Structure of Socialism

[Invader Zim]

Many people seam to be getting a little confused about what socialism is, how it differers from anarchy, and what communism is, it is time to clear this up. The Hardcore theorists may find this easy ammunistion, well bring it on kids... I will be here.

Socialism is basically where the state owns the means of production rather than an individual (capitalism). For many centurys people have been thinking about socialism.

Utopian socialism

In the 17th century the ideals of the Utopian socilists came into being They believed taht a perfect socialist socioty based on trust could be created.

Co-Operative's

So if person A farms and person B builds then the two share the produse of the two jobs. Person A feeds person B and him self, while person B creates tools etc to allow person A to Farm. This can and has been done in communitys in the past, most notably New Lanark under the guidance of Robert Owen.

Scientific Socialism

In the mid 19 century Karl Marx formed his own theorys about socialism. He believed that the Utopians were incorrect and relied to heavily on Idealism. Marx himself being a very materialistic thinker formed scientific socialism, which is far more structured and exact than the utopian theorys. To be a communist is to wish to live in a scientific socialist socioty following the ideals Marx laid down. (With the exception of Anarchism) Many of the communistic beliefs have been refined into theorys in there own rights on how to achive scientific socialism and run it.

Democratic Socialism

Democratic Socialists believe that the economy and society should be run democratically - to meet the needs of the whole community, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be trasnsformed to through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well- everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the U.S. With this booklet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

Many people place Anarchism in a seperate catagory from the rest of scientific socialism, however it is because of its materialism.

Marxist Lenonism

There there is still some confusion as far as Marxism/Leninism goes. There are those who follow Stalin, Mao, or Trotsky. Stalin and Mao were NOT Marxists, they were actually quite anti-Marxist in that they led regimes based not on democratic control of the state by the workers, but rather based on totalitarian control by an elite stratum of bureaucrats who were a parasite on the workers' state.


In this post I have used the following sources.

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/facult...ght/dem_soc.htm (http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/dem_soc.htm)

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...niaanarchy.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html)

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/fa..._trotskyism.asp (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/what_are_marxism_leninism_trotskyism.asp)

PS I have only used a small variaty of the many different socialist factions, if anyone wants to add any feal free.

PPS A few other socialist factions: -

Progressive
Libertarian Socialist
Democratic Marxist
Christian Socialist (not one RS2000 will like im sure)
Shachtmanite
DeLeonist
Leninist-Trotskyist

There are quite a few others I also have not included.

[redstar2000]

All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well- everywhere but in the United States.

If by the "idea of democracy" you mean capitalist "democracy", then the statement is just wrong. Whatever muddled ideas the Russians or the Chinese had about "socialism", it certainly wasn't based on any "rooted" tradition of capitalist "democracy" in those countries.

Further, if you are speaking of western Europe, the "socialism" that is "rooted" there is not socialism in any meaningful sense of the word at all.

Most of all, I'm bewildered by what a post such as yours is intended to demonstrate...other than your ability to use a search engine and copy brief definitions.

Are you trying to show that there are many kinds of socialism besides that of Marx and Engels? Who denies it?

What you have not shown (yet) is why your rather watered-down version of "socialism"--by Grace of God and the House of Commons--is to be preferred to either a Marxist or an anarchist revolutionary perspective.

Until you grow out of your worshipful awe of "English tradition", I question your ability to see the strengths and weaknesses of various critiques of capitalism and strategies to overthrow it "with a clear eye."

In fact, I can't help but expect you, any day now, to offer your vision as a "kinder, gentler revolution".

:cool:

PS: Christian Socialist (not one RS2000 will like im sure) -- actually, they are well meaning folks who are just very confused. Except for the ones, if any, that supported U.S. imperialism in Iraq.

[Invader Zim]

If by the "idea of democracy" you mean capitalist "democracy", then the statement is just wrong. Whatever muddled ideas the Russians or the Chinese had about "socialism", it certainly wasn't based on any "rooted" tradition of capitalist "democracy" in those countries.


The statement clearly said that any democratic nation has its share of socialist thinkers. Not that all socialist countrys have to have been democratic at one point or another, hardly a difficult consept top grasp, however because its you maybe I should restrict my self to less complicated sentances to allow you to keep up with the relativly simple consepts of what I post.

Further, if you are speaking of western Europe, the "socialism" that is "rooted" there is not socialism in any meaningful sense of the word at all.


Ohh really, and you are in any position to judge such a matter? Do you lecture for a university on socialism and its principas. I doubt it, so until that point do not try to argue with the authors of these site whome I am more than sure are considerably more well informed than you are.

Most of all, I'm bewildered by what a post such as yours is intended to demonstrate

That much is blindingly obvious.

Are you trying to show that there are many kinds of socialism besides that of Marx and Engels? Who denies it?

No-one does it was not the point of the thread, the point of the thread was made clear by the title of the thread. Of course your inability to comprehend simple statments as you have already demonstrated clearly in this thread, causes me to believe that you dont really comprehend anything very much.

However I will try to alter that regarding to this matter. The first line of the thread rather leaves no doubt in mind as to the threads purpose so i will post it again: -

Many people seam to be getting a little confused about what socialism is, how it differers from anarchy, and what communism is, it is time to clear this up.

A little while agao one thraed in particular appread saying that communism is better than socialism, which even you must realise is a stupid misconseption of both communism and socialism. Other similar threads also exist, this thread is designed to stop some of these stupid comments occuring.

What you have not shown (yet) is why your rather watered-down version of "socialism"--by Grace of God and the House of Commons--is to be preferred to either a Marxist or an anarchist revolutionary perspective.

I never said that any of those forms of socialism were better or worse than each other, (with the exception of Marxist leninism) i was mearly describing what they were and how they altered. Again you dont seam to be able to understand simple comments. Perhaps it is because it is me who is making them, do you feal duty bound to contradict all I post?

by Grace of God and the House of Commons

Out of interst why would I want to do something by the grace of god, when I am not religious?

Also you show your lack of knowladge of British politics, as if you knew any thing about British politics you would not use the words "grace" and House of commons" in the same sentance.

Until you grow out of your worshipful awe of "English tradition",

I have not mentioned any English tradition in this thraed what so ever, so why bring it up. I take it that you simply are trying to get a negative reaction from me, rather like any other "troll" to be found in OI. It only differs that you are attempting to piss me off and they attempt to piss everybody off. So unless you can give me another reason to bring such a negative unconstructive comment designed only irritate me into this conversation, then I rest my case.

[redstar2000]

Ohh really, and you are in any position to judge such a matter? Do you lecture for a university on socialism and its principles. I doubt it, so until that point do not try to argue with the authors of these site whome I am more than sure are considerably more well informed than you are.

The old appeal to authority gambit, eh?

Something is "so" because Professor Fogbottom said it was "so"...and Professors Dreary and Tedium agreed.

You are so distant from any kind of critical thinking about anything that you'd need a telescope to see it...which you obviously do not possess.

(Are you the same AK47 that referred to RAM as an "ethics expert"? Why should your judgment of who is an "authority" be taken seriously?)

...this thread is designed to stop some of these stupid comments occuring.

Nonsense. People new to the left are bound to be confused and your brief definitions would do little to help them. Left politics is complicated and that's just the way things are.

Frankly, AK47, I think you just wanted to "show off"...and I'm not impressed.

...do you feal duty bound to contradict all I post?

"Duty" is a strong word in this context, but I confess a certain impulse--one that is difficult to repress--to puncture your "socialist" pretensions, not to mention your more or less naked English chauvinism...which has appeared in many threads.

It is not a matter of "trying to piss you off"--why would I care about that?--it is a matter of the fact that I don't really think you are any kind of "leftist" at all...except perhaps in the sense that Tony "Lapdog" Blair is a "leftist".

I can understand, even if I have considerable distaste for, your admiration of Robert Owen. The benevolent "lord" giving generously to his cap-in-hand servants is one of your old English traditions...and perhaps you see yourself in such a role.

Disrespectful servants, like Iraqis, receive a rather different treatment in your tradition...and in reality.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:46 pm on June 14, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Something is "so" because Professor Fogbottom said it was "so"...and Professors Dreary and Tedium agreed.

Is that display of your own arrogance and ignorance, quite over?

You are so distant from any kind of critical thinking about anything that you'd need a telescope to see it...which you obviously do not possess.

Obviously not, come on RS2000 you might as well at least try to be funny, its the only thing you are good for, having a laugh at.

(Are you the same AK47 that referred to RAM as an "ethics expert"? Why should your judgment of who is an "authority" be taken seriously?)

Bringing irrelavance hardly helps your wilting arguments red star... Or perhaps you dont even have an argument, I believe the latter is afar more accurate.

Left politics is complicated and that's just the way things are.


Only to fools or capitalists, i am struggling to determin which you are.

Frankly, AK47, I think you just wanted to "show off"...and I'm not impressed.

That coming from a man who posts pages and pages of pathetic quotes and Jargan to answer the most meaningless of questions with even more meaningless responses?

not to mention your more or less naked English chauvinism

Thats funny considering im not even English. But hey like all ignorant white Amerians you seem to generalise the entire British Isles with England.

except perhaps in the sense that Tony "Lapdog" Blair is a "leftist".

You have finnaly convinced me of you complete stupidity and lack of understanding of British politics, the labour party is not even remotly left wing, they are infact a conservative party now. If you have actually bothered reading the majority of my posts regarding British politics you would have seen my extream distate for the Labour party and its leader. Not even in my most violant arguments with any people from Britain and Ireland have I been accused of being a follower of Tony Blair. Well you totalitarian fool go away and read up on some elementary British politics as I have done for US politics. Then you may comment, but until then go back to your necrophilia with Marx's dead corpes.

The benevolent "lord" giving generously to his cap-in-hand servants is one of your old English traditions

And you claim to know any thing about socialist history, perhaps if you got your totalitarian head out your ass you would actualy learn something. Robert Owen was not a "Lord", he was born the son of a ironmonger, where as Marx was the son of a member of the capitalist classes.

Robert Owen also gave all his money to his workers so he died in abject poverty. Try reading a little socialist history. The fact you prean and preach your rather limited knowlade of minor socialist history, like a vein Peacock is a display of arrogance I have rarly seen before.

and perhaps you see yourself in such a role.


Ohh please, attempt to puncture your hugly inflated ego before you block out the sun.

Disrespectful servants, like Iraqis, receive a rather different treatment in your tradition...and in reality.

Did you know that George Orwell was highly opposed to the pacifists who opposed the fight against fascism in 1939-1945. He also claimed that totalitarianism and Fascism are Mankinds greatest enemys. Perhaps you should read some of Orwells debates to the pasafists who said exactly what you are saying about this war.

You are also convinced that I am a member of the gentry, well hate to break it to you but your wrong, I suppose that you are used to it by now though.

[YKTMX]

Fuck the System!

[Pete]

Thanks X, real productive. I'm sure AK loves you now lol. Oh man I must be tired I'm turning into a smart ass.

[Moskitto]

[quote]The benevolent "lord" giving generously to his cap-in-hand servants is one of your old English traditions

And you claim to know any thing about socialist history, perhaps if you got your totalitarian head out your ass you would actualy learn something. Robert Owen was not a "Lord", he was born the son of a ironmonger, where as Marx was the son of a member of the capitalist classes.

Robert Owen also gave all his money to his workers so he died in abject poverty. Try reading a little socialist history. The fact you prean and preach your rather limited knowlade of minor socialist history, like a vein Peacock is a display of arrogance I have rarly seen before.[/qoute]

LOL!!! what an idiot. nice one AK47, real nice.

[redstar2000]

Robert Owen also gave all his money to his workers so he died in abject poverty.

Aaawwwwww, that's so sweet.

Did you know that George Orwell was highly opposed to the pacifists who opposed the fight against fascism in 1939-1945. He also claimed that totalitarianism and Fascism are Mankinds greatest enemys. Perhaps you should read some of Orwells debates to the pasafists who said exactly what you are saying about this war.

Why? Orwell wasn't writing about U.S. imperialism in Iraq. What could he have to say that would be relevant?

Come to think of it, he lived at the right time to comment on British imperialism in Iraq...think he ever opened his mouth on the subject, or was he like you?

:cool:

[Moskitto]

Robert Owen also gave all his money to his workers so he died in abject poverty.

Aaawwwwww, that's so sweet.

as opposed to Karl Marx who sat at home all the time with his maids who he slept with occasionally writing books no one wanted to read and lived a comfortable lifestyle with money sent to him from Engles because he couldn't do anything better with his life.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:04 pm on June 16, 2003
Robert Owen also gave all his money to his workers so he died in abject poverty.

Aaawwwwww, that's so sweet.

Did you know that George Orwell was highly opposed to the pacifists who opposed the fight against fascism in 1939-1945. He also claimed that totalitarianism and Fascism are Mankinds greatest enemys. Perhaps you should read some of Orwells debates to the pasafists who said exactly what you are saying about this war.

Why? Orwell wasn't writing about U.S. imperialism in Iraq. What could he have to say that would be relevant?

Come to think of it, he lived at the right time to comment on British imperialism in Iraq...think he ever opened his mouth on the subject, or was he like you?

:cool:


Once again you have been proved ignorant, yet you still seam to think your self above listning to any other person, I realise that you find it hard to accept you are not the expert you thought you were, but for god sakes man get a grip. The fact that you have resorted to sarcasm instead of making an argument is remarkably satisfiying, as clearly you have no more arguments remaining and have been made to look a complete fool.

Come to think of it, he lived at the right time to comment on British imperialism in Iraq...think he ever opened his mouth on the subject, or was he like you?

What exactly does Britians invasion of Iraq have to do with this, other than your pathetic attempts to make me angery. But to answer the question I am sure that Orwell would nothave supported that piece of imperialist aggression as I would not have. He did however support the piece of Imperialist aggression against Germany even though the allied war was only to protect British trade with Poland, yet he supported it because a fascist was in power. But you have not actualy placed an argument forward because you dont actually have one.

I suggest you attempt to save some credibility in this argument by not posting in it any more.


(Edited by AK47 at 5:51 pm on June 16, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Notice AK47 how he disappears when he's be proved to be an idiot, just let this topic sink a bit.

[Invader Zim]

Yes now it seems he has lost the upperhand in the debate he, ignores it, it is unfortunatly not a supprise.

[Moskitto]

i must archive this link incase it is needed later

[Invader Zim]

Frankly, AK47, I think you just wanted to "show off"...and I'm not impressed.



Ive Just re-read this thread and noticed this again, and been hit by its blatant hypocracy... You accuse me of making a post to show off my knoladge, yet you have created an entire web site to show off your own knowladge.

How can anyone be so goddamn arrogant as to do that, and then accuse me of a highly watered down verson of the crime you have commited.

[redstar2000]

Ive Just re-read this thread and noticed this again, and been hit by its blatant hypocracy... You accuse me of making a post to show off my knoladge, yet you have created an entire web site to show off your own knowladge.

How can anyone be so goddamn arrogant as to do that, and then accuse me of a highly watered down verson of the crime you have commited.

It's not terribly difficult since I actually know some things and am not simply paraphrasing scraps and factoids that I acquired with a search engine.

The reason I "disappeared" from this thread is that there was intelligent discussion elsewhere on the board; I have but limited time to spend with people who support U.S. imperialism in Iraq and want to test people for "illegal" drugs. You know how it is.

Since you mentioned my little website, I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that there's been an upward "spike" in hits over the last week...I give your buddy RAM all the credit. Could you ask him to join some other political boards and flame me? Please?

Thanks.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:34 am on June 21, 2003
Ive Just re-read this thread and noticed this again, and been hit by its blatant hypocracy... You accuse me of making a post to show off my knoladge, yet you have created an entire web site to show off your own knowladge.

How can anyone be so goddamn arrogant as to do that, and then accuse me of a highly watered down verson of the crime you have commited.

It's not terribly difficult since I actually know some things and am not simply paraphrasing scraps and factoids that I acquired with a search engine.

The reason I "disappeared" from this thread is that there was intelligent discussion elsewhere on the board; I have but limited time to spend with people who support U.S. imperialism in Iraq and want to test people for "illegal" drugs. You know how it is.

Since you mentioned my little website, I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that there's been an upward "spike" in hits over the last week...I give your buddy RAM all the credit. Could you ask him to join some other political boards and flame me? Please?

Thanks.

:cool:

It's not terribly difficult since I actually know some things and am not simply paraphrasing scraps and factoids that I acquired with a search engine.

No you are mearly "paraphrasing scraps and factoids" from books written by long dead men, designed to appeal to a long dead audiance. Your entire ideology is based for an 19th Century not a a 21 Centrury World. Apart from your ability to memorise lines of political text you have done little more than I have. You also stole the work and ideas of other people and passed them off as your own, so in short you have done what I did.

The reason I "disappeared" from this thread is that there was intelligent discussion elsewhere on the board; I have but limited time to spend with people who support U.S. imperialism in Iraq and want to test people for "illegal" drugs. You know how it is.

Ohh yes, I dont always have time to talk to Ultra reactionary, antireligious, Fascist supporting people who treat Marxism in the same way that fundermentalists treat the bible or Koran.

[The Feral Underclass]

AK47, did you notice that you used the words Ultra reactionary and anti religous in the same sentance. hmmm?

Being completely nutral on this obvious long running bitter rivalry between you two, I read all the threads, the insults and counter insults, the attack on each others intelligence and the pseudo political argument, and I realised that AK47 actually sounds like a five year old child. Sorry mate.

Not only did you keep rewriting the same insults over and over and over again, you even dabled in a little racist sectarianism "...But hey like all ignorant white Amerians you seem to generalise the entire British Isles with England....", unlike the ignorant white Brits who egeralise that all white americans are ignorant...hmm.

You also go on about Karl Marx and how irrelevant he is in the 21st Century. Well, could you tell me when it was the working class stopped being oppressed, when capitalism ceased to exist and when we all started to lvie in an egalitarian society. Because, as far as I know, we are still being oppressed, capitalism is still ravaging the earth, as it was in the 19th century and that, acutally, no....equality still dosnt exist. So with all this in mind, please tell me how Marx is not relevant. Nothing has changed. Computers have been invented and Capitalists have found smarter ways to exploit the workers, but other than that....

What does this mean:

Something is "so" because Professor Fogbottom said it was "so"...and Professors Dreary and Tedium agreed.

Is that display of your own arrogance and ignorance, quite over?


I dont think RS2000 point was arrogant or ignorant. I think it is completely valid. Jusdt because a guy who got his MA and PhD from a beorgeois university, does not make him an accurate champion of revolutioanry politics.

No you are mearly "paraphrasing scraps and factoids" from books written by long dead men, designed to appeal to a long dead audiance.

What do you mean by this? Are you trying to imply that somehow Marxists are old and past there sell by date. I would class myslef as a Marxist, and im not dead, im not even 25. Infact, the party I am member of is thriving amony college and university students. So in fact Marxism is still an ideology which attracts a very active and young audience who fight very hard for their beliefs.

I was trying to be nutral in this game of wits, but I kept coming across blazing contradictions. You criticise RS2000 for a lack of argument nd then say things like....

Obviously not, come on RS2000 you might as well at least try to be funny, its the only thing you are good for, having a laugh at.

You have finnaly convinced me of you complete stupidity and lack of understanding of British politics, the labour party is not even remotly left wing

I think you where a little confused AK47. When RS2000 said, "I don't really think you are any kind of "leftist" at all...except perhaps in the sense that Tony "Lapdog" Blair is a "leftist""

and then you said:

You have finnaly convinced me of you complete stupidity and lack of understanding of British politics, the labour party is not even remotly left wing

I think that was the point!

No you are mearly "paraphrasing scraps and factoids" from books written by long dead men...

Dead or not, Marxist theory is very difficult to undestand somtimes, and with all the other -isms thrown in, it dosnt make life easy when you are trying to educate youself.

I actually think that RS2000 does know a considerable amount. Some people can read theory for their whole life and still discover new things or get a deeper understanding about something. SO I actu ally think it is comendable that someone has a knowledge like that.

There was also some bitter rant about the Rs2000 website, which sound a little bit like jealousy to me, but never mind. I think websites like that are extremly usful and a very important tool in educating people.

One other thing, what has the fact the Marx was born into a bourgeois family have to do with anything. SOmeone mentioned that he had sex with his maid and got money from engels. Since when was it a crime to have sex with someone and be given money from a close friend so you dont starve to death...this is completly irrelevant to anything.

All in all AK47 you and your side kick mosketo or what ever hes called just look like a bunch of loosers. Sorry, but its true

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Libertarian Commie on 10:53 pm on June 28, 2003
AK47, did you notice that you used the words Ultra reactionary and anti religous in the same sentance. hmmm?

Being completely nutral on this obvious long running bitter rivalry between you two, I read all the threads, the insults and counter insults, the attack on each others intelligence and the pseudo political argument, and I realised that AK47 actually sounds like a five year old child. Sorry mate.

Not only did you keep rewriting the same insults over and over and over again, you even dabled in a little racist sectarianism "...But hey like all ignorant white Amerians you seem to generalise the entire British Isles with England....", unlike the ignorant white Brits who egeralise that all white americans are ignorant...hmm.

You also go on about Karl Marx and how irrelevant he is in the 21st Century. Well, could you tell me when it was the working class stopped being oppressed, when capitalism ceased to exist and when we all started to lvie in an egalitarian society. Because, as far as I know, we are still being oppressed, capitalism is still ravaging the earth, as it was in the 19th century and that, acutally, no....equality still dosnt exist. So with all this in mind, please tell me how Marx is not relevant. Nothing has changed. Computers have been invented and Capitalists have found smarter ways to exploit the workers, but other than that....

What does this mean:

Something is "so" because Professor Fogbottom said it was "so"...and Professors Dreary and Tedium agreed.

Is that display of your own arrogance and ignorance, quite over?


I dont think RS2000 point was arrogant or ignorant. I think it is completely valid. Jusdt because a guy who got his MA and PhD from a beorgeois university, does not make him an accurate champion of revolutioanry politics.

No you are mearly "paraphrasing scraps and factoids" from books written by long dead men, designed to appeal to a long dead audiance.

What do you mean by this? Are you trying to imply that somehow Marxists are old and past there sell by date. I would class myslef as a Marxist, and im not dead, im not even 25. Infact, the party I am member of is thriving amony college and university students. So in fact Marxism is still an ideology which attracts a very active and young audience who fight very hard for their beliefs.

I was trying to be nutral in this game of wits, but I kept coming across blazing contradictions. You criticise RS2000 for a lack of argument nd then say things like....

Obviously not, come on RS2000 you might as well at least try to be funny, its the only thing you are good for, having a laugh at.

You have finnaly convinced me of you complete stupidity and lack of understanding of British politics, the labour party is not even remotly left wing

I think you where a little confused AK47. When RS2000 said, "I don't really think you are any kind of "leftist" at all...except perhaps in the sense that Tony "Lapdog" Blair is a "leftist""

and then you said:

You have finnaly convinced me of you complete stupidity and lack of understanding of British politics, the labour party is not even remotly left wing

I think that was the point!

No you are mearly "paraphrasing scraps and factoids" from books written by long dead men...

Dead or not, Marxist theory is very difficult to undestand somtimes, and with all the other -isms thrown in, it dosnt make life easy when you are trying to educate youself.

I actually think that RS2000 does know a considerable amount. Some people can read theory for their whole life and still discover new things or get a deeper understanding about something. SO I actu ally think it is comendable that someone has a knowledge like that.

There was also some bitter rant about the Rs2000 website, which sound a little bit like jealousy to me, but never mind. I think websites like that are extremly usful and a very important tool in educating people.

One other thing, what has the fact the Marx was born into a bourgeois family have to do with anything. SOmeone mentioned that he had sex with his maid and got money from engels. Since when was it a crime to have sex with someone and be given money from a close friend so you dont starve to death...this is completly irrelevant to anything.

All in all AK47 you and your side kick mosketo or what ever hes called just look like a bunch of loosers. Sorry, but its true

AK47, did you notice that you used the words Ultra reactionary and anti religous in the same sentance. hmmm?

And??? From that comment I assume you fail to realise the meaning of at least one of those words.

Being completely nutral on this obvious long running bitter rivalry between you two, I read all the threads, the insults and counter insults, the attack on each others intelligence and the pseudo political argument, and I realised that AK47 actually sounds like a five year old child. Sorry mate.

If you had read from the beggining odf this long running argument you would see that the reason for most of them are infact RS2000's imaturity not mine.

Really it all springs from two issues, 1 the Iraq war, I supported the removal of a modern day Hitler, and I was called a servile Lacky of US imperialism. The Other was I supported the member RAM because he is a mate of mine. Those are the main reasons for this whole feud. The fact that RS2000 attacks biological and histoical fact does not help either.

Not only did you keep rewriting the same insults over and over and over again, you even dabled in a little racist sectarianism "...But hey like all ignorant white Amerians you seem to generalise the entire British Isles with England....",

If you even understood the meaning of the word "racist" you would see that what I said was not rascist. Unless insulting ignorant white Americans is wrong? It is exactly the same as insulting a "W.A.S.P.". Or do you consider that racist sectarianism? Read a dictionary mate.

unlike the ignorant white Brits who egeralise that all white americans are ignorant...hmm.

Do point out to me where I said "all" white Americans are ignorant. I attacked those that are, its like saying that if you attack the KKK you are attacking all white anglo-saxon protestants. When quite obviously you are not.

But while were on the subject your pal redstar is not exactly innocent of that crime either, as if you have read are arguments I am sure you will have seen.

Well, could you tell me when it was the working class stopped being oppressed, when capitalism ceased to exist and when we all started to lvie in an egalitarian society. Because, as far as I know, we are still being oppressed, capitalism is still ravaging the earth, as it was in the 19th century and that, acutally, no....equality still dosnt exist. So with all this in mind, please tell me how Marx is not relevant. Nothing has changed. Computers have been invented and Capitalists have found smarter ways to exploit the workers, but other than that....


Marxism is outdated simply because capitalism has evolved where as Marxism has not. That in short is the reason why Marxism will not be achived in the western nations. I could go into detail but you are capable of reading the explenations I give in other threads. Or perhaps the noval Idea of working it out for your self.

Jusdt because a guy who got his MA and PhD from a beorgeois university, does not make him an accurate champion of revolutioanry politics.

You are absolutly correct it does not make them a champion of revolutioanry politics, just a lerned expert, with a higher understanding than others, hense the reason why it is arrogant of RS2000 to attack them, when they know far more than he does.

What do you mean by this?

I mean exactly what I said, that getting my information from the internet is no better that getting it from the books of long dead people.

Are you trying to imply that somehow Marxists are old and past there sell by date. I would class myslef as a Marxist, and im not dead, im not even 25.

No... I never said that Marxists are past their sell by date, though Marxism, very much is. It must be addapted to fit the modern world if it is ever going to be a success. The very fact that all of the 20th century Marxist experiments resulted in failure suggests that it neads adapted to be successful.

I think you where a little confused AK47. When RS2000 said, "I don't really think you are any kind of "leftist" at all...except perhaps in the sense that Tony "Lapdog" Blair is a "leftist""

Considering simplicity of what I posted, I fing it hard to see how you can have possibly so misinterpreted it. Or maybe you do not understand British political History? Which is it?

SO I actually think it is comendable that someone has a knowledge like that.

Knowladge like what exactly? What RS2000 posts is written skillfully creating the impression of complexity when the theory it self is relativly simple.

There was also some bitter rant about the Rs2000 website, which sound a little bit like jealousy to me,

Why would I be jealous of his rather crude website? All he did was take several of his most long winded arguments and published them on his site. I would not have been bothered about it if it had not had insulted me on it.

One other thing, what has the fact the Marx was born into a bourgeois family have to do with anything.

What does the fact that Robert Owen became rich have to do with anything?

All in all AK47 you and your side kick mosketo or what ever hes called just look like a bunch of loosers. Sorry, but its true

All in all Libertarian Commie, I may look like a loser, but it does not alter the fact that I am correct.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah......ok!