Can Democrats be 'not nice'? - buddy, can you spare me a tho

[peaccenicked]

Call me a boring old dogmatist
but I always thought it was the anti democrats who were 'not nice'.
Can anyone here argue for ideological compatibility?
Should we go around defending peoples right not to be nice? Is there such a thing as revolutionary integrity and example?
Maybe there is a new nihilistic fashion that I have missed, could somebody explain it to me? I so like to be kept up to date with modern thinking.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:21 am on Mar. 17, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
As the Irish say "nice to be nice; shoot the breeze and talk about nothing".
Good manners cost nothing except effort, and ill-mannered behaviour shows the person has not risen above the low ethos, that a person should be contemptuous of, that is the dog eat dog mentality of the BORGS.

People like vox, are all theory and no socialists spirit. Until there is a socialist movement, I would rather talk to a mild mannered crypto-fascist in favour of sterilising people than a so-called socialist like vox, who seems comfortable with having ugly manners.
Contempt from a fellow traveller deserves to be treat with contempt, and it is an insult to everyone in the Community, because it is not just treating people as if they are dirt, it is calling them scum bastards up front.
It is vile sectarianism at its worst.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[sabre]

cmon man enough with you and vox, were going to have to separate you two like little children ! :)

anyways yes democrats can be mean, but conservatives are moreso usually

[TheDerminator]

Sabre,
Your stuff to La Rainbeaux seemed more than a bit childish to me. I mean if U look at the threads, vox has only responded to me about three times. The battle has been between vox and peaccenicked to the greatest extent. Doesn't sound to me as if you read the serious threads. I have responded to vox, but the latter has chickened out of responding to me, and the threads bare testimony to this fact. I should add that Iron Heel has had a great deal more troubled discourse with vox.
El Che has been following the threads, and can verify the above. U are far off the mark, and it sounds to me a childish uniformed moan about something U have not looked into with any depth.
Durp.
Pointing one finger forward can point three fingers back....

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:37 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[El Che]

Well I dont know if he chicken out, but he did stop responding. However I dont think its because he is chicken, rather its because he is being atacked by socialists and "capitalists" alike. That has a way of getting to a person....

[peaccenicked]

what is true is that personal attacks have a way of getting to a person, that is the nature of such unneccessary 'arguments'. Vox pulled his/her gun of violent lannguage 'scum'etc and I took it out of his hand
and turned it back on him/her and I brought it to wider attention.

[TheDerminator]

El Che,
I think vox is a bit thicker skinned than that. I mean, not many opponents start off with saying I know I am unpleasant. I am not saying U ought to be nice to the enemy, but there are two points.
Firstly, U ought to think of yourself as having an intrinsically decent human essence and that spiritual essence is attached to socalist spiritual essence.
Secondly, I disagree with anarchists, very strongly, but to regard them as worst than BORGS is complete alienating sectarianism. vox is coming from a left wing sectarian point of view, and it is an insult to everyone who is against the system, whether anarchists or socialists.
Most anarchists do not share the sectarianism of vox and all this is done in the name of Karl Marx, by vox. The whole tone to peaccenicked and Iron Heel is egoitistical self-righteous sectarianism.
It is an appalling transmogrification of the socialist spirit, and U cannot expect us to lie back and take all that shit from vox.
Finally, I want to add one more point.
vox against socialists and BORGS. What about socialists against anarchists and |BORGS? We are a divided community, and peaccenicked, Iron Heel, Rosa, myself and other others are also being attacked on more than one front.
Don't kid a kidder El Che, U are well capable of joining people like Lardlad and vox on issues that socialists strongly oppose, so let us just have a civilised discussion, without cheap insults that alienate people, and give the insulting person a cheap ego boost.
May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Supermodel]

ummmm.....
this is the internet folks......
you are taking this too seriously.......
Stop and think for a minute. Your virtual identity is offended by another's virtual identity. Hit the "next" button.

[vox]

"vox is coming from a left wing sectarian point of view..."

I am?

Please define the sect to which I belong.

Thanks,

vox

[Lefty]

umm...discussing voxs' personality? uh, gentlemen, this is pitiful. Go do something worth your time. it is obvious to me that augusto, imp. power, vox and reagenlives are on this just to piss you off! so make fun of them, cuz they are just making fun of you. seriously, even a capitalist wouldnt be so dumb as to name himself reagan lives?

or would he?

[vox]

Lefty,

I was here before them so your argument, that I'm here for some reactionary reason, seems a bit flawed, no?

vox

[vox]

TheDerminator,

"Don't kid a kidder El Che, U are well capable of joining people like Lardlad and vox on issues that socialists strongly oppose..."

What issues would those be? I'm against Democratic Centralism, true, but so are many socialists. So, other than that, exactly what issues do you have in mind?

vox

[TheDerminator]

vox,
a person in Northern Ireland does not have to be a member of a Unionist party in order to be a bigot. It is simplisitic to think that ideologies are purely delineated by party political affiliations.

You see Supermodel and Lefty think its handbags at first dawn, but I wish this was the case.
Sectarianism, is the most pernicious destroyer of the international socialist movement.
vox - definition:
You are sectarian, because you take an alienated stance against those you have strong disagreements with in the left-wing movement containing various fellow travellers.
As soon as you make the left-wing more hated than the BORGS, you show yourself up a sectarian. You alienate people who have atleast in some form who have rejected the BORG system. Even to commit that error with Stalinists is sectarianism.
We have no socialist movement as such, so we can only be long-termists, and realise that if such an internationalist movement really got off the ground, the anarchists of today, and even the Stalinists of today are going to be more readily swept up in the momentum than those rooted in the BORG mindset, which is an older more complicatedly originated mindset.
[End of defintion]
I don't think you are here to take the piss as Lefty thinks, but at the same time, often one meets socialists with a bull-dog mentality that is incapable of questioning its own validity, and this will remain so, until there is a real socialist movement.

"What issues would those be? I'm against Democratic Centralism, true, but so are many socialists. So, other than that, exactly what issues do you have in mind"

vox,
You showed your hand in relation to Chomsky. I gave the full quote in response, and highlighted why it was an inadequate alternative to Democratic Centalism paragraph by paragraph.
Your alternative is anarchist organisation, and if there is more to it than that, then return to the thread and state why it is more than an anarchist ultra-democratic ideology which would have called Marx a **** if he tried to lead a socialist international movement.
What is the difference?
Does not the socialist libertarianism of Chomsky = anarchist organisation?
What is the difference?

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[vox]

TheDerminator,

I'm afraid I'm still a little confused. In your definition of sectarianism, you seem to so that I am, but others are not? I'm not certain, but that seems to be what you're saying.

Wouldn't Leninists also be considered sectarian? Stalinists? Trots? I believe that they would be in a dictionary sense of the word.

Also, I don't quite see where Stalinists are "fellow travellers." I've never believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak, and while pragmatic considerations certainly have a place in any sort of praxis, I suggest that one must be very careful and use extreme caution in such matters, elsewise one may find oneself sliding down the slippery slope of authoritarianism.

vox

[vox]

PS. I took your advice and went back to the Chomsky thread and read your post. I didn't find a paragraph by paragraph analysis, however, so maybe I didn't look at the right thread. I read the very long post that featured the satire and accusations.

Regardless, I have to wonder what form of leadership you recommend, TheDerminator. I've seen you reject Lenin in other threads, and you've talked approvingly of the ballot box approach, which is fine. Does this mean you favor a Social Democratic form of leadership?

vox

[TheDerminator]

Ah vox,

You never noticed...
My first post in the thread, which is satire and accusation is a response to each paragraph, because the satire reflects the logical conclusion to each paragraph and the accusations are merely judgement values upon the naivety of the anarchist position.
The position by Chomsky is your position it seems, so defend that position.
There is an attack incase you did not notice and satire is a legitimate form of attack.
I am not sure what you mean by Social Democratic? I mean we have the Social Democratic so-called Labour Party in Britain. Is this what you mean? You have define it?
If you mean a one member one vote party as the essence of internal democracy, which can replace party leaders, then yes that is my view of socialist inner-party democracy.
We can't always use a dictionary. In my view the most advanced level reached by orthodox Marxism is Gramsci-Leninism, which combines the political with the cultural on the level of organising the socialist movement, but I wouldn't call this sectarian, because unlike Stalinists and Trotskyists there is a greater consciousness within this branch of the orthodoxy there is undoubtedly a greater understanding of the harmfulness of all left-wing sectarianism, and that is something that reflected in the theoretical articles.
At the same time, I still think that to see BORGS as closer to the socialist movement than those anti-system is shortsighted and alienating.
However, my main point is that, even if you were disagree with me about Gramsci-Leninism, I would say that you still ought to rise above all sectarianism. All alienation. That is the main point.
As regards Stalinists, you always have to look at the long-term. It is legitimate strategy, not a sophistic pragmatism.
You should know that I have a great deal of opposition towards anarchists, but it is a greater slippery slope, if you completely alienate yourself. It is theoretical "purity" but it has too big a cost. It is costing quicker allies than allies from the Mormons.
Rise above all sectarianism.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[vox]

I probably shouldn't have capitalized Social Democratic. I mean the commonly accepted shift away from Lenin and toward social democracy that occured in the West in the 20th century.

The piece by Chomsky is its own defence. I didn't see anything worth responding to in your post, so didn't respond. Now, you can say I'm just being mean again, but that's my honest opinion. I found the text lacking in substance and a bit too high on hysteria as a literary technique.

Again, we have a difference of opinion about just what constitutes sectarianism, for I'd lump Leninists in with the rest. I think we are, possibly, looking at the word in very different ways. I use the traditional, standard meaning. It appears to me that you're using a different sort of definition that relies on intent and behavior. Is this correct?

vox

[TheDerminator]

vox,

The main social democratic party in Britain is the Labour Party. It operates its own brand of democratic centralism. Have you ever heard of "Tony's chronies". The leadership of our main "social democratic" party exercises a tight control over the whole party. The Labour Party has an electoral college and it is not a one person one vote democratic party.
What version of social democracy are you advocating is the most important question you must answer. You really should not be taking a Socratic "I know nothing" approach to your contributions. Be upfront, if you are not supporting the anarchist disorganisation of Chomsky and libereco, what exactly are you advocating? Answer, that question please.
It was not "hysteria", it was legitimate satire, and satire can serve the purpose of taking argumentation to its logical absurdity. That is the essence of the whole post, the logical absurdity of the anarchist position.
It is a legitimate part of the Socratic method, and if it does not appeal to your sensibilities; you should check the rest of the thread, since I dropped the satire, and responded to libereco on the very same subject.
libereco gave an honest anarchist exposition until finally giving up the ghost. And it is a ghost conception of international socialist organisation.
That is another issue you must address. What is your conception of internationalist social democracy?

Standard meanings? Using who's dictionary?
You miss the point. You say "I've never believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
This is your sectarianism, my friend.
The BORGS are the larger enemy. The main fight is against the BORGS. We cannot afford to take a "purist" strategy. You do not alienate those who are the first people you have to take on board.
You cannot be an egoist. It is useless trying to convert people like Reagan Lives? and Imperial Power? to socialism. The most we can do, in that forum is to sharpen up our debating skills. We require a socialist movement, instead of the current non-movement.
I disagree with you about Leninism, because sectarianism was not a big issue in the lifetime of Lenin, and there is no reference to it in his writings on the left-wing "infantile disorder".
Leninism, was never a closed sect. It was an open debate within its movement, and it only debated with the social democrats in Russia. It has become sectarian, in its various party forms. It is just the keepers of the best copy of the Faith, in various forms, each with a holier than thou attitude, towards each other.
However, it did not start off like that in the sense that the Leninism was the form of international socialism, which was hijacked by the Trotskyist version (much preferable to the Stalinist version), and improved upon by Antonio Gramsci.
Leninism is not a sect, it is a theory, and its highest form is Gramsci-Leninism. I do not know, how any Gramsci-Leninist can be called sectarian, since it is the least dogmatic of all orthodox Marxist philosophies.
"intent and behaviour"?
Intent - yes, because if your intention is to forget the greater enemy, it is a sectarian intent. There are occaisions when there are higher enemies, the Second World War, was just such a situation. If you cannot see that the BORG is the higher enemy, I can only agree to differ with you on the subject, because I have no intention of hitting my head against a brick wall.
As for "behaviour", I know it is uncool and not fashionable to pick up on people's manners, but in my view being comfortable with a "mean" mentality in your responses seems to me, as going againgst what should be the ethical spirit of socialism.
We should rise above sectarianism, and rise above petty egoism. It reminds me of stuff you hear as a teenager, with everyone trying to assert their own ego, by put downs. I still hear that crap from immature adults, and I call a spade a spade, when it occurs in my company.
The time to unlease invective on people is in relation to the higher enemy. You see peaccenicked, myself, and Iron Heel as the higher enemy. You have it upside down, and that inversion is inherently sectarian.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[vox]

I stand by what I wrote. For the record, I didn't say you were hysterical, I wrote of you using an outlandish voice as a literary technique. I still find nothing to respond to in it, and so won't respond.

On to the larger question, however. You wrote, "The time to unlease invective on people is in relation to the higher enemy. You see peaccenicked, myself, and Iron Heel as the higher enemy. You have it upside down, and that inversion is inherently sectarian."

To me, that's a rather odd use of the term sectarian. It's the first time I've ever seen it used like that, I think. I don't want to speak for peacenicked, but, from what I've read, he seems to endorse the principles of Lenin, and Gramsci (at least about hegemony,) to the exclusion of any others. Now, perhaps that's wrong and he's free to correct me, but that's what I've gathered from reading his posts. Why wouldn't that be considered sectarian, but a rejection of that would be? I've got to tell you, TheDerminator, you've confused the heck outta me here. You say that Leninism isn't a sect but a theory, but I can't seem to agree with that. Marxism, I would agree, is a theory, a theoritical approach at the very least.

"Intent - yes, because if your intention is to forget the greater enemy, it is a sectarian intent."

Forget the greater enemy? Where have I done that? TheDerminator, you're not stupid so I'm a little shocked by a statement like this. Do I really have to caution against giving motives to strangers?

Also, as for what I "must" address, no, I really don't. A rejection of democratic centralism does not mean an endorsement of anything else. I don't think you need to be reminded that Marx himself, far brighter than either of us, I say, didn't leave a game plan.

You talk of the "ethical spirit of socialism" in your post. I'll go one step farther and say that hierarchal organization, the privileging of some over others, is antithetical to this spirit of socialism that has been invoked.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"The peice by chomsky is its own defence."
What sort of puritanical servile logic is that?
Implying the criticism of the peice by anyone is not worth responding to.
The truth is you do not want to pay any attention to that criticism. It must be so difficult.
You have raised it a biblical status. Are you sure you are not a member of some oxymoronic chomsky Sect?
This is a classic way of Stalinist avoidance of criticism,
''The programme speaks for itself'' criticism is futile.
Are you going to answer the criticism of chomsky
or resort to other avoiding tactics.?
Unfortunately something things do not vanish into the memory hole of history so easily.

[TheDerminator]

vox,
You put up Chomsky's anarchist viewpoints as more or less your own. In the post, these anarchist view points are taken to their absurd conclusion, and you think this is not relevant to the argument. Why are the points not worth responding to? Outlandish voice? Address the content, whatever you feel about the form.
I cannot speak for peaccenicked, except to say it could be that he regards Lenin and Gramsci as the main authorative Marxists on the subject of hegemony. I do too, but at the same time, I am not Marxist and for me, the hegemony by created BORGS, although the economic conditions which are created serve to ground that mindset in BORG culture.
It becomes the ultimate determination as Marx and Engels believed.
Is peaccenicked sectarian to come from the Gramsi-Leninist viewpoint on hegemony. I do not thinkso. Lenin expanded upon the work of Marx and Engels in his emphasis upon the political dynamic, and Gramsci, added culture. It does not mean you cannot add say for instance media control as an exact form of how the domination is reinforced in society.
It easy enough to develop into a Gramsci-Leninist-Chomskyian on that level, and you can always add different perspectives to a doctrine.
You see dogma, which is indeed sectarian, but an open-ended doctrine is non-sectarian. Gramsci-Leninism, is the least dogmatic approach of all orthodox Marxism, and to set it in stone, is to go against its own spirit.
It is also non-sectarian, because unlike you, it would not make the statement about thinking peaccenicked is "worse than cappies" in the same vein to anarchists. That is where you forget the greater enemy. Okay, perhaps it was just in the heat of the moment, but it is from the latter viewpoint stems your sectarian, if this is your fundamental belief.
vox, it is a cop out to say that Marx "didn't leave a game plan". Your alternative plan seens no more than Chomskyian-anarchism. You cannot rise to the challenge, because you have no vision for the international socialist movement.
What is your alternative to democratic centralism? If all you can give is Chomsky, all you can give is anarchism.
"I'll go one step farther and say that hierarchal organization, the privileging of some over others, is antithetical to this spirit of socialism that has been invoked. "

This is the rub vox, the irrational phobia towards hierarchal organisation.
Sorry, but if a party or a people elect a Marx to head a socialist government, I believe that democratically elected Marx, should be entrusted with the responsibility and authority to lead the organisation of that society.
The alternative is the rule of referandum, if one is being ultra democratic.
Sorry, but it is naive organisation, backward organisation, and the organisation of people who believe we are all equally capable of making choices, and all equally skilled in organisational matters.
Where does this in born equality stem? Are all men born equal in the vein of Rousseau? It is a psuedo-socialist workerist equality, that only exists in the heads of those who idealise the working class.
There is no in-built "natural" equality. Equality is a social phenemonon as is inequality. The "privilidge" is a social determined priviledge, because social conditions lead to not just the uneven development of nations, but in all sorts of extremes the uneven development of individual human beings.
Individual human beings do not possess the same capacities, and to assume this has no bearing on their decision making capabilities and organisational skills is a very large erroneous assumption.
You see intellectual elitism, where there is only an honest admission of the huge affect upon the unequal development of the individual.
How can anyone calling themselves a socialist call it equal development, and although socialists wish to narrow the gap, we have to take stock of the reality of our societies.
No, vox, it is not unethical to have a Marx in charge of even world socialist society, because that is a democratic society, and because a Marx and his democratically elected government, should be entrusted, rather than the cop out of a plebiscite vote.
You are still endorsing the anathema to heirarchy of the anarchists, and you know, Marx rejected anarchism. It is naive pseudo-ultra democratic socialism, and it is the latter that Marx saw as the antithesis to the socialist ethos, and I agree, because it is the negation of leadership in the face of huge forces.
Your step further, is step back in time for the socialist movement, and it is part of the paralysis of the left-wing movement.
If you still standby the statement about peaccenicked, you are not just an anarchist like Chomsky, but a sectarian anarchist, rather than a socialist, and I standby that viewpoint. I know Chomsky believes in "libertarian socialism", but it is nothing, but anarchism, and by his own admission, his roots were in anarchism, and opposition to Bolshevism.
Whatever, his "libertarian socialism" adds up to, it is not Marxist socialism, and Chomsky, would be the first to admit that fact. You are trying to bridge, an unbridgeable gap, if you are trying to create Marxist-Chomskyism, or anarcho-Marxism. It is a marriage of ultra-democratic anarchism, with some of the analysis of Marx, and later Marxists.
It is a hotch-potch of pseudo-socialist eclecticism. It is neither Marxism, nor advance upon Marxism, it is the rotten apple kicked out by Marx in the very first International.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 8:11 pm on Mar. 25, 2002)

[vox]

TheDerminator,

Thanks for the post. It's the clearest yet on your stance and I think we may finally be able to get somewhere.

Having said that, however, there's a passage I can't quite understand: "I do too, but at the same time, I am not Marxist and for me, the hegemony by created BORGS, although the economic conditions which are created serve to ground that mindset in BORG culture."

A word or two seem to have been dropped from the first sentence. It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the superstructure defines the base a priori, but I'll wait for clarification before saying anything.

"...because you have no vision for the international socialist movement."

And I've never claimed to. It's hard to believe, actually, given the nature of capitalist social relations today, that one could. It seems more than a bit premature to me.

"Sorry, but if a party or a people elect a Marx to head a socialist government, I believe that democratically elected Marx, should be entrusted with the responsibility and authority to lead the organisation of that society."

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. You posit "a party or a people" as interchangeable, and this is, I think, a grave mistake. The inner workings of a political party are here taken to represent the people, but this is hardly the case. If you like satire, you may want to read The Painted Bird by Kosinski, which has some wonderful satire about this very thing in the scenes with the Red Army.

I maintain that the two are not interchangeable, and you're right, that's the rub.

"You see intellectual elitism, where there is only an honest admission of the huge affect upon the unequal development of the individual."

Actually, what I'm seeing right now borders on Social Darwinism dressed up for socialism. For example: " No, vox, it is not unethical to have a Marx in charge of even world socialist society, because that is a democratic society, and because a Marx and his democratically elected government, should be entrusted, rather than the cop out of a plebiscite vote." If you confuse "people" with "party," as you previously did, then how can it be said to be democratic? That's the kind of circular logic that Stalin used to justify whatever he wished.

"...it is the rotten apple kicked out by Marx in the very first International."

Hmmm. So, kicking someone out of a party is not sectarian, but being kicked out of a party is? I think that a fair summary of your attitude here. I am sectarian because I disagree with Lenin, but anyone who agrees with Lenin is not, of course, sectarian. I think that, perhaps, you should look up the word.

I'm afraid I can't abide your vision of socialism, in which some privilege themselves over others and call it democracy, in which the Party must not be questioned or the charge is sectarianism and in which the people seem to count less than the Party, based on what appears to be Social Darwinism.

Also, you seem to suggest that I am a threat, somehow, to socialism itself, the "rotten apple" that should be "kicked out." In another post, you advocated tolerance of all "fellow travellers," but here you preach sectarian obedience. Which is it? Am I now the "greater enemy?"

vox

[TheDerminator]

vox,
I have said it before all human endeavour is created in consciousness. The economic base of the present system was born in the struggle of the Merchant class in England, and with a little help from Henry VII

I do not believe any economic system is a "natural" system, every system is created with a functional knowledge in consciousness, within the superstructure.

How long are you going to wait to have a vision of how the socialist movement should organise itself. Still a cop out.

"Interchangeable" is hardly the word. It is the democratic empowerement of a leadership.
No army is a democratic organisation.
How can there be a parallel?
Just because there is a leadership?
It is simplistic.
Why use the Red Army and not the Vatican?
Missess the democratic element.

I do not accept your premise, that there is any confusion. I just believe the leadership of a party can be democratically elected by the people within the party and then by the people in the electorate.

Social Darwinism = Leadership = Crude analysis

Do you deny people have different capacities?

The difference is that I can unite with anarchists on issues against the greater enemy. If U see Leninists as the greater enemy, there is no much to unite behind. Socialism and anarchism are incompatable within a party structure, but outside that structure, there is still a bigger enemy, and my interpretation of your sectarianism still holds.

What you cannot abide is democracy. The people can still get rid of their leaders, they can still vote in a new party, if they so wish. You are stuck in a Stalinist time warp. Gramsci-Leninism can = open democratic society more so than BORG society.
Not sectarian disobediance. You just have no comprehension of socialist democracy, and how socialist unity differs from socialism against sectarianism. You are not the main enemy. You are hardly a minus 2999 on the richter scale. Not interested in trying to convert anarchists one by one, including U my friend.
More interested in practising my debating skills in these threads than converting people.
Fool's gold.

May the Force be with U!

derminated