production. we are a world ran by technology. computers, satilites, and interdependant upon each other now for basic resources.

Don't know what computers and 'satilites' have to do with anything. The world is not 'ran' by technology and the like.

Where do you think that all these problems stem from? You simply attack the US without attacking the causes of such problems.


maybe it is time to move leftist thinking into 21st century. capitalist have changed theirs, is it not time to begin to rethink and change ours?

Capitalists haven't changed their stances: profit is still king.
The world is not ran by technology? Where you been the past 30 yrs? those who own the technology and satellites control all communications, even spaced based weapons, computerized tracking, money transfers, etc...

How do you plan a revolution in todays world? unless it is third world nation with no resources wanted by UK, US, Euro market? otherwise these nations will blow your asses away or buy your country out, such is beginning to happen in south america.

All I am saying is to get past the past, Marxism was written at beginning of industrial revolution, we are way past that era. We need new thinkers, ones who see past their own front doors. Ones whose world views are not based on thinkings written hundred years or more ago.
What better way to keep the people down, then keep them hooked on ideals that are outdated. destroy critical thinking skills and ability to breath life back into leftist thinking.


any thought past the old school is liberalism?

think people need educating on some realities of todays warfare, production modes, and political structures. get out of the dusty books and move into the now.

I find nothing trival about my statistics. put it with our new claim to immiment domain of outer space, the new ionic weapons developed by mit, and the building and implenmenting those things into space. if these things are not stopped. there will be no future for any leftist revolutions. grow up, get educated, and stop regurgitating.
damn, i have read nothing new here, nothing i have not heard nor read for over 35 years. while the world marchs on, we ourselves are keeping leftist revolutions in the dark ages.

You may get pissed and call me names all you want. but the truth is the truth. i will not pretend otherwise.

you want a leftist revolution? at best in todays world it will be very limited. if we ignore the globalization and the new political structures that are in place then we are making ourselves ineffective.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:57 pm
Well, as I've said before that argument if implemented would about as well as herding cats, because I don't think you can have a worldwide revolution of so many people based on one shared circumstance when their opinions and beliefs on so many other issues are incredibly diverse.

There's also the problem that a lot of the global proletariat is better off than they were a few years ago or their parents were, which makes it hard for people to believe they're getting hosed.
not sure if you have just bought into the illusion that we are better off, or maybe you are just plain deluded?

[Marsella]

Where you been the past 30 yrs?

Mostly unborn.


The world is not ran by technology? Where you been the past 30 yrs? those who own the technology and satellites control all communications, even spaced based weapons, computerized tracking, money transfers,

Now I agree with you. Technology does not drive the world. Those behind control it do.


How do you plan a revolution in todays world? unless it is third world nation with no resources wanted by UK, US, Euro market? otherwise these nations will blow your asses away or buy your country out, such is beginning to happen in south america.

Beginning to happen? Maybe you need to get educated.


We need new thinkers, ones who see past their own front doors. Ones whose world views are not based on thinkings written hundred years or more ago.
What better way to keep the people down, then keep them hooked on ideals that are outdated. destroy critical thinking skills and ability to breath life back into leftist thinking.

I agree (to an extent). Maybe you should read my post at the top of the page.


think people need educating on some realities of todays warfare, production modes, and political structures. get out of the dusty books and move into the now.

err...we are discussing today's society- I just highlighted how wages are used to keep workers reactionary.



I find nothing trival about my statistics. put it with our new claim to immiment domain of outer space, the new ionic weapons developed by mit, and the building and implenmenting those things into space. if these things are not stopped. there will be no future for any leftist revolutions. grow up, get educated, and stop regurgitating.

Oh my God, the freaking Imperialist Americans are going to invade Mars! No! No! THIS isn't trivial! You, in the politest way possible, are raving.


damn, i have read nothing new here, nothing i have not heard nor read for over 35 years. while the world marchs on, we ourselves are keeping leftist revolutions in the dark ages.

If your reading the same old crap, then maybe you should start writing new crap.


you want a leftist revolution? at best in todays world it will be very limited. if we ignore the globalization and the new political structures that are in place then we are making ourselves ineffective.

I disagree. I imagine the future communist revolutions to be the most radical and democratic to date. BTW, as Wolf mentioned globalization, by far, is doing the worlds poor a favour and creating revolutionary situations

[groundinghubris]

I think you Martov are very uneducated in todays warfare and the impact it will have on modern revolutions. You believe this to be scifi, it is not mars the weapons are directed at. and it can be researched through MIT websites, US government websites, and just asking the people of alaska regarding the land site.
my, my how did we get so blind to how advanced. our technology is?

anyone notice how bush recently bought almost 200,000 acres of South Americas land?
How it just happens to hold a large abundence of natural resources? hmmmm.

but again i am raving. just keep in mind that everything i have said is public record if you know where to look and take time to research.


I am only trying to educate and make people aware of what they are up against. the days of workers controlling production are gone.

people whether oppressed by capitalist government or leftist government are still oppressed. and both sides are only given as much freedom as those who control the resources allow them.

no government should have that power and the only way to ensure that is to take the power away.

[Marsella]

.I think you Martov are very uneducated in todays warfare and the impact it will have on modern revolutions. You believe this to be scifi, it is not mars the weapons are directed at. and it can be researched through MIT websites, US government websites, and just asking the people of alaska regarding the land site.
my, my how did we get so blind to how advanced. our technology is?

Are you on drugs?


anyone notice how bush recently bought almost 200,000 acres of South Americas land?
How it just happens to hold a large abundence of natural resources? hmmmm.

Note: South America isn't a country. And don't be a liberal fuck up who blames everything on Bush. You attack Bush for buying foreign land yet what about the system that supports it?

I
am only trying to educate and make people aware of what they are up against. the days of workers controlling production are gone.

people whether oppressed by capitalist government or leftist government are still oppressed. and both sides are only given as much freedom as those who control the resources allow them.

no government should have that power and the only way to ensure that is to take the power away.

How do you take their power away? I advocate workers control. You criticise what capitalism does yet don't want to give people control over their lives (essentially, their work). You can't take the middle ground. Why don't you just spell out what you stand for.

And BTW, the claims which you put forth need to have some sort of references since the onus rests on you...'immiment domain of outer space' Does that mean I can live on the moon?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 04:22 pm
not sure if you have just bought into the illusion that we are better off, or maybe you are just plain deluded?
Um, we are better off. (http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html)

The problem is that you have your own definition of "better off". To you it does not matter if people's lives improved or not. For instance if a person went from subsistence farming to working a Nike factory for $4 a day, you do not view that person as being "better off" even though that person may for the first time in his life have a steady income and a steady food supply. You look at his standing versus a rich capitalist in the first world, and since the capitalist became much more better off at a faster rate, you've simply determined that the improvement in the sweatshop worker's life is irrelevant.

You probably look at the sweatshop worker and decide that if he doesn't have what you have, his life sucks and that's all there is to it. Nevermind the opinion of the worker himself. Nevermind the opinion of say millions upon millions of Chinese, Taiwanese or Indians whose families went from subsistence farming to sweatshop labor to white-collar work and a spot in the middle class in the past 20-50 years, their improvement is irrelevant because a few people over in the States went from being millionaires to being billionaires.

Right?

Why don't you just define for me what "better off" would mean to you, which I'm guessing would be along the lines of "equal to everyone else"?

[jasmine]

t wolves fan - I haven't seen the thread about ethnic cleansing so you may be right.

I think the difficulty with the debating style here is that it's like trench warfare. Everybody digs in and takes aim. When I first encountered the 'religious ideology' board I thought it was some sort of cyberspace logical-positivist reeducation camp where the leftists flog the believers until they admit there is no God.


To make a point that is based at least somewhat on fact. Simply throwing stuff out hoping it will stick because the other party isn't paying attention is pathetic.

Not sure what this means. Are you saying I do this or Jazzratt does this?

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 05:30 pm

.I think you Martov are very uneducated in todays warfare and the impact it will have on modern revolutions. You believe this to be scifi, it is not mars the weapons are directed at. and it can be researched through MIT websites, US government websites, and just asking the people of alaska regarding the land site.
my, my how did we get so blind to how advanced. our technology is?

Are you on drugs?


anyone notice how bush recently bought almost 200,000 acres of South Americas land?
How it just happens to hold a large abundence of natural resources? hmmmm.

Note: South America isn't a country. And don't be a liberal fuck up who blames everything on Bush. You attack Bush for buying foreign land yet what about the system that supports it?

I
am only trying to educate and make people aware of what they are up against. the days of workers controlling production are gone.

people whether oppressed by capitalist government or leftist government are still oppressed. and both sides are only given as much freedom as those who control the resources allow them.

no government should have that power and the only way to ensure that is to take the power away.

How do you take their power away? I advocate workers control. You criticise what capitalism does yet don't want to give people control over their lives (essentially, their work). You can't take the middle ground. Why don't you just spell out what you stand for.

And BTW, the claims which you put forth need to have some sort of references since the onus rests on you...'immiment domain of outer space' Does that mean I can live on the moon?
First off duhhhh i never said South America was a country. I realize it is a continent.
but he who controls the natural resources controls the people regardless of where they are. Never think for one minute that natural resources are so plentiful in every country that owning resources will not give great power.

imminet domain of space (http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf)

• Develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain U.S. advantage and support defense

and intelligence transformation; and

• Employ appropriate planning, programming, and budgeting activities, organizational

arrangements, and strategies that result in an operational force structure and optimized

space capabilities that support the national and homeland security.

To achieve the goals of this policy, the Secretary of Defense shall:

• Maintain the capabilities to execute the space support, force enhancement, space control,

and force application missions;

• Establish specific intelligence requirements that can be met by tactical, operational, or

national-level intelligence gathering capabilities;

• Provide, as launch agent for both the defense and intelligence sectors, reliable, affordable,

and timely space access for national security purposes;

• Provide space capabilities to support continuous, global strategic and tactical warning as

well as multi-layered and integrated missile defenses;

• Develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if

directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries;

you can go to the government webpage and read the whole thing there.

no you do not live on mars, like i said, weapons are not directed at mars again duhhhhhh

• Fusion Weapons
• Fission bomb sets off a larger fusion bomb
• Yields unlimited in theory; up to 50MT can fit in planes or missiles
• Very complicated -- testing is probably required
• Probably used by only the five declared nuclear powers

tech review page (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14560)

HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes.
HAARP (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/index.html)

I would suggest if you know someone with working knowledge of physics to explain what development of a station which works by using ions.
Keep in mind also, these are all government sites, and government approved releases.

I am for the workers. I am for all oppressed peoples. Which is why I look at the whole picture realistically. otherwise whatever is said or done is fruitless.
things have grown too large and elite too powerful for old ideals.
and not a liberal fuck who blames everything on bush. he and US only one part of the whole picture.

and since you were not even born when i began fighting for the people, you might be wise to listen to someone who has been there, done that, and now knows reality (cause its bite her on the ass too many times)
What i stand for is peoples rights not only over their work but their lives. their freedoms, safety, basic needs. far beyond just work. the ability to maintain their rights by dismantling powers that control natural resources, militarization, and the elimination of any banking system other then ones which are co-op and ran by the people.
that is what i stand for. I get my beliefs not only out of books and forums, but life experiences, and first hand from people who have fought the revolutions.

I am not here as a young adult just now beginning to discover life, but as an elder who has lived it. To me this is not rhetoric to repeat and brag about out of youthful rebellion, but a way of life. a long life which has seen many things you could never imagine.

Maybe you do live on the moon, since you seem to have been lost in another world that no longer exist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:13 pm
and since you were not even born when i began fighting for the people,
Given your movement's continued lack of success, did it ever occur to you that you might be on the wrong path?

Also, were you embarassed by the fact that you turned out to be wrong when you claimed that more than half of all Americans live in poverty? Did you know you were wrong when you typed it or did you just assume it was true?

Now that you know it not to be true, will you take the truth into account or will you simply dismiss it?

[Marsella]

For those who may not know this: the US owns 51% of the world bank (giving them financial control of worlds gov's monies)
Is that what your referring to Wolf?

[jasmine]

This is such a complicated thread it's hard to know what to comment on.

Jazzratt - I don't understand how Khruschev somehow perverted the process of democratisation of the Soviet Union. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Stalin wanted to democratise the Soviet Union. The secret speech seems to have been part of a factional struggle within the bureaucracy and partly motivated by Khruschev's guilt at his role in the murder of so many people. Nothing much changed afterwards. Some people were released from the camps, some dead but denounced Bolsheviks were rehabilitated but otherwise it was business as usual. Mao did not approve of Khruschev and I suspect your view somehow reflects the objections of the CCP. But that's just a guess.

In general the big advantage we have in looking at the Soviet Union is that we can see it from beginning to end. Whether or not you characterise the Bolshevik siezure of power as a coup it was certainly the Bolsheviks and not the working class that took power. The bureaucracy was the party which was why Stalin's murderous purge in the late 1930's was aimed at party members.

At the end of the 1980's the Soviet Union collapsed taking with it the regimes in eastern europe. Mostly these regimes collapsed without so much as a whimper (the Soviet Union was a bit more drawn out). Noticably the working class did not fight to defend these systems - insofar as the working class was active it was in demanding the dismantling of the state bureaucracy.

These were top down, centralised command economies and they failed. They were simply not viable economically when faced with the challenge of western capitalism. As such they are in no way a model for the future - in fact they are an example of what not to do.

[Marsella]

jasmine why are you restricted?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:52 pm

For those who may not know this: the US owns 51% of the world bank (giving them financial control of worlds gov's monies)
Is that what your referring to Wolf?
I highly doubt it.

I had a friend who worked for the World Bank. She thought you people were hilarious because none of you actually understand what they do. Which is made clear by the fact that someone here thinks 51% control of the world bank gives anyone control over the nation's currencies. Warren Buffet has more control over the global currency market than does the World Bank.

And no, that's not a cue for you to begin a diatribe about what you think they do.

[jasmine]

jasmine why are you restricted?

Nobody told me but I am not a revolutionary - I don't think history has shown that the working class has the capacity to sieze power and institute a better society. I think this is a pity but I don't see how it's possible to believe otherwise. Also I believe in life after death, so that's at least two very black marks I guess.

[groundinghubris]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 20, 2006 06:43 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 20, 2006 06:43 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 06:13 pm
and since you were not even born when i began fighting for the people,
Given your movement's continued lack of success, did it ever occur to you that you might be on the wrong path?

Also, were you embarassed by the fact that you turned out to be wrong when you claimed that more than half of all Americans live in poverty? Did you know you were wrong when you typed it or did you just assume it was true?

Now that you know it not to be true, will you take the truth into account or will you simply dismiss it? [/b]
Not sure how i was proved wrong, since i used your own governments information. so if anyone its wrong it is them. but they lie about everything else, so why not?

should have known you were connected with world bank. and owning 51% does matter, as with anything, it gives the voting power of board. duhhhhhh

did my movement have lack of success? do you even know what i was talking about?

and i missed your proving the statistics wrong, where are they so i may read them and find where you got your info. i like to do my own research.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:35 pm

jasmine why are you restricted?

Nobody told me but I am not a revolutionary - I don't think history has shown that the working class has the capacity to sieze power and institute a better society. I think this is a pity but I don't see how it's possible to believe otherwise. Also I believe in life after death, so that's at least two very black marks I guess.
Pretty accurate. Although it was more for the former 'black mark' than the latter. We do, after all have unrestricted victims of superstition on this board.

[jasmine]

We do, after all have unrestricted victims of superstition on this board.

Very true. And lots of them.

I suspect though I was restricted because I upset you and Cryotank. In a practical sense on issues like racism, gay rights etc. my views fall in the socialist camp. I just know enough about history not to expect the revolution any time soon.

In any case, I don't really care (about being restricted that is).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Restricted jasmine -- preacher, cappie, troll.

According to LSD.

-Alex

[jasmine]

I'm so glad this board has returned so I can reply to this. Somehow it just makes life seem so worthwhile

preacher - not at all, I express my views less vehemently than most, do not demand that others agree with me, and do not claim to have the answer to most things, much less everything.

cappie - also wrong. I do not advocate capitalism, I just don't believe in the socialist revolution. This is far too tricky for LSD and his little friends to understand.

troll - don't know what this means although no doubt some kind person will explain soon.

By the way, have you banned the white nationalist yet?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:01 pm
preacher - not at all, I express my views less vehemently than most, do not demand that others agree with me, and do not claim to have the answer to most things, much less everything.
Our defintion of preaching on this board is weird, often it simply means "declaring god exists and defending this point of view", which isn't really praching but members should be restricted for it. The exceptions to this rule tend to be muslims or christians that keep quiet about it.

Personally I think restricting you for preaching was stupid.


cappie - also wrong. I do not advocate capitalism, I just don't believe in the socialist revolution. This is far too tricky for LSD and his little friends to understand. I suppose you're right there as well however ypu still belong in OI - where we send all reformists.


troll - don't know what this means although no doubt some kind person will explain soon. Someone who makes posts of no real content simply to irritate the normal, non brain damaged, members of this board. At the time of your restriction you were acting in a highly trollish manner, but not anymore.

So, with the benifit of hindsight and so on, I would simply restrict you as a reformist.


By the way, have you banned the white nationalist yet? We have. The reason it took so long is that our admin team consists of something like four people, one of which does the vast majority of the work and none of which use this subforum. They are not always on this site - they have lives outside of it, therfore administration issues (like banning members) sometimes has delays of days. Quite a few members thing the admin team should be larger for this precise reason - I'm one of them.

[jasmine]

So, with the benifit of hindsight and so on, I would simply restrict you as a reformist.

I know a lot more about Marxism than many who post here. Which is why I am not a revolutionary.

As for the trolling - Cryotank does this habitually as do many others on the idiotic threads demanding proof for the existence of God. Both you and Cryotank have done enough to be banned many times over by your own criteria, but you are friends of the administrators so for you the rules are different.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:03 pm

So, with the benifit of hindsight and so on, I would simply restrict you as a reformist.

I know a lot more about Marxism than many who post here. Which is why I am not a revolutionary.
Regardless of your reasons you are a reformist and therfore unwelcome on the main board.


As for the trolling - Cryotank does this habitually as do many others on the idiotic threads demanding proof for the existence of God. Asking for proof that god exists is not trolling, posting insults is not trolling as long as it's not the only thing you do.
Both you and Cryotank have done enough to be banned many times over by your own criteria, No we haven't. I've simply insulted people while making an argument. Cryotank hasn't done anything bannable either.
but you are friends of the administrators so for you the rules are different. :lol: The administrators are my 'friends' - I don't think they're that aware I exist. I've never really spoken to or argued with them. The rules apply as much to me as they do to you. If I declared that I wasn't revolutionary I'd end up caged like you.

[jasmine]

Regardless of your reasons you are a reformist and therfore unwelcome on the main board.

This is all bullshit and lies - you really disappoint me. Croyotank is an abusive idiot who has maybe read a couple of maoist pamphlets.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by jasmine+December 31, 2006 07:48 pm--> (jasmine @ December 31, 2006 07:48 pm)
Regardless of your reasons you are a reformist and therfore unwelcome on the main board.

This is all bullshit and lies [/b]

you-just now. Fuckwit
I am not a revolutionary
Straight from the horses motherfucking mouth.


you really disappoint me. It was never my intention to provide anything for you. Your "disapointment" is an utter irrelevance.
Croyotank is an abusive idiot who has maybe read a couple of maoist pamphlets. I've read the arguments he's had with others on other parts of this board and I can tell you that your statement is utterly false. Most of the time he his not abusive and he used to be a maoist but is now a convinced anarchist. I really think you should drop your obsession with him.

[jasmine]

Straight from the horses motherfucking mouth.

You are dishonest and gutless and deserve whatever comes your way.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 08:06 pm

Straight from the horses motherfucking mouth.

You are dishonest and gutless and deserve whatever comes your way.
Maybe I do deserve everything that comes my way. Maybe I'm a coward. But I am not dishonest.

Even if you prove that I am wrong I can assure you that it is not deliberate.

[jasmine]

Maybe I do deserve everything that comes my way. Maybe I'm a coward. But I am not dishonest.

You hide behind your abuse. This is what is so dishonest. Why not just say what you have to say?

Also, people like Cryotank, who celebrate your ability to abuse others are doing you a great disservice.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:02 pm

Maybe I do deserve everything that comes my way. Maybe I'm a coward. But I am not dishonest.

You hide behind your abuse.
What am I hiding behind the abuse exactly?


This is what is so dishonest. Why not just say what you have to say? Most of the time I do. Abuse is part of what I have to say.


Also, people like Cryotank, who celebrate your ability to abuse others are doing you a great disservice. I think Cryotank is the only one who does that - if my (rather egotistical) signature is anything to go by - but I wouldn't consider it a disservice. They have found something of mine which brings them some small sense of joy or entertainment or whatever - and that in turn makes me happy.

[jasmine]

Because Jazzratt, you have things to say and you do not have to hurl abuse. It's new years eve, happy new year, you can relate to people, convince them, interest them without ínsulting them. Really, the ability to insult someone is not an asset. It's quite the opposite.

Try being yourself, with what you know and what you don't know. You may be pleasantly surprised.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:26 pm
Try being yourself, with what you know and what you don't know. You may be pleasantly surprised.
I'm always myself on here. This is how I talk to people in real life.

I sent a PM, because this off topic bit will be split and, most likley, trashed.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:01 pm
cappie - also wrong. I do not advocate capitalism, I just don't believe in the socialist revolution. This is far too tricky for LSD and his little friends to understand.
What do you believe in? Feudalism?

[jasmine]

What do you believe in? Feudalism?

I think this is a candidate for most moronic posting of 2006.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 03:01 am
troll - don't know what this means although no doubt some kind person will explain soon.


Troll (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm)

there....hope you understand.i'm not intend to come join your "debate",but as you ask for someone to explain, so there's the answer.

[Rawthentic]

haha, ok.

Communism is not a faith, it is a revolutionary ideology, the next step in the historical process. To deny that capitalism will fall means that you actually are ignorant and stupid. The inherent contradictions in capitalism and its dynamics create its own downfall.

I have a feeling even someone like you can understand this, but you're reluctant to.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:57 am
I think this is a candidate for most moronic posting of 2006.
Your'e evading the question. If you do not believe in capitalism, what do you believe in?

[Marsella]

To deny that capitalism will fall means that you actually are ignorant and stupid. The inherent contradictions in capitalism and its dynamics create its own downfall.

I agree with that on Marx's analysis of capitalism. But specific aspects of that analysis proved incorrect; wage labor is not equal to cost of life of worker etc. In other words, the proletariat ceased to exist or raised itself (I'm referring to the most advanced capitalist countries here). But I still agree that capitalism needs to go, whether it is pushed over or falls on its own account.