"Prove" Marxism

[jasmine]

prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.
prove that marxism is scientific.
prove that socialism is possible.

[jasmine]

Well, no reply so far. Prove your belief in socialism as the next step for humanity. It's a tough one. Much easier just to point the finger at religious literalists.

Marxism, socialism and anarchism have a history. It's mainly an honourable history but before you call yourself an anarchist or a marxist or a socialist try to understand what actually happened when these ideas had a huge following in the working class.

And try to understand what happened to destroy that working class support.

This is much more difficult than shouting "fuck you" at those who don't agree with you or playing silly games with members of the established churches. All this "prove God exists" stuff when you can't explain how and why socialism is to occur (practically, really) is self-indulgent bullshit.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.
prove that marxism is scientific.
prove that socialism is possible.
Hello, welcome to remedial marxism 1-0-fucking-1.

The proletariat is the most exploited class in the capitalist system and therefore the class whose class interest lies in a revolutionary change - therefore they are the revolutionary class.

Marxists make conclusions based on empirical observation of the material world.

The only way to prove, absolutely, the possibility of socialism is to enact it.

Have you read the communist manifesto at any point in your life?

[jasmine]

Marxists make conclusions based on empirical observation of the material world.

Absolute bullshit.

I have read the communist manifesto and I'd say I've read a good deal more Marx and Engels than most people who post here.


The only way to prove, absolutely, the possibility of socialism is to enact it.

A complete cop-out. What exactly is your strategy for the implementation of socialism? Oh dear you don't have one.

There were people who preceded you, people who didn't just want to exchange bullshit like this on a website. Some people fought and died for the idea of socialism, some people put themselves on the line and lost and had their lives cut short and all that's left is this crap.

Socialism, Marxism, Anarchism have a history. This is not year 1. Educate yourselves.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:33 pm

Marxists make conclusions based on empirical observation of the material world.

Absolute bullshit.

I have read the communist manifesto and I'd say I've read a good deal more Marx and Engels than most people who post here.


The only way to prove, absolutely, the possibility of socialism is to enact it.

A complete cop-out. What exactly is your strategy for the implementation of socialism? Oh dear you don't have one.

There were people who preceded you, people who didn't just want to exchange bullshit like this on a website. Some people fought and died for the idea of socialism, some people put themselves on the line and lost and had their lives cut short and all that's left is this crap.

Socialism, Marxism, Anarchism have a history. This is not year 1. Educate yourselves.
So what do marxist do then?

And

What do you mean by socialism? The stage when all keys indsutrial countries of the world - or even better - the whole world is "socialist", i.e. the workers are in control of policies through either parties or unions? The stage before actual communism?
Or is it about the whole bunch of theories that fit in one word: socialism?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:19 pm
The only way to prove, absolutely, the possibility of socialism is to enact it.
Sounds like faith to me.

[jasmine]

So what do marxist do then?

And

What do you mean by socialism? The stage when all keys indsutrial countries of the world - or even better - the whole world is "socialist", i.e. the workers are in control of policies through either parties or unions? The stage before actual communism?
Or is it about the whole bunch of theories that fit in one word: socialism?

What do you mean by socialism?

How do you intend to implement socialism?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+August 28, 2007 08:05 pm--> (Dean @ August 28, 2007 08:05 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:19 pm
The only way to prove, absolutely, the possibility of socialism is to enact it.
Sounds like faith to me. [/b]
HOW?

How does it sound like faith fatherfucker? It's possible to prove socialism is possible, theoretically, to a reasonable whereby doubt would be quite stupid but it still cannot be proved possible until, well, empirically proved so.

[spartan]

im sure certain people in feudal times were shit scared about the changing times just like capitalists are now. the fact is you cant stop the unstoppable. the revolution is coming and there is nothing capitalists or reactionaries can do about it!

[jasmine]

How does it sound like faith fatherfucker? It's possible to prove socialism is possible, theoretically, to a reasonable whereby doubt would be quite stupid but it still cannot be proved possible until, wellempirically proved so.,

Self serving bullshit. Socialism is sort of proved until it happens because that keeps Jazzrattt and friends happy. Oh yes, it's science. Idiots.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:27 pm
Self serving bullshit.
Oh go fuck yourself you ****.


Socialism is sort of proved until it happens because that keeps Jazzrattt and friends happy. Oh yes, it's science. Idiots.

Please try to write coherently before deciding to display your empty-headedness to the world in general.

[Labor Shall Rule]

That's all that you have to say to back up your point? I would refer you to The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism by Vladimir Lenin.


The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

It is a science because it based on what is true. In Imperialism, and also in Capital, Marx and Lenin used the statistics and findings of British economists to draw their own conclusions on their analysis of the capitalist mode of production; on how it extracts from the working class in order to sustain itself. It is the most profound analysys and scathing criticism it has ever received; even liberals and moderate socialists use his critique as the basis of drawing opposition to the capitalist system. Marx saw history has a concrete process in which there are historical phases based on production relations, all of which are based on an irreconcilable struggle between social stratums that are at competition with each other in the political theatre. That is 'scientific', whether you like to admit it or not Jasmine.

Yes, this is not year one; we have learned from historical events which have changed our perspective altogether in many occasions; we have been instructed in the crucible of history itself to understand what we did wrong, and what we did right, in order to form our strategy in the future. But anyway, can you scientifically and historically explain how we have failed Jasmine? Please, enlighten us dear.

[jasmine]

It is a science because it based on what is true.

Buy a dictionary and look up the word tautology.


Marx saw history has a concrete process in which there are historical phases based on production relations, all of which are based on an irreconcilable struggle between social stratums that are at competition with each other in the political theatre. That is 'scientific', whether you like to admit it or not Jasmine.

It's at best social science which is very different from natural science. Marx predicted the proletarian revolution or the common ruin of the contending classes would result from the contradictions of capitalism. This hasn't happened. All you can say is, it may happen in the future. Anything more is faith.


Yes, this is not year one; we have learned from historical events which have changed our perspective altogether in many occasions; we have been instructed in the crucible of history itself to understand what we did wrong, and what we did right, in order to form our strategy in the future. But anyway, can you scientifically and historically explain how we have failed Jasmine? Please, enlighten us dear.

Who exactly is "we". What is your connection to the communist movement of the first half of the twentieth century? The movement that existed, the mass communist movement, fought bravely but was decisively defeated first in Germany (1919 -23), then in Soviet Russia (following 1923). In Italy, Germany and Spain fascism crushed the communist and workers movements after stalinism had eroded them from within.

In the 1950's and 60's remnants of the influence of communism remained in the form of large, docile reformist organisations (particularly in Spain, France and Italy). But now even these are either gone or have little influence in the workers movement.

This website does not centre around the building of a communist organisation - it's just a lot of ideological bickering between often ill-informed people whose only knowledge of revolutionary theory comes from pamphlets, books or their peer group rather than any involvement in working class struggle.


Oh go fuck yourself you ****.

Pathetic, gutless and boring. Make an argument or don't waste my time.


im sure certain people in feudal times were shit scared about the changing times just like capitalists are now. the fact is you cant stop the unstoppable. the revolution is coming and there is nothing capitalists or reactionaries can do about it!

And the proof for this is what exactly?

[jasmine]

Okay, I'm not asking for much really. Just a reasoned analysis of the history since 1848 that explains why Marx was right. Quotes from someone agreeing with Marx are not proof. An analysis of the last 150 years of real history that demonstrates the principal points made in the communist manifesto and capital would be really interesting.

Is there anyone here who can do this?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:23 pm
Okay, I'm not asking for much really. Just a reasoned analysis of the history since 1848 that explains why Marx was right. Quotes from someone agreeing with Marx are not proof. An analysis of the last 150 years of real history that demonstrates the principal points made in the communist manifesto and capital would be really interesting.

Is there anyone here who can do this?
Jasmine I'm not sure Revleft is, without wanting to be patronizing to its members, the theoretical vanguard of Marxist thought.

There are a few members, who are very well read, and have a great understanding, but most of us are still learning.

And, to be honest, I'm sure you know this, and if your questions were really as penetrating as you seem to imply, there are undoutably responses by early or recent Marxists.

It's just that, Revleft can only debate at it's station, and a 150 analysis seems to me like at least a book length of work, and your aren't going to find that answer here.

[jasmine]

And, to be honest, I'm sure you know this, and if your questions were really as penetrating as you seem to imply, there are undoutably responses by early or recent Marxists.

Who are you referring to? Ernest Mandel or Hillel Tickten? Or somebody I've never heard of?

As I said all I'm asking for is a reasoned analysis based on historical evidence that indicates the correctness of marxism. What most people here don't understand is that marxism almost took power. The revolution could have happened. There was an historical moment when it was possible but it didn't happen. And that was marxism's ruinination. All that's left is this bizarre website and innumerable squabbling sects.

Bloody_capitalist_sham I appreciate your honesty but I think people should grow up and seriously study the movement they claim to support. There's a lot to be learned from this history.

And BCM I do know that nobody here can provide what I'm asking for. But it irritates me that these idiots bait religious literalists while they themselves adhere religiously to marxist texts.

[spartan]

why dont you give us a reasoned analysis based on historical evidence that indicates the correctness of capitalism jasmine. also not everyone here is a marxist i personnaly dislike the man and much rather prefer bakunin.

[jasmine]

I don't think that capitalism is correct (whatever that means).

Fact is fact, history is history, 150 years after Marx and Bakunin capitalism still exists. If you are serious about your revolutionary theory you must attempt to explain this.

[JazzRemington]

You can't really prove anything. All you can do is to provide enough evidence to support a claim; however, you can disprove something by showing so much as one piece of evidence that contradicts said claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming of course that said evidence is valid.


prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.

Well, I think any class can be revolutionary given the correct stimulus. The working class has the potential to be a revolutionary class because of the fact that the capitalist class (and all those other people that rely on surplus value) obtains their living through obtaining surplus value from the working class, which itself results in lower wages if the capitalist wants more surplus value. This places them in a strange relationship because for one class to get a head, the other has to suffer. Historically, the more a particular group of people has been pushed the more likely they are to do something. Look at the Germanic tribes for example.


prove that marxism is scientific.

Depends. Do you mean "marxism" as the ideology or "marxism" as a set of tools and techniques for studying material reality? The former isn't very scientific because it just asserts blind truths without any evidence to support them while the latter is just a set of tools and techniques.


prove that socialism is possible.

What, that elusive post-Capitalism/pre-communism phase? Who knows if it is possible or not because with the advent of modern production technology a "socialist phase" might not be possible because of the fact that it's possible to carry out production with little to no human intervention and in a highly decentralized manner. But I am of the opinion that it probably won't be necessary. And if it is,then it won't be needed for much longer.



Fact is fact, history is history, 150 years after Marx and Bakunin capitalism still exists.

If you've read as much Marx and Engels as you claim, you'd know this statement doesn't mean anything. Marx never said how and when Capitalism would collapse or be overtaken. He couldn't predict the future with such certainty. All he did was examine Capitalism in a historical context and saw that all previous modes of production outlived their usefulness and were discarded. When don't know exactly when the same will happen for Capitalism and if anyone says they do, they probably don't know what they are talking about. All we can do is examine the course Capitalism is taking and formulate ideas.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.

One cannot prove a sociological statement like that. But I can say that the working class, so long as it is oppressed, will have a desire for change - even if it is latent. People want freedom; it is an inherant drive - to have control over yourself.


prove that marxism is scientific.
It is and isn't. It isn't scientific because it cannot be disproven; marxists should realize this because that is often their gauge for saying other things aren't scientific.

It is in that it is a study of nature. That's what I think science means; to use the above method would cancel out quantum physics and make it a religion. But is it an accurate, realistic or honest inquiry? I think it was for Marx, at least in regard to the latter 2. Accuracy seems logical in regard to the ongoing struggle of the oppressed class(es) (I define class more fluidly; I understand but disagree with Marx's concept of only 3 classes, the notion that the number of classes is constant and claims that class has retained it's character since Marx's time).




prove that socialism is possible.
Again, proof of sociological statements is almost always a futile endeavor. I have reason to think it is a logical conclusion of man's struggle against authority, but I can't pretend to have proof of it - I can only work towards it (which requires belief in it), as it is the only productive solution to man's problems.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:00 pm
You can't really prove anything. All you can do is to provide enough evidence to support a claim; however, you can disprove something by showing so much as one piece of evidence that contradicts said claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming of course that said evidence is valid.
Disproving something is a form of proof - the proof of something's nonexistance as fact. I can only "provide enough evidence to support a claim" that something is not true just as you say the same of positive proof.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:19 pm
I don't think that capitalism is correct (whatever that means).

Fact is fact, history is history, 150 years after Marx and Bakunin capitalism still exists. If you are serious about your revolutionary theory you must attempt to explain this.
150 years after Watt Tyler feudalism still existed *shrugs* Major societal change takes a long time to happen.

Anyhow, Marxism is scientific because it is based on materialism and empiricism. It is based on historical observation rather on on idealism and as such scientific socialism can be contrasted with earlier utopian socialism (or the utopian capitalism, some people here subscribe to).

As for this "proving socialism". What precisely do you mean? You can not "prove" something that is yet to happen, you can only provide evidence that it will happen.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:33 pm
I have read the communist manifesto and I'd say I've read a good deal more Marx and Engels than most people who post here.


You Prove a point with this remark, but its not the one you intended to prove. :D

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:23 pm
Disproving something is a form of proof - the proof of something's nonexistance as fact. I can only "provide enough evidence to support a claim" that something is not true just as you say the same of positive proof.
Well, that's basically another way to say what I said. But it takes much less evidence to prove the nonexistence of a claim than to prove its existence.

Suppose I study 100 instances of A and find that all of them are equal to Y. I could then (by using inductive reasoning, mind you) make a theory claiming "all A = Y." All you would have to do to prove me wrong is to find so much as 1 instance of A being equal to Z. Thus, my theory is proved wrong.

Of course, I could modify my claim to say something like "in general, A = Y" but my previous statement of "all A = Y" is still wrong.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Jasmine, if you critically examined why those revolutions failed, you would understand that there is definite material and political reasons that can only be examined subjectively, and that's not some sort of evasion or a cover-up, or some sort of inability to deal with reality, but merely a fact.

In The German Ideology, Marx said the following,


"A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive."

"…so long as the productive forces are still insufficiently developed to make competition superfluous, and therefore would give rise to competition over and over again, for so long the classes which are ruled would be wanting to be impossible if they had the "will" to abolish competition and with it the state and the law."

"Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces, even a very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production."

In other words, Marx said that the ability to reach our objective; a communist society, is severly limited on the basis of the material level that currently predominates; that unless there was a high state of development of the productive forces, what we are aiming for would be impossible, and "all the old crap will revive itself" if we are materially unable to dissolve ourselves as a class.

In My Life, Trotsky wrote about the conditions of Russia at the time of the civil war: "All the aftermath of the war was then just beginning to make itself felt.... One wondered if a country so despairing, so economically exhausted, so devastated, had enough sap left in it to support a new regime and preserve its independence. There was no food. There was no army. The railways were completely disorganized. The machinery of state was just beginning to take shape. Conspiracies were being hatched everywhere." Not only that, but there was the historical and economic backwardness of Russia to deal with - it was mostly an agrarian-based economy that was barely able to feed itself due to yearly bad harvests and natural disasters that created a recipe of malnutrition, even in non-war times.

As so, they were stuck in a situation in which "all the old crap" started to come back; the proletariat was weakened as a class due to their material deprivation - they were starving in the streets, freezing in their own homes, and became increasingly reliant on the bureaucracy to support themselves. Not only that, but the dual character of the workers' state was becoming it's downfall - factory and technical managers from the former bourgeois class were beginning to take ahold of the party out of this situation. Though the silencing of revolutionary opposition, the bureaucracy finally substituted itself, and brought back "all the old crap". Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky predicted their very own defeat before any anarchist or capitalist ever did.

As for Germany, the Communist Party displayed weak leadership, taking an abstentionist position while the Nazis were excelling amongst the rank-in-file in the realm of electoral politics. On the thoroughly bureaucratized Comintern's orders, they also refused to engage in an alliance with the Social Democrats, who were at the time a mass party, which would of honestly created an opportunity to beat back the fascists.

I can get into your other examples, but I think you were in agreement with me - Stalinism, or the bureaucratic tendency that was forming in the Communist International, pretty much derailed any chances of socialist revolution. If you acknowledge that the bureaucratic stratum arised out of material conditions, rather than appearing out of the pits of hell, then you are understanding this from a Marxist perspective.

Capitalism has only jumped a little in the preceding years after the fall of the Soviet Union; with low-cost regions and cheap labor, profits have never been higher for multinational corporations. However, if we think realistically, we can determine that over a billion people on the sweatshop and factory floor across the world do not like to be payed under a dollar a day; we know that workers will not permit to be placed under such a fowl, disgusting conditions. With the tendency for profits to drop, which was by far proven to be correct by Marx, we can only expect that with a rise of the class struggle, profits will embark on it's last trip of inevitable decline, in which fascism or world war would be the only resolution (for only a little while also) to preserve this system. The world wars, and the stablization that occured right after, proved Marx correct by far. He has proved that this system will not last forever.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:20 am
Well, that's basically another way to say what I said. But it takes much less evidence to prove the nonexistence of a claim than to prove its existence.

Suppose I study 100 instances of A and find that all of them are equal to Y. I could then (by using inductive reasoning, mind you) make a theory claiming "all A = Y." All you would have to do to prove me wrong is to find so much as 1 instance of A being equal to Z. Thus, my theory is proved wrong.

Of course, I could modify my claim to say something like "in general, A = Y" but my previous statement of "all A = Y" is still wrong.
Yeah, but that contradicts

however, you can disprove something by showing so much as one piece of evidence that contradicts said claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

I guess you just worded your sentence improperly; I do agree with your explanation - we can get "closer to a disproof" than we can towards a proof, because one piece of evidence can invalidate a theory, while it takes mounds of evidence to develop a trustworthy theory.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:09 pm
HOW?

How does it sound like faith fatherfucker? It's possible to prove socialism is possible, theoretically, to a reasonable whereby doubt would be quite stupid but it still cannot be proved possible until, well, empirically proved so.
Marxism - or any socialist theories developed today for that matter - cannot be proven because none of them have basis in physical material evidence. They are arguments of the mind, and the social organization which these minds make up.

For a theory to have a proof, it must be possible to disprove it for one thing. Marxism can't be disproven, nor can any social order. Maybe one day, when we have done so much research into the mind as to see clear patterns relating to our social order, we will be able to test socialism, but I don't see that happening, so it's really nothing more than a philosophy. A philosophy rooted in material facts, perhaps, and sound sociological evidence, but certainly not provable or disprovable. And if something is a philosophical concept you believe in becasue you understand the world that way, but without legitimate tests to prove it, (especially if such belief helps it to occur) than it requires faith.

[jasmine]

Let's put this in context. I began posting on a thread that demands proof of the existence of God. The person or persons who began that thread clearly know that no such proof is possible. All I'm pointing out is that the same goes for socialism. It's a belief. Of course you can point to certain material evidence in support of your belief but creationists also find evidence to support their claims (disclaimer - I am not a creationist).


If you've read as much Marx and Engels as you claim, you'd know this statement doesn't mean anything. Marx never said how and when Capitalism would collapse or be overtaken. He couldn't predict the future with such certainty. All he did was examine Capitalism in a historical context and saw that all previous modes of production outlived their usefulness and were discarded. When don't know exactly when the same will happen for Capitalism and if anyone says they do, they probably don't know what they are talking about. All we can do is examine the course Capitalism is taking and formulate ideas.

Well this isn't quite true and it seems to be something many latter day marxists are unaware of. In "Socialism Utopian And Scientific" Engels explains that the underlying economic laws of history have the same precise scientific quality as the laws of physics. The development of human history is governed by these laws and the collapse of capitalism is inevitable. It's true that the timing of the event could not be determined to the day but there was an expectation in both the Second International and the Bolshevik Party that the collapse and revolution were imminent. When Lenin described the Russian revolution as the bridgehead for the world revolution he was reflecting the views of Marx and Engels on the imminence of the revolution in Germany in particular.


As for Germany, the Communist Party displayed weak leadership, taking an abstentionist position while the Nazis were excelling amongst the rank-in-file in the realm of electoral politics. On the thoroughly bureaucratized Comintern's orders, they also refused to engage in an alliance with the Social Democrats, who were at the time a mass party, which would of honestly created an opportunity to beat back the fascists.

I agree with what you say about Russia and social conditions. Germany is more complex. I agree with your description but what lies behind those events?

The proletarian revolution is different from any revolution in the past because it means that the majority of the population will take power. And unlike the bourgeois revolution the state power has to be destroyed with a single blow and the mode of production transformed within a brief period of time. Also it has to spread rapidly internationally. Under feudalism the capitalist class developed its means of production alongside feudal social relations for at least 100 years until it, a minority of the population already wielding economic and political power, was ready to strike.

The revolution in Germany failed on the face of it because the leadership split and capitulated. But what does this say about the consciousness of the working class. For socialism to succeed, as described by Marx, the working class majority has to acquire revolutionary consciousness. In Germany a minority of the working class were certainly revolutionary but were not powerful enough to drag the rest along with them. The leadership capitulated because the class they represented was not revolutionary. The splits in the SPD at the start of WW1 reflected the divisions within the working class that would become evident between 1919 and 1923.

The failure in Germany undermines two central aspects of Marxist theory. Firstly the mechnical idea of the scientifically determined collapse of capitalism. Secondly the idea of the vanguard party developed by Lenin.

The development of stalinism also was a reflection of the non-revolutionary consciousness of the working class.

[gilhyle]

I began posting on a thread that demands proof of the existence of God. The person or persons who began that thread clearly know that no such proof is possible. All I'm pointing out is that the same goes for socialism.

Point well made.


there was an expectation in both the Second International and the Bolshevik Party that the collapse and revolution were imminent.

Yes, but not as a matter of inevitability, as a matter of conjuncture. They correctly believed there was a crisis of capitalism coming, but they did not believe that the secular tendency of the rate of profit to fall meant that that crisis had ony one possible outcome.


the state power has to be destroyed with a single blow and the mode of production transformed within a brief period of time.

This view is held by some ultra-leftist and semi-anarchist marxists. It is a view that has been particularly prominent recently in the period of defeat for the working class and success for capitalist globalisation. It constitutes a revival of utopianism within Marxism. :D

[Whitten]

Marxism, as a scientific theory, cannot be proven. The same way no scientific model of the rel world can be proven. All a scientific theory can do is model a system according to observational evidence and improve it when new evidence is discovered. That is science, there is no such thing as absolute scientific proof.

Why ask how socialism will be inacted if you claim to have read more Marx and Englees than other people here? You should know the answer if that is true.

[JazzRemington]

Well this isn't quite true and it seems to be something many latter day marxists are unaware of. In "Socialism Utopian And Scientific" Engels explains that the underlying economic laws of history have the same precise scientific quality as the laws of physics. The development of human history is governed by these laws and the collapse of capitalism is inevitable. It's true that the timing of the event could not be determined to the day but there was an expectation in both the Second International and the Bolshevik Party that the collapse and revolution were imminent. When Lenin described the Russian revolution as the bridgehead for the world revolution he was reflecting the views of Marx and Engels on the imminence of the revolution in Germany in particular.

That's pretty much what I meant. Marx and Engels didn't know exactly when a collapse would happen but the people who used (read: abused) what Marx and Engels said claimed to know...and history proved them wrong.

A collapse is inevitable, but we don't know when and how it will happen, and if the proletariat will actually do something because Marx wrote in the manifesto that class struggle more or less resulted in "a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes", which indicates that he might have thought there was a chance a revolution would fail and be disastrous for everyone involved. Germany is an example.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.
prove that marxism is scientific.
prove that socialism is possible.
perhaps since the beourgiouse class and their supporters are asserting the idea that the proletarian would be worse off under communism, then the burden of proof to the contrary, as with religion is on them, not us.

BTW the failures of previous 'communist' states does not prove that it does not work per se, merely that it cannot co-exist with a prominient capitalist economy.

[spartan]

therefore ulster socialist a worldwide revolution with the support of the masses is the only way because i think so! none of this socialism in one country state socialism crap. the only way a revolution will succeed is if it has the overwhelming support of the masses and if it destroys all nations, government/hierarchies, the idea of cultures/races/nationalities and money. then we will succeed!

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:47 am
Let's put this in context. I began posting on a thread that demands proof of the existence of God. The person or persons who began that thread clearly know that no such proof is possible. All I'm pointing out is that the same goes for socialism. It's a belief. Of course you can point to certain material evidence in support of your belief but creationists also find evidence to support their claims (disclaimer - I am not a creationist).

It is not the same thing. You see when you discuss the existence of God, you are discussing the existence of something that you can not test for and does not exist on the material plane, ehich is as far as we know, the only thing that exists. It is pointless and there is certainly not possible to prove.

Socialism is easy to prove. Socialism is a political movement. There are socialists here. Ergo socialism exists, there is no ambiguity there. Your question is more along the lines of socialist states I suspect and again there is no ambiguity. They don't exist. THe final question is will they exist. And that is a matter of predicting something that will happen in material terms in the future, not of discussing whether something exists in non material terms just now. Hence the difference between this and "proofs" of God.

[black magick hustla]

I don't know if communism is really possible (that is, the destruction of classes and generalized self-management)

When people say communism is the objective conclusion of history they are most of the time speaking bullshit. There is nothing empirical and scientific about that conclusion.

However, throughout generations, some people have actively tried to reach the stars, and I will gladly follow that tradition.

People who stop trying to reach the stars, the "utopia", are already dead in their hearts and imagination.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:46 pm
therefore ulster socialist a worldwide revolution with the support of the masses is the only way because i think so! none of this socialism in one country state socialism crap. the only way a revolution will succeed is if it has the overwhelming support of the masses and if it destroys all nations, government/hierarchies, the idea of cultures/races/nationalities and money. then we will succeed!
the main reason socialism has never been able to dominate the world is because the U$A and its lecky states have been able to quash it through force and economic sanctions.

Another reason is internal counter revolution. The German communists could have united and beat Hitler democratically in 1928, had it not been for the hard-headedness of Moscow.

[pusher robot]

the main reason socialism has never been able to dominate the world is because the U$A and its lecky states have been able to quash it through force and economic sanctions.

All this proves is that communist societies are weak and unsustainable. Your answer begs the question: Why couldn't the communist states crush the USA through force and economic sanctions? If communism is supposed to unleash greater economic productivity, and greater innovation, and greater personal freedom, then why didn't the communist states crush America?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 07:42 pm

the main reason socialism has never been able to dominate the world is because the U$A and its lecky states have been able to quash it through force and economic sanctions.

All this proves is that communist societies are weak and unsustainable. Your answer begs the question: Why couldn't the communist states crush the USA through force and economic sanctions? If communism is supposed to unleash greater economic productivity, and greater innovation, and greater personal freedom, then why didn't the communist states crush America?
because communism is about collective strength, not concentrated strength. Capitalism may be able to build bigger armies, more grandiose palaces and better standards of living for its elite classes but all this is at the cost of the greater portion of society. Communism is about reversing that trend.

[JazzRemington]

All this proves is that communist societies are weak and unsustainable. Your answer begs the question: Why couldn't the communist states crush the USA through force and economic sanctions? If communism is supposed to unleash greater economic productivity, and greater innovation, and greater personal freedom, then why didn't the communist states crush America?

*sigh* (again) Regardless of how many times it's been shown, the fact that communism has never existed (and can only exist after capitalism) and that the economic structure of Russia and all other so-called "communist states" were capitalist eludes some people.

All Russia (amongst others) proves is that their particular "brand" of capitalism was inferior to what the West had. Even though Russia industrialized quickly (probably faster than the US did, but don't quote me on that as I don't have any figures), it hit a proverbial ceiling in development that was based more on the nature of the way their economy was organized and functioned.

[jasmine]

A collapse is inevitable, but we don't know when and how it will happen, and if the proletariat will actually do something because Marx wrote in the manifesto that class struggle more or less resulted in "a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes", which indicates that he might have thought there was a chance a revolution would fail and be disastrous for everyone involved. Germany is an example.


Yes, but not as a matter of inevitability, as a matter of conjuncture. They correctly believed there was a crisis of capitalism coming, but they did not believe that the secular tendency of the rate of profit to fall meant that that crisis had ony one possible outcome.

I think these points are the most important. There is a tension at the heart of marxism between the scientific nature of the analysis, the inevitability of revolution and the need for political action. Lenin sought to resolve the problem through the vanguard party.

Marx, I think, was convinced that he had uncovered scientific laws that governed human development. These laws were scientific in the same sense that the laws of physics are scientific. The proletariat was a revolutionary class because history, governed by the laws Marx described, had made it so.

For Marx some classes were revolutionary - eg the bourgoisie, the proletariat - some were not - eg the feudal peasantry.

In Marx's analysis the proletarian revolution or the common ruin of the contending classes is inevitable. The "common ruin" is not, as far as I know, precisely defined. And both Luxembourg and Trotsky talked of the bleak alternative between socialism and barbarism. This barbarism again is not defined but I am sure it did not refer to the continuation of bourgeois democracy.

I think Marx and Luxembourg and Trotsky are all talking about an inevitable confrontation between an historically revolutionary class and the now reactionary bourgeoisie that would result in either a workers state or at best some kind of fascist/militarist world order.

Looking at the world in 1915 or 1935 I'm sure this made a lot of sense. And the confrontation did occur but the outcome was neither the dictatorship of proletariat nor the common ruin of the contending classes. This suggests to me that the proletariat is not a revolutionary class. It's more like the feudal peasantry which also at times rose up against its oppressors but never established itself as the ruling class.

Lenin thought he and his party were the human manifestation of the underlying scientific laws of human historical development. He was a brilliant man but he was wrong. If there really are laws that dictate human development Marx did not uncover them.


This view is held by some ultra-leftist and semi-anarchist marxists. It is a view that has been particularly prominent recently in the period of defeat for the working class and success for capitalist globalisation. It constitutes a revival of utopianism within Marxism.

I think that Lenin in "State and Revolution" does not envisage a transitional period for the class nature of the state. The bourgeois state is smashed and replaced by a new form of state - a state of the Paris Commune type. There's no possibility of a period of coexistance between bourgeois and proletarian states (in the sense that bourgeois and feudal forms co-existed).

Also I am aware of the discussion about the economic transition to socialism. Workers control of capitalist enterprises and so on. This strikes me as particularly utopian.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:56 pm

All this proves is that communist societies are weak and unsustainable. Your answer begs the question: Why couldn't the communist states crush the USA through force and economic sanctions? If communism is supposed to unleash greater economic productivity, and greater innovation, and greater personal freedom, then why didn't the communist states crush America?

*sigh* (again) Regardless of how many times it's been shown, the fact that communism has never existed (and can only exist after capitalism) and that the economic structure of Russia and all other so-called "communist states" were capitalist eludes some people.

All Russia (amongst others) proves is that their particular "brand" of capitalism was inferior to what the West had. Even though Russia industrialized quickly (probably faster than the US did, but don't quote me on that as I don't have any figures), it hit a proverbial ceiling in development that was based more on the nature of the way their economy was organized and functioned.
i largely agree with this, however the main precursor (large scale war and collapsing living standards of the working class) to events following 1917 Russia is precisely the sort of thing that will precede the global revolution that you're referring to, albeit on a much grander scale. The debate here is why things went downhill from that point on.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.
prove that marxism is scientific.
prove that socialism is possible.
Ah a new idiot for us to destroy. A fresh lamb for the slaughter - you are to be Revleft's midnight snack :D .

OK, In all seriousness; let's have a look at what you are asking one step at a time.


prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.


Right, there seems to be some misinterpretation here. It is not 'a revolutionary class' it is 'the Revolutionary class.' The Revolutionary class has always come from below yes? Well in Feudalism it was the Middle-class versus the Aristocracy, from below, at the highest stage of Capitalism you are left with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As the proletarian otherthrow of Capitalism will come from below and bring a revolutionary change (rather than a reactionary change as brought by Fascism) then it is THE revolutionary class. Whether it is militant, or aware of it's revolutionary capabilities at present remains to be seen.


prove that marxism is scientific.

Well I believe Marxism is a revolution that encorporates both Science and the Arts. Marx was, of course, a Romantic poet in his youth (not that many acknowledge that). I belong to the Arts side of the revolution and I have no interest in the Science side (though of course I respect it) I simply do not, and do not want to, understand Scientific things as they do not interest me. I leave that to people better educated in Science. Therefore it is difficult for me to speak of Scientific Marxism - though of course Science and Arts sit side by side as equals in importance in my opinion. To me Marxism is not scientific - as I do not pay attention to the Scientific aspects of it. Yet it is so broad a movement that it, as I said, encorporates every aspect of society and its skills - most famously, of course, artists such as Rivera and Picasso, writers such as Calvino, Orwell and Pavese, and many famous scientists (whom I know nothing about and so I shall not mention though, though I'm sure Einstein was a sympathiser). Anyway I presume that Scientific Marxists (or us Marxists in general) would see the method of Marxist analysis as Scientific? It is difficult for me to answer. Though many of my friends would be able to provide MUCH better arguments lol.


prove that socialism is possible.

Give us the chance and we will.

[jasmine]

Right, there seems to be some misinterpretation here. It is not 'a revolutionary class' it is 'the Revolutionary class.' The Revolutionary class has always come from below yes? Well in Feudalism it was the Middle-class versus the Aristocracy, from below, at the highest stage of Capitalism you are left with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As the proletarian otherthrow of Capitalism will come from below and bring a revolutionary change (rather than a reactionary change as brought by Fascism) then it is THE revolutionary class. Whether it is militant, or aware of it's revolutionary capabilities at present remains to be seen.

Have you bothered to read the thread?


Well I believe Marxism is a revolution that encorporates both Science and the Arts. Marx was, of course, a Romantic poet in his youth (not that many acknowledge that). I belong to the Arts side of the revolution and I have no interest in the Science side (though of course I respect it) I simply do not, and do not want to, understand Scientific things as they do not interest me. I leave that to people better educated in Science. Therefore it is difficult for me to speak of Scientific Marxism - though of course Science and Arts sit side by side as equals in importance in my opinion. To me Marxism is not scientific - as I do not pay attention to the Scientific aspects of it. Yet it is so broad a movement that it, as I said, encorporates every aspect of society and its skills - most famously, of course, artists such as Rivera and Picasso, writers such as Calvino, Orwell and Pavese, and many famous scientists (whom I know nothing about and so I shall not mention though, though I'm sure Einstein was a sympathiser). Anyway I presume that Scientific Marxists (or us Marxists in general) would see the method of Marxist analysis as Scientific? It is difficult for me to answer. Though many of my friends would be able to provide MUCH better arguments lol.

Or in other words you are an imbecile.

Please don't waste our time with your nonsensical posts.

[JazzRemington]

I think these points are the most important. There is a tension at the heart of marxism between the scientific nature of the analysis, the inevitability of revolution and the need for political action.

I'm not sure what you mean, but you don't have to reference Lenin and Vanguards because I'm not really a Leninist. I already know the problems with those things.

But I don't think it's a tension. Basically, when we study society using Marx's methods and tools we are 1) removing ourselves from our subject, 2) looking at them objectively, and 3) realize that we (if we think of ourselves as not being scientists for the moment) are just as much a part of society as anyone else. Basically it involves being self-critical and understanding that though you can study something objectively "from the outside," you are still as much a part of it as anyone else and subject to whatever your findings are. An analogy would be when a psychologist discovers how people store and recall things in memory. This discovery is also true for the psychologist as well.

Marx saw that all the great revolutions that resulted in changes in the economic structure involved political changes and/or revolution. He understood that the political actions taken by communists and workers were just as much a part of this as any other people's actions.


Marx, I think, was convinced that he had uncovered scientific laws that governed human development.

I can't remember where, but in a letter either Engels or Marx wrote that they wanted people to understand their work as merely a "study guide."


This suggests to me that the proletariat is not a revolutionary class.

The Russian proletariat wasn't too strong and numerous. Russia, at the time, was still feudal, as was China. In the beginnings of the Russian revolution, factory workers began to organize into councils and send delegates between then to coordinate actions. The same was true of the Paris uprisings in 1968. If a class starts a revolution, then that class is revolutionary. Just because it failed to achieve its goal does not make it less revolutionary. It took many years for things such as Protestantism, capitalism, and democracy to catch on and grow dominant.


If there really are laws that dictate human development Marx did not uncover them.

It depends on what you mean by "laws." Marx framed his research on the fact that people follow material interests. They could follow other interests in addition to their material interests, but one could not be sure they were if they were studied objectively. He discovered that when it was in one class' material interests to revolt and attempt to seize control of the State in some manner (either through violence or through more or less peaceful evolution), then they did but they didn't always have to succeed and they didn't always have to just accept one defeat. Flare ups happen all the time.

One should note that, while Russia began it's "new life" as Soviet Russia (if you will) as a Feudalist society, it evolved eventually into a basically capitalist system before the USSR finally dissolved. As for China and Cuba, I don't know too much about their economic organizations to comment. But if anything, at least Russia is evidence that Marx might have been on to something.

[TC]

The empirical proof of Marxism is that organized social forces behave as dialectical materialism predicts they would behave: to advance and preserve their socio-economic political interests within the parameters of their material limitations and constraints.

Were the last 5000 years of human state-level political/economic development characterized by institutional altruism or institutional senseless (rather than calculated) cruelty, that would falsify Marxism. Instead we see that ideological justifications, whether philosophical, theological, or cultural, when adopted by organized social forces on a mass scale, consistently coincide with their socio-economic interests. Were the Marxist theory of society false, you would not expect to see that consistently, only rarely by coincidence.

For instance, while people might blame civil wars on religion, you do not see religious wars between people of different religions but common socio-economic interests, only between groups who have conflicting economic interests in addition to religious differences (such as the british dependent protestants to the poor catholics in northern ireland, the protestant german national bourgeois to the jewish german finance bourgeois, the oil rich shia to the oil poor sunnis in iraq todayand vice versa, the bourgeois northern european protestants to the mercantilist southern european catholics during the reformation, and so on).

[jasmine]

I can't remember where, but in a letter either Engels or Marx wrote that they wanted people to understand their work as merely a "study guide."

I think their view of having uncovered the historical laws underlying history is well spelt out in "Socialsm, Utopian and Scientific".

But for any social predictive theory the proof lies real events. That capitalism is a system of crisis is obviously true. Whether or not this will result in a proletarian revolution is far less certain.

It's hard these days to define what marxism is exactly. In Europe where once communism was so powerful there is now a scattering of tiny groups all claiming to possess the true interpretation of Marx's works. None of these groups has anything close to significant support in the working class. This simple fact I think speaks most powerfully against Marxism as "truth" or "science". Of course the support for any socialist movement would fluctuate with different conditions but in Europe Marxism has all but disappeared.


The empirical proof of Marxism is that organized social forces behave as dialectical materialism predicts they would behave: to advance and preserve their socio-economic political interests within the parameters of their material limitations and constraints.

There is evidence that supports Marx and it would be foolish to dismiss everything he said. But who is going to rebuild the marxist movement? And how?

[mikelepore]

The questions posed in the first post aren't yet put in a form free of ambiguity. They have to be made more specific before they become answerable.



prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.

To me that can only mean: Prove that, if someone is going to take control of the industries in the name of society, it will have to be done by the segment of the population which already, on a daily basis, operates, builds, repairs, improves and technically understands those industries. Why does this need to be proven? Who else could do it?



prove that marxism is scientific.

It's some particular hypothesis that is or isn't scientific, or derived and tested in a scientific way. It's not the thousands of sentences that any writer has composed in a lifetime, which people later call [the writer's name]-ism. Some of those sentences the writer has composed are metaphors, some are value judgements, some are expressions of optimism or pessimism, etc. Select one or a few statements that seem to be put forth in the form of scientific hypotheses, and those can be looked at more carefully to see how scientifically the writer has handled them. For example, in Engels' famous 1883 speech at Marx's grave, he paraphrased the thesis of the materialist conception of history. People could select that paragraph and consider it. Or they could consider the Law of Value, or the description of the class struggle, or the interpretation of the state. Before trying to answer the question, what exactly is the question?



prove that socialism is possible.

"Possible" is particularly ambiguous. In the most common usage of the word, "possible" simply means "not yet proven to be impossible". What is it supposed to mean here? To answer it as given, I would have select any one criterion for establishing socialism. For example, capitalism itself disposed of the need for a sole proprietor for a whole industry and has replaced it with management by committee. Then socialism replaces election of the board of directors by stockholders using one-share one-vote by a new procedure of election of the board of directors by workers using one-person one-vote. In doing that, socialism is merely continuing the practice of management by elected committees, which capitalism has already been using and testing for over a hundred years, and is merely changing the voting requirements. If that's not the criterion that the question writer had in mind, the question writer has to remove the ambiguity from the question.

[Herman]

But who is going to rebuild the marxist movement? And how?

It takes time. Culture and change have to take place, just like for the bourgeoisie in the 19th century. See how many liberal and middle class movements were squashed under the heel of the old social order? The absolute monarch and his noble cronies!

So who is going to do it?

Being a technocrat as well as a marxist, it is inevitable that the present system will fall. The rise of technology will make it so, just like it did in the 19th century.

[jasmine]

To me that can only mean: Prove that, if someone is going to take control of the industries in the name of society, it will have to be done by the segment of the population which already, on a daily basis, operates, builds, repairs, improves and technically understands those industries. Why does this need to be proven? Who else could do it?

Why should we assume that anyone is going to take control?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.
prove that marxism is scientific.
prove that socialism is possible.

prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.

Alright, you name me one single revolution that has not been fought by the 'great unwashed'.


prove that marxism is scientific.

Read Karl Marx. Wait a second though... you think you have read more Marx than most of this board, so why don't you tell us how it isn't?


prove that socialism is possible.

Go back to school Jasmine, because obviously you weren't paying attention or they simply failed to teach you anything about the Spanish civil war, Owen's New Lanark or a whole host of other examples. Either way your education obviously suffered, something you should attempt to redress as swiftly as possible.

[jasmine]

Go back to school Jasmine, because obviously you weren't paying attention or they simply failed to teach you anything about the Spanish civil war, Owen's New Lanark or a whole host of other examples. Either way your education obviously suffered, something you should attempt to redress as swiftly as possible.

You just cannot stand having your precious prejudices challenged can you? Make an argument or stop wasting everbody's time.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:09 pm

Go back to school Jasmine, because obviously you weren't paying attention or they simply failed to teach you anything about the Spanish civil war, Owen's New Lanark or a whole host of other examples. Either way your education obviously suffered, something you should attempt to redress as swiftly as possible.

You just cannot stand having your precious prejudices challenged can you? Make an argument or stop wasting everbody's time.
The troll asks me not to waste everyone time, how very amusing.



You just cannot stand having your precious prejudices challenged can you?

Certainly I can, as long as the challenge is of an intellectual calibre I find stimulating; asking to 'prove' socialism, when a little research would have provided the evidence you were looking for... well that just isn't at that level.

Like I said Jaz, it's back to school for you.

[jasmine]

Alright, you name me one single revolution that has not been fought by the 'great unwashed'.

Was the feudal peasantry a revolutionary class in the marxists sense? It fought major wars with the aristocracy, siezed control land and property temporarily, but, as Marx pointed out, it was incapable as a class if establishing its own state power.

The fact that an oppressed class periodically rises against its oppressors does not prove that the oppressed class can take power in its own name.

You as a marxist have to do better than just repeat ad nauseum that marx was right. The simple stark reality is that marxism has disappeared as an influence in the class it claims to represent. How do you explain that?

[spartan]

i dont believe that everything marx said or did was right. the fact is marx is not everything to everyone on the left jasmine (in other words not everyone on the left is a marxist!). and the reason why the feudal peasents always ultimately failed is because they always compromised with new rulers who promised them change but later turned out to be just the same as the ones who they rebelled against (a bit like modern democracy really).

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well Jasmine, if you truly "read more Marx and Engels than anyone here", you clearly would of been able to answer that question. In The Principles of Communism, Engels made it quite clear why they are unable to be a revolutionary class.


The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.

Why can't the proletariat seize control of the political power? It has clearly been done before, why can't we do it again? If you can't present historical facts, while understanding the material and economic limits that surround them, then you have no right to blabber on any further and waste our time. The working class has been in control before, but under definite material circumstances of economic backwardness, they were weakened and marginalized to a point of the capitalists coming back to power. This is something you can't refute: it has been done before, and even though it was defeated, it clearly can be done again in the future.

As for Marxism 'disappearing' as an influence - I would profoundly disagree. I was just reading a book called The Working Class Majority, where the author said "millions in trade union circles are forced to admit the importance of Marx." Which is true - while many bourgeois economists had blabbered that classes did not exist, he revealed the profound fact that we are in a society of immense, deep contradictions. The class struggle in the past few centuries has, at best, proved Marx correct. The world wars, New Deal's, and imperialist invasions have shown that we do live in a world that Marx described. Whether we want to admit that and call ourselves "Marxists", or acknowledge that and hide under a different political adjective, his theories are still very alive. Every worker doesn't have to be a member of a socialist and communist party to prove Marxism correct.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jasmine
You as a marxist have to do better than just repeat ad nauseum that marx was right. The simple stark reality is that marxism has disappeared as an influence in the class it claims to represent. How do you explain that?
As Chomsky said, the political consciousness of the working class are going through a period of regression. If you examine periods in time where revolution has happened, it has always been down to extreme mass poverty (in the case of China and its satellite allies) or in the case of Russia/USSR mass war. One of the biggest precursors for the 1917 revolution was russia's involvement on the eastern front. At present, we are going through a comparitive period of 'stability' although that is not to say the present system is 'working' nor is it justifiable.
Things will start to bubble up as they surely must, thanks to the increasing class disparity, dwindling ozone layer, scarcity of crude oil, and other resources etc. Capitalism cannot provide meaningful solutions to these problems as a matter of conflict of interests. This absence of competent leadership will create the political vaccuum and fertile environment for the discussion and promotion of alternative ideaologies, from which there will be no way back for the cappies. This is precisely the noose that Lenin was referring to which he said capitalism would sell itself.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:48 pm

Why should we assume that anyone is going to take control?
I think you're refering to the tendency of Marx and his generation to assume that human history moves as though it were in a track, toward inevitable results. I think it was because Marx never completely got past his roots as a student of Hegel. Marx thought that a revolutionary isn't merely an advocate of an idea, but a commentator who notices history going through an objectively necessary process. I became a Marxist forty years ago, but I have never believed that part of it. I support certain things, but I don't claim to know that they will occur. I recommend a socialist reconstruction of society. I don't assert that it's inevitable.

On the other hand, it seems that an intelligent species would eventually have to realize the absurdity of keeping a system that prevents the benefits of automation from reaching the population. If people have eventually reached the 25th century but capitalism still exists, so the working class is still struggling for a bare living wage, even though robots are generating unimaginable wealth, because 99.99999 percent of that wealth goes straight to making the few quadrillionaires into quintillionaires, while the majority of people still have to worry about receiving their basic biological necessities -- and this certainly will be how things would be, even far into the highly automated future, if capitalism still exists by then -- it seems to me that people would eventually have to wake up to, "Hey, this isn't the best of all conceivable systems! A more optimal system can be conceived of! Duh!"

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:41 pm
prove that the working class is a revolutionary class.

We would hardly expect the ruling class to revolt against itself now would we?


prove that marxism is scientific.

All the word "scientific" means is that a system of knowledge is gained under the tenets of "scientific method" which as defined by Webster's is: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."


Whether he be deemed right or wrong, scientific method was clearly followed. I mean come on pal, not even the most heralded Von Mises drones would attempt to claim that Marxism was "unscientific" in nature.

Not even little Ludwig himself bothered with such nonsense.



prove that socialism is possible.

Does that mean that you, for some bizarre reason, reject the cases of Socialism in practice that exist historically already?

As much as you would like to revise history to support your unique viewpoint, I highly
doubt that history will be changed to accommodate you.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 04, 2007 10:09 pm
We would hardly expect the ruling class to revolt against itself now would we?
Negative statements do not equal positive statements to an opposing end, even in a dichotomy.



prove that marxism is scientific.

All the word "scientific" means is that a system of knowledge is gained under the tenets of "scientific method" which as defined by Webster's is: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."


Whether he be deemed right or wrong, scientific method was clearly followed. I mean come on pal, not even the most heralded Von Mises drones would attempt to claim that Marxism was "unscientific" in nature.

Not even little Ludwig himself bothered with such nonsense.

Who is "he" in this statement: "Whether he be deemed right or wrong..."?

Regardless, scientific method is inapplicable to Marxism. It is based on Karl Popper's science (as the definition above alludes to), which includes external "principles and procedures" from those listed above. A dictionary in this case will not define to the full extent what is and is not scientific, so long as science refers to the scientific method. One of those principles is that the idea must have a measurable disproof. Marxism cannot be disproved. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory.

Obviously, this is a very narrow view of science (which more accurately defined is the study of nature, including quite erroneous and mysterious theories and conclusions), but it is held widely by society, and you seem to support it yourself. I guess Marx was unscientific in your book.




prove that socialism is possible.

Does that mean that you, for some bizarre reason, reject the cases of Socialism in practice that exist historically already?

As much as you would like to revise history to support your unique viewpoint, I highly
doubt that history will be changed to accommodate you.
I think she is talking about Marxist socialisism, i.e. a messianic society resulting in communism. I cannot prove it, I don't think a proof is possible, but the point of her post was to show that you are just as ignorant in regards to the ultimate fact of God as you are to the future of society. I don't fully agree, but the logic, the purism granted to Marxism and anti-religious ideas here, is clearly fallacious once the above questions are raised.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Negative statements do not equal positive statements to an opposing end, even in a dichotomy.

I don't need a lesson in logic; I had to keep from sleeping through that shit in undergrad.

If you can't see why the ruling class would not bother to revolt against themselves in order to establish themselves as the former and current ruling body over themselves then there is no hope for you.


Who is "he" in this statement: "Whether he be deemed right or wrong..."?

Does the figure of speech confuse you?


Regardless, scientific method is inapplicable to Marxism

Not according to how Webster's defines scientific method.


A dictionary in this case will not define to the full extent what is and is not scientific, so long as science refers to the scientific method. One of those principles is that the idea must have a measurable disproof. Marxism cannot be disproved. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory.

The fact of the matter is that you yourself think that a dictionary doesn't accurately define scientific method.

The reason for this of course is that it refutes completely your argument. \

I'll stick with Webster's over your personal opinion any day jack.


ne of those principles is that the idea must have a measurable disproof. Marxism cannot be disproved. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory

And how exactly did you come to that unique and rather bizarre conclusion?


Obviously, this is a very narrow view of science (which more accurately defined is the study of nature, including quite erroneous and mysterious theories and conclusions), but it is held widely by society,

So "widely held society" that "society" has even bothered to refute this "narrow" view in all of it's English language dictionaries.

When you speak with Scotty tell him to beam your ass back to planet Earth.


and you seem to support it yourself. I guess Marx was unscientific in your book.

A) I support what I have already written about myself supporting.

B) Marx was not "unscientific".

If you're still confused please ask for more clarification. I doubt even that will help you however.


I think she is talking about Marxist socialisism, i.e. a messianic society resulting in communism. . .

Socialism is Socialism.

What happens after that period is not under debate.


I cannot prove it, I don't think a proof is possible,

I already know what you think and it has been rejected.



but the point of her post was to show that you are just as ignorant in regards to the ultimate fact of God as you are to the future of society

I don't believe in crystal balls, mystics, seers, and other absurd notions.

The only thing we can positively say about future society is that it will be further in time than today is.

What exactly are you getting at when you say "the ultimate fact of god" anyway?


I don't fully agree, but the logic, the purism granted to Marxism and anti-religious ideas here, is clearly fallacious once the above questions are raised

What a bunch of hooey.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 05, 2007 05:26 pm

Who is "he" in this statement: "Whether he be deemed right or wrong..."?

Does the figure of speech confuse you?
Did you mean Webster? He died in 1942, and even if he was still around the title "Webster's dictionary" is used by others.


The fact of the matter is that you yourself think that a dictionary doesn't accurately define scientific method.

The reason for this of course is that it refutes completely your argument. \
No, I think it doesn't accurately define science. They are two different things.

I'll stick with Webster's over your personal opinion any day jack.



ne of those principles is that the idea must have a measurable disproof. Marxism cannot be disproved. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory

And how exactly did you come to that unique and rather bizarre conclusion?
From Karl Popper. If you can't test the falseness of a theory, it cannot be proven. Besides the obvious logic behind it, I have the scientific community behind me in this one: that is how they define sciences versus pseudo - sciences.

Here:
Karl Popper (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

Scientific Method:
"Models, in both science and mathematics, need to be internally consistent and also ought to be falsifiable (capable of disproof)."
Scientific Method (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)



Obviously, this is a very narrow view of science (which more accurately defined is the study of nature, including quite erroneous and mysterious theories and conclusions), but it is held widely by society,

So "widely held society" that "society" has even bothered to refute this "narrow" view in all of it's English language dictionaries.

When you speak with Scotty tell him to beam your ass back to planet Earth.
Dictionaries are not proof of objective truth, only of a trend in language. Quantum Physics, for instance, is not falsifiable, so as a science it is technically pseudo-scientific. But I disagree with that narrow view; I think human study of nature is inherantly scientific, even if it results in false conclusions (which even the scientific method has done).



and you seem to support it yourself. I guess Marx was unscientific in your book.

A) I support what I have already written about myself supporting.
Only dictionaries?


B) Marx was not "unscientific".
I agree.


If you're still confused please ask for more clarification. I doubt even that will help you however.
For someone who thinks my arguments on science are false based solely on dictionaries, you have a lot of certainty in your own ideas. Tell me, did you just read the Communist Manifesto and a dictionary and decide all facts of the world then and there?



I think she is talking about Marxist socialisism, i.e. a messianic society resulting in communism. . .

Socialism is Socialism.

What happens after that period is not under debate.
For her, and I know her well enough to make this assertion with some certainty, it is either a stable worker - run society in general or a society which many call "Marx's socialism," one progressing towards a state of communism.

If socialism, for you, is defined simply as "socialism," with nothing further to add, I think you have a lot of critiquing to do of your own ideas.




I cannot prove it, I don't think a proof is possible,

I already know what you think and it has been rejected.
Communism has been rejected?



but the point of her post was to show that you are just as ignorant in regards to the ultimate fact of God as you are to the future of society

I don't believe in crystal balls, mystics, seers, and other absurd notions.

The only thing we can positively say about future society is that it will be further in time than today is.

What exactly are you getting at when you say "the ultimate fact of god" anyway?
Whether or not it exists as Christians would say He does.

You can't just say that an idea is absurd by relating it to other superstitions, especially if your Marxism is not certain at all, that we cannot know tomorrow any more than that it is a new day. Marxism is about society changing to a classless one. But we have no reason to be sure that it will come to pass,which would have been the scientific Marxism as defined by a dictionary or a scientist.


What a bunch of hooey.
How constructive and penetrating.

[Vinny Rafarino]

From Karl Popper. If you can't test the falseness of a theory, it cannot be proven. Besides the obvious logic behind it, I have the scientific community behind me in this one: that is how they define sciences versus pseudo - sciences.


No I meant the bizarre conclusion that Marxism can't be proven false.

In any case, besides being a philosopher and LSE teacher, what exactly gave Popper the right to redefine scientific method as he saw fit?


Dictionaries are not proof of objective truth, only of a trend in language. Quantum Physics, for instance, is not falsifiable, so as a science it is technically pseudo-scientific. But I disagree with that narrow view; I think human study of nature is inherantly scientific, even if it results in false conclusions (which even the scientific method has done).

I'll take that to mean the the Dilithium Crystal Chamber is faulty again and Scotty's too busy fixing it to help you out.


Tell me, did you just read the Communist Manifesto and a dictionary and decide all facts of the world then and there?


Those books or the few thousand other books I've read needn't be referenced to see through your stale crapola.


If socialism, for you, is defined simply as "socialism," with nothing further to add, I think you have a lot of critiquing to do of your own ideas.

As a former of Marxist of 20 years or so, I think I've had enough time to figure out "Socialism", its tenets and its relevance to the modern era.


Whether or not it exists as Christians would say He does.

You can't just say that an idea is absurd by relating it to other superstitions,

Let's give it a go:

The idea of "god" is absurd, just like all the other superstitions..

Looks like I could after all.


Marxism is about society changing to a classless one. But we have no reason to be sure that it will come to pass,which would have been the scientific Marxism as defined by a dictionary or a scientist.

Irrelevant and somewhat "mystical" in approach.

Not very clever if you ask me.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 05, 2007 09:29 pm

From Karl Popper. If you can't test the falseness of a theory, it cannot be proven. Besides the obvious logic behind it, I have the scientific community behind me in this one: that is how they define sciences versus pseudo - sciences.


No I meant the bizarre conclusion that Marxism can't be proven false.

In any case, besides being a philosopher and LSE teacher, what exactly gave Popper the right to redefine scientific method as he saw fit?
I dunno, go ask some scientists and see if his ideas are useful or not.

As far as the fasifiability of Marxism.. I'd like to be enlightened. That and your concept of socialism. Care to offer substance to your arguments?


I'll take that to mean the the Dilithium Crystal Chamber is faulty again and Scotty's too busy fixing it to help you out.
Sound's good to me.


Those books or the few thousand other books I've read needn't be referenced to see through your stale crapola.
And you only consult a dictionary to argue against well - known theories of science?


As a former of Marxist of 20 years or so, I think I've had enough time to figure out "Socialism", its tenets and its relevance to the modern era.
I'm sure you have. And since you still haven't told me, I'll ask again: what is your concept of socialism, besides equation to the term "socialism"?


Let's give it a go:

The idea of "god" is absurd, just like all the other superstitions..

Looks like I could after all.
Sounds good enough. Now qualify "superstition" with an objective definition, and explain how superstitions are absurd. Finally, prove that Marxism is more than a superstition for you.



Marxism is about society changing to a classless one. But we have no reason to be sure that it will come to pass,which would have been the scientific Marxism as defined by a dictionary or a scientist.

Irrelevant and somewhat "mystical" in approach.

Not very clever if you ask me.
Every idea is inherantly mystical, just as they are sensuous, philosophical, and scientific (at the very least they are a reflection of the scientific activity of the mind).

Why, however, is the concept 'Marxism is a transition to a classless society' mystical / unrealistic / subjective / whatever you meant by that point? Or is the part about it being uncertain 'mystical'?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by deano
I dunno, go ask some scientists and see if his ideas are useful or not.

Irrelevant.


That and your concept of socialism. Care to offer substance to your arguments?

Socialism- A social, economic, and political theory based on collective or state ownership of the means of production wherein the state manages the means of production and distributes goods, services supposedly for the benefit of the people.

Wages should be determined by the value of these services being split equally with all of those responsible for the production of said services.

There's no reason at all to try and make things harder than they should be esse.


as far as the fasifiability of Marxism.. I'd like to be enlightened.

Pretty simple stuff jack:

IF you keep trying it and it keeps failing it's probably false.


And you only consult a dictionary to argue against well - known theories of science?

Yup.

That's all it took.


Sounds good enough. Now qualify "superstition" with an objective definition, and explain how superstitions are absurd

Why?

Are you confused about what the word "superstition" means?


Finally, prove that Marxism is more than a superstition for you.

Why would I try to "prove" something that I never stated to begin with?


Every idea is inherantly mystical just as they are sensuous, philosophical, and scientific (at the very least they are a reflection of the scientific activity of the mind).

That's just plain silly.


Why, however, is the concept 'Marxism is a transition to a classless society' mystical / unrealistic / subjective / whatever you meant by that point? Or is the part about it being uncertain 'mystical'?

I used the term "mystical" because you sound like all of the other mystics on the pulpit rattling on and on but not really saying anything at all.

It kind of reminds me of the time I was forced to read "Beyond Good and Evil" by that silly hack Neitszche. :lol:

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 06, 2007 05:36 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 06, 2007 05:36 pm)
deano
I dunno, go ask some scientists and see if his ideas are useful or not.

Irrelevant.

[/b]
So the relevance of a major influence on the scientific community is not gauged by the responses scientists would give?



That and your concept of socialism. Care to offer substance to your arguments?

Socialism- A social, economic, and political theory based on collective or state ownership of the means of production wherein the state manages the means of production and distributes goods, services supposedly for the benefit of the people.

Wages should be determined by the value of these services being split equally with all of those responsible for the production of said services.

There's no reason at all to try and make things harder than they should be esse.
Right. But I'm not going to assume that you think socialism is X when you haven't said it was X. I agree that what you described is plausible, and has existed before (its 'proof') but I think socialism is a lot more about decentralization of economic power. The state has to have a decentralized organization for its economic controls to be socialistic, in my opinion, and whether you agree or not that would have been my impression of your use of the term. I also disagree with the "equal" distribution; it should be given as needed.



as far as the fasifiability of Marxism.. I'd like to be enlightened.

Pretty simple stuff jack:

IF you keep trying it and it keeps failing it's probably false.
That's a form of inductive logic, which is not a valid test of falsifiability. Also, the tests cannot be accurately performed due to the various conditions which also affect the outcome; they are not uniform and certainly not controlled.



And you only consult a dictionary to argue against well - known theories of science?

Yup.

That's all it took.
What about the "principles and procedures" in that definition? Do you expect the Dictionary to give a full explanation of what the Method is, or a tidbit or referential information (hint: the latter is what the dictionary is responsible for). Falsifiability is now one of those principles.



Sounds good enough. Now qualify "superstition" with an objective definition, and explain how superstitions are absurd

Why?

Are you confused about what the word "superstition" means?
No. As you should well know, defining the terms you use is a key aspect of productive debate, scientific inquiry, and legality. And superstition is a vague term, applicable to different things for different people.



Finally, prove that Marxism is more than a superstition for you.

Why would I try to "prove" something that I never stated to begin with?
So Marxism is a superstition to you? That's very strange.



Every idea is inherantly mystical just as they are sensuous, philosophical, and scientific (at the very least they are a reflection of the scientific activity of the mind).

That's just plain silly.
Very analytical, you are.



Why, however, is the concept 'Marxism is a transition to a classless society' mystical / unrealistic / subjective / whatever you meant by that point? Or is the part about it being uncertain 'mystical'?

I used the term "mystical" because you sound like all of the other mystics on the pulpit rattling on and on but not really saying anything at all.

It kind of reminds me of the time I was forced to read "Beyond Good and Evil" by that silly hack Neitszche. :lol:
Perhaps you simply don't understand what I'm saying? Thats what it seems like to me, but I didn't want to insult your intellect so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by deano-rama
So the relevance of a major influence on the scientific community is not gauged by the responses scientists would give?

No, irrelevant to this topic.

As in your statement begging me to "ask some scientists if his ideas are useful" is irrelevant to this topic.

Why you ask?

Because there is no personal opinion that will change the fact Popper's remarks or thoughts are not considered to be "scientific gospel."



The state has to have a decentralized organization for its economic controls to be socialistic, in my opinion.

Yes, absolute decentralization most certainly is "in your opinion" and that's all it is.


That's a form of inductive logic, which is not a valid test of falsifiability. Also, the tests cannot be accurately performed due to the various conditions which also affect the outcome; they are not uniform and certainly not controlled.

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!


What about the "principles and procedures" in that definition? Do you expect the Dictionary to give a full explanation of what the Method is, or a tidbit or referential information (hint: the latter is what the dictionary is responsible for). Falsifiability is now one of those principles.

Hint: denial isn't just a river in Egypt, homes.


o. As you should well know, defining the terms you use is a key aspect of productive debate, scientific inquiry, and legality.


Sorry bub, but this is not a courtroom, laboratory or caucus rally.

If I don't feel the need to produce definitions for words that you should already know
then I won't.

No matter how much you whine about it.


And superstition is a vague term, applicable to different things for different people.


That's funny, it's never been vague to me or any other person I've known with an IQ over 85.


So Marxism is a superstition to you? That's very strange.

You're right, it is strange.

Just as strange as how you concluded the "concept" came from me.


Perhaps you simply don't understand what I'm saying? Thats what it seems like to me, but I didn't want to insult your intellect so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

:lol:

Not likely.

Oh yeah, I missed this one from a while ago:



Communism has been rejected?

Again you have gotten confused.

If you follow the conversation train you will eventually find the answer waiting to get on at the next stop. You may also recognize him as being "Joe the Policemen" from the "what's goin' down" episode of "That's My Momma". Please put your hands together now for Jackson Height's own.......Randy Watson!

[jasmine]

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
http://www.peoplesrepublicofdis.co.uk/albums/album16/tumbleweed.sized.jpeg

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
I don't know why I continue to reply. It's like attrition.

Anywyas, I'm done here Viny. Get back to posting islamophobic crap, you're much better at that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
Jasmine, you should read my last post in this thread instead of trolling.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:35 am


Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
Yes.

Like orthodox Marxism.

I'm sure that whatever does indeed end up "working" will be a combination of several leftists principles.

You really thought you were gonna "piss me off" with that comment right?

Wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

yep, like capitalism has been a huge success for 80% of the worlds population *sarcasm*

[Dean]

Originally posted by RedDali+September 07, 2007 09:36 pm--> (RedDali @ September 07, 2007 09:36 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
Jasmine, you should read my last post in this thread instead of trolling. [/b]
And Vinny is somehow less of a troll?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+September 08, 2007 06:47 am--> (Dean @ September 08, 2007 06:47 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:36 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

Like I said before, save your stale logic lectures for some teeney-bopper that's still impressed by that crap. In the real world when you keep trying something and it never works you toss it out for something that does or may do.

In other words it's false, a failure, useless, non-workable or whatever else you want to call it so get rid of it!

Like marxism you mean?

(sorry, I couldn't resist this, really didn't mean to post).
Jasmine, you should read my last post in this thread instead of trolling.
And Vinny is somehow less of a troll? [/b]
Yes. The fact he's as patient as he is with your idiocy is quite amazing.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:39 am
Yes. The fact he's as patient as he is with your idiocy is quite amazing.
What are you talking about? He doesn't have to confront my degree of intelligence; he ignores all my points to make sarcastic jokes.

Much like you. That's what trolling is.

[jasmine]

[QUOTE]You really thought you were gonna "piss me off" with that comment right?[/QUOTE

How you feel is not important to me. You are a closet racist - you hide behind opposition to the muslim religion. But would you let your daughter marry one? No real socialist with an ounce of braincell would use that avatar. If you ever get within striking distance your racist skull will be smashed to a pulp.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:11 pm
[QUOTE]You really thought you were gonna "piss me off" with that comment right?[/QUOTE

How you feel is not important to me. You are a closet racist - you hide behind opposition to the muslim religion. But would you let your daughter marry one? No real socialist with an ounce of braincell would use that avatar. If you ever get within striking distance your racist skull will be smashed to a pulp.
http://quentin-tarantino.8m.com/BLONDE1.JPG
''you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?!?''

:lol:
Sorry couldnt resist that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:11 pm
How you feel is not important to me. You are a closet racist - you hide behind opposition to the muslim religion. But would you let your daughter marry one?
Are you asking him if he'd let his [hypothetical] daughter marry a Muslim or an Arab?


No real socialist with an ounce of braincell would use that avatar.

Personally I'd take your analysis of what constitutes a real socialist with a pinch of salt and a huge spoonful of disbelieving contempt.


If you ever get within striking distance your racist skull will be smashed to a pulp.

:lol: Oh that's precious - an internet hardnut.

[jasmine]

Personally I'd take your analysis of what constitutes a real socialist with a pinch of salt and a huge spoonful of disbelieving contempt.

All you know is how to post insults on a web board. Does this make you a socialist? What do you do you do in the real world? Nothing probably. You don't even recognise racism when it's staring you in the face. You don't have the basic gut reactions to be a socialist - you're just angry and this is a place where you can mouth off without censure.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:45 pm

Personally I'd take your analysis of what constitutes a real socialist with a pinch of salt and a huge spoonful of disbelieving contempt.

All you know is how to post insults on a web board.
I'd disagree there I have a large range of skills and experiences, some applicable to understanding of anarchism, some applicable to helping spread anarchism and a large number that have nothing to do with anarchism. I would have great difficulty in my life if the only skill I possessed was an ability to lampoon idiots like you, not being able to cook or clean for example would prove a real cramp on my lifestyle.


Does this make you a socialist?

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.


What do you do you do in the real world? Nothing probably.

What leads you to this presumption?


You don't even recognise racism when it's staring you in the face.

Islam isn't a race you silly tit.


You don't have the basic gut reactions to be a socialist

Leftism is based on logic and study of material conditions, not "gut reactions".


you're just angry and this is a place where you can mouth off without censure.

I get pretty much the same censure here as anywhere I choose to "mouth off" (not a phrase I'm particularly fond of) and it always comes in the form of idiots like you whining on and on. The only real difference is that when someone in the real world (you should try visiting it for a while) threatens to beat up me or someone I know it's actually threatening rather than deeply hilarious.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:26 pm
If you ever get within striking distance your racist skull will be smashed to a pulp.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/00/Internettoughguys.gif

It's funny how you ignored my counter-arguments, as well as other continuing answers to the points you presented by other members, and threw this entire thread into an emotional fit simply because you didn't know how to defend the points you were making against scientific socialism.

[jasmine]

As for Marxism 'disappearing' as an influence - I would profoundly disagree. I was just reading a book called The Working Class Majority, where the author said "millions in trade union circles are forced to admit the importance of Marx." Which is true - while many bourgeois economists had blabbered that classes did not exist, he revealed the profound fact that we are in a society of immense, deep contradictions. The class struggle in the past few centuries has, at best, proved Marx correct. The world wars, New Deal's, and imperialist invasions have shown that we do live in a world that Marx described. Whether we want to admit that and call ourselves "Marxists", or acknowledge that and hide under a different political adjective, his theories are still very alive. Every worker doesn't have to be a member of a socialist and communist party to prove Marxism correct.

This is your proof? Who is the author?

The hard reality is that the communist organisations have dwindled to insignificance. The truth is is that were Marxism relevant its organisations would have a presence in the working class - it doesn't. This is a bullshit argument probably made by a member of a small (maoist?) sect.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:14 pm
The truth is is that were Marxism relevant its organisations would have a presence in the working class - it doesn't.
First of all, that statement isn't as logical as you think it is; it is not follow that because nowadays marxism is on the fringe that it is irrelevant.

As you yourself said earlier in the thread:

"Marxism, socialism and anarchism have a history. It's mainly an honourable history but before you call yourself an anarchist or a marxist or a socialist try to understand what actually happened when these ideas had a huge following in the working class.

And try to understand what happened to destroy that working class support."

So it did have a following in the working class, so according to your logic it was relevant THEN but not relevant NOW. Why do you think this?

Marxism is clearly relevant, insofar as it's difficult to deny that the interests of the working class who naturally want less hours, better pay, and better conditions conflict with the interests of the bourgeoisie who want to cut costs as much as possible.

The reason it doesn't have so much support amongst the working class in western countries today is for several reasons:

1) Economic stability (definately not going to last forever)
2) The welfare state, that earlier generations of socialists struggled to establish; meaning the working class is more secure. YET this is slowly being removed, as a consequence of the lack of working class militancy. If that isn't proof of the reality of class struggle, I don't know what is.
3) Disillusionment with communism, because of it's association with the USSR which became capitalist in the end. This is probably the biggest problem.

It hasn't got much to do with marxism being "irrelevant."

And finally; Marxism isn't really "scientific," as there is a lot of theory involved and it studies things that are difficult to objectively prove; but analysis of history by looking at economic factors (as well as everything else! anti-strawmen of marxism 101) is definately more scientific than pinning all historical development on the decisions of individuals.

As for the working class being the revolutionary class; I can't "prove" it scientifically, and I don't know why I should have to. I can debate it with logic, but I can't pull out an equation proving they are revolutionary; if you're so versed on Marx, why don't you post a critique of his reasons of why the working class are revolutionary instead of asking us to objectively prove the impossible; our failure to do so proves nothing, but it does suggest your lack of willingness to engage in debate.

And is socialism possible? Again, I can point to embryonic socialist societies that were short-lived, but that doesn't really prove anything about long-term.

And again, if you really knew Marx as well as you say, you'd probably have some idea of why the USSR etc could not successfully build socialism. If you want to argue with marxists, you should do the following:

1-disprove the labour theory of value
2-prove the working class will never bring about socialism
3-prove that the socialist states of the last century failed for reasons other than the material conditions of those societies

p.s. what is your political standpoint, just to get some idea of where you're coming from? i've got you as washed-up social democrat, disillusioned nihilist, or right winger pretending to be an ex-marxist to make up for your lack of any argument.

[Matty_UK]

Well, no reply so far. Prove your belief in socialism as the next step for humanity. It's a tough one. Much easier just to point the finger at religious literalists.

Ultimately it comes down to this:

Under capitalism, profit must be made in production, but if production advances too much profit isn't made as prices go down too much. This results in de-industrialisation and destruction of commodities to keep prices high; capitalism holds back the expansion of production.

As the working class; the vast majority of people; depend on waged labour to survive, the process of de-industrialisation would cause social disintegration if not for it's ability to create jobs wherever there is a labour force available. Most service jobs contribute little to society and really aren't necassary, but people must always work the same hours to survive. The condition of labour has not improved due to capitalism, but due to struggle by the working class; now, their conditions are worsening again. (although, there is a case to be made that we are paid more because we need to consume more. history suggests otherwise. if you wish to make this argument make it, instead of trolling)

A socialist society could expand production as profit is not an issue, and if there is less work to be done then jobs could simply be divided up amongst the workers, until all manual work is motivated; machinery rather than humans can become the exploited class.

Capitalist society offers no future; hours won't get shorter, the population won't get more educated, we might get new toys (which we'll also get in socialism; perhaps moreso, as less people will be involved in bad jobs) but we won't become richer....if capitalism is truly the end of history, then we will all be working in the same shitty jobs for all eternity.

Why is it socialism that will solve these problems?
Because even if it's less prevalent than it was, it's the only solution that exists and has ever had any credence amongst the working class. And when the working class are rifled with, revolutionary ideas always spread fast.

EDIT: read the rest of the thread, seems you do know what you're talking about so ignore the bits in there that insult you.
ok, it seems you're sympathetic to socialism but don't think it will happen. if socialism can't solve the problems in capitalism, and if the working class can't bring it about, what do you suggest should be done?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Jasmine
How you feel is not important to me.

Just like how you feel about Marxism is not important to me however since this is a message board there's nothing wrong with correcting your ignorance.


You are a closet racist

Your opinion is duly noted and rejected.


- you hide behind opposition to the muslim religion. But would you let your daughter marry one?


If I had a daughter, whom she decides to marry (I personally reject the concept) is entirely up to her.


No real socialist with an ounce of braincell would use that avatar

What gives you the idea that I'm a Socialist? I have no grandiose ideas to one day fill a congressional or parliamentary seat.

Not now nor ever little one.


If you ever get within striking distance your racist skull will be smashed to a pulp.

I'm in Phoenix Arizona.

If you actually grow a pair and stop by let me know.

[jasmine]

OK Matty - that's a serious answer. Excuse me if I don't answer everything at once.


So it did have a following in the working class, so according to your logic it was relevant THEN but not relevant NOW. Why do you think this?

There were historical battles and historical defeats. The revolutionary element of the working class was always a minority (amongst the rank and file and the leadership). These defeats lead to a decomposition of the marxist movement whilst capitalism survived and grew.

Were Marx's idea of socialism or barbarism (the inevitable common ruin of the contending classes) correct this should not have happened.


Marxism is clearly relevant, insofar as it's difficult to deny that the interests of the working class who naturally want less hours, better pay, and better conditions conflict with the interests of the bourgeoisie who want to cut costs as much as possible.

This is true but does the working class have the capacity to develop "revolutionary consciousness" ie the capacity to shape society in its own class interests rather than just rebel sporadically? Can the working class actually create its own state power in the interest of the majority? As I said in an earlier post the peasantry also rebelled and temporarily siezed power.


And finally; Marxism isn't really "scientific," as there is a lot of theory involved and it studies things that are difficult to objectively prove; but analysis of history by looking at economic factors (as well as everything else! anti-strawmen of marxism 101) is definately more scientific than pinning all historical development on the decisions of individuals.

I agree but Marx and Engels did think Marxism was scientific. They did believe they had uncovered the laws that literally dicatated human development.

I think that Marxism as a social movement was defeated, probably decisively, in the period between the two world wars. What should we do now - well we can fight defensive battles against rascism and facism (for me these are the most important issues) or other aspects of oppression and try to assess the past as dispassionately as possible in order to look for a way forward.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

What gives you the idea that I'm a Socialist? I have no grandiose ideas to one day fill a congressional or parliamentary seat.

Not now nor ever little one.

She meant in the terms of Revolutionary, and not reformist. The question is, what is your ideology?

[jasmine]

Your opinion is duly noted and rejected.

That's your response - you are a scummy racist and it's a disgrace that a so-called socialist board allows you to post. Probably though you've made enough revolutionary statements to join the blinkered clique - eh Malte or whatever you call yourself.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:30 pm

What gives you the idea that I'm a Socialist? I have no grandiose ideas to one day fill a congressional or parliamentary seat.

Not now nor ever little one.

She meant in the terms of Revolutionary, and not reformist. The question is, what is your ideology?
His seems to be Islamophobia.

The quote is "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang
them," btw.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by kore+--> (kore)She meant in the terms of Revolutionary, and not reformist.? [/b]

It makes no difference to me, I'm not a Socialist.



The question is, what is your ideology

I consider myself to be a modern Communist. Others would call me an Anarchist.

I don't really care what people call me; especially when it's coming turds like young Dean here:


Originally posted by teen [email protected]
His seems to be Islamophobia.


You forgot Christianophobia, Judeophobia and any other religious "phobia". Take your pick sonny boy! :lol:


Internet tough guy
That's your response - you are a scummy racist and it's a disgrace that a so-called socialist board allows you to post..

This is not a "Socialist board".


Probably though you've made enough revolutionary statements to join the blinkered clique

Clique... :lol:

Pony boy, Soda Pop and I are getting ready to rumble with the socs next Wednesday.

Wanna come?

Never mind, I hear there's strict travel restrictions for underage kids now...let me know when you're all gwows up and we'll try again.

[Dean]

Originally posted by racist psycho+September 11, 2007 09:59 pm--> (racist psycho @ September 11, 2007 09:59 pm)
teen angst
His seems to be Islamophobia.


You forgot Christianophobia, Judeophobia and any other religious "phobia". Take your pick sonny boy! :lol: [/b]
I'm not a teenager, mine is twenties angst. Besides, you seem more interested in Muslim - bashing than any of the other anti-religious dogmas. Why don't you let me buy you a pack of gum and show you how to chew it? :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by teenage angst
I'm not a teenager. .

Of course you're not dear.

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.



Besides, you seem more interested in Muslim - bashing than any of the other anti-religious dogmas

If you would like to see me bash another religion then start a thread on it jack.

[jasmine]

I consider myself to be a modern Communist.

What is the difference beween modern communism and old-time communism? Where can I read about this modern communism?


Islam isn't a race you silly tit.

Read this article and then explain to me why these images are not racist:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/denm-f10.shtml

It's from the World Socialist Website. A brief quote about the political situation in Denmark and the reason for publishing images depicting Muhammad as a terrorist:


A campaign is emerging to depict Islam as an inferior culture that is incompatible with “Western values.” There are clear parallels here to the anti-Semitic caricatures that were spread in the 1930s by fascist newspapers such as the Nazi Stürmer. The depiction of Jews as sub-humans served as the ideological preparation for the Holocaust.

Today the systematic defamation of Muslims is being used to prepare public opinion for new wars against countries such as Iran and Syria—wars which will be even more brutal than the Iraq war, and could well involve the use of nuclear weapons.

It is no coincidence that it was the Jyllands-Posten that took up this initiative. The newspaper is notorious for its declarations of support for the Nazis in the 1930s, and has played a key role in Denmark’s recent shift to the right.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:06 am

Islam isn't a race you silly tit.

Read this article and then explain to me why these images are not racist.
They aren't intrinsically racist. It depends on context shitflake.

[jasmine]

They aren't intrinsically racist. It depends on context shitflake.

This is a cowardly evasion. I didn't say anything about the intrinsic quality of the image.

So was the publication of these images in the context explained in the article an act of racism. Yes or no? Is the "context" confined to Denmark in 2005 or is the "context" here and now in western europe and the USA?

I'll give you another example of context. What would you think about someone who applauded anti-semitic propaganda in 1930 in Germany on the basis they were opposed to belief in the Old Testament. What might be their real motives?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 11, 2007 09:59 pm




You forgot Christianophobia, Judeophobia and any other religious "phobia". Take your pick sonny boy! :lol:


...Anti-Semitism? :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by silly tit+--> (silly tit)What is the difference beween modern communism and old-time communism? Where can I read about this modern communism?[/b]


I will give you a couple hints so you can do your own research.

I believe in Communism as an end but I do not believe that Socialism or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a means to achieve that end.

It's been tried many times always resulting in the rebirth of Capitalism.

It only makes sense to take from Marxism what is relevant to the modern era and reject antiquated theories that are too confused to be workable today.

Theories such as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Socialism and worst of the Labour Theory of Value.


Read this article and then explain to me why these images are not racist:

Images that defame religion inherently cannot be "racist" as religion is not a race; as the word is commonly known of course.

Those who know better understand that the term "race" is used as a way to separate different species later to be twisted into something more sinister by pseudo-scientific "racialists" in the 19th century.

In any case, I personally don't know the artist so I can't tell you if he or she is indeed a "racist".

Not that would change anything.


. What would you think about someone who applauded anti-semitic propaganda in 1930 in Germany on the basis they were opposed to belief in the Old Testament. What might be their real motives?

The pathetic turds that propagated anti Antisemitism in the late 19th century and early 20th century did so by using some make believe theory that Jews were a "race" in themselves.

Their Antisemitism wasn't about simply against the Judaic religion. Any person of the Judaic faith was classified as a separate "race"; a species all their own.

One hell bent on destroying the "German way of life". :lol:

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.


tiny republican twat
..Anti-Semitism?

You don't even really know what Antisemitism is if you're calling me that.

Have another pint pee-wee and leave the politics to the adults.

[jasmine]

Their Antisemitism wasn't about simply against the Judaic religion. Any person of the Judaic faith was classified as a separate "race"; a species all their own.

If you bothered to read the article I provided I think you'd see that the purpose of those images that you applaud is exactly the same. I hardly think the racist scum who commissioned and used the images are interested in theology. They are provocative racial caricatures intended to inflame hatred against Arabs and justify genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe Iran. It's about race not religion. And you choose to associate yourself with these people.

Why not just put up a swastika and a link to "Triumph Of The Will" for fun nightime viewing.

And Jazzratt - what is the context? Well, let's see, hundreds of years of colonialism and imperialism featuring the slave trade and innumerable genocidal massacres have resulted in 21st century capitalism, a profoundly racist society. There is a genocidal war in Iraq and other countries in this region of dark skinned people are being targeted for murderous attack. This is the context.

And then, lo and behold, images showing an arab prophet as a terrorist appear. What can we conclude about the nature of these images? Why would anyone who considers him or herself a leftist (even) want to use these images? Ethnic caricatures of oppressed people in 21st century capitalism will always be racist.

[jasmine]

I will give you a couple hints so you can do your own research.

I believe in Communism as an end but I do not believe that Socialism or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a means to achieve that end.

It's been tried many times always resulting in the rebirth of Capitalism.

It only makes sense to take from Marxism what is relevant to the modern era and reject antiquated theories that are too confused to be workable today.

Theories such as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Socialism and worst of the Labour Theory of Value.

Strange, your vacuous, vague, eccentric ramblings remind me someone else who once posted here.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny Microdick+--> (Vinny Microdick)You don't even really know what Antisemitism is if you're calling me that.[/b]
Well i never.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) @

an·ti-Sem·i·tism /ˌæntiˈsɛmɪˌtɪzəm, ˌæntaɪ-/ Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uhm, an-tahy-]
–noun discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

Also, I didnt 'call' you an anti-semite, I added to your list of 'religous phobias' as you so eloquently put.


Vinny Microdick

Have another pint pee-wee and leave the politics to the adults.
I suppose the insination that im an alcoholic is supposed to be funny because I'm Irish? If ad hominem xenophobic insults is your idea of 'modern communism' i'd hate to see your idea of regressive communism. pfffft. Run along, pissflap.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by silly tit
If you bothered to read the article I provided I think you'd see that the purpose of those images that you applaud is exactly the same.

Why would I bother with the opinions of another "Socialist" rag?

Haven't you gotten sick of their crap yet? That does nothing to prove that the "real intention" of the was to depict Islamic icons but really target all Arabs.

Break out your decoder ring kid, you've got some work to do!


I hardly think the racist scum who commissioned and used the images are interested in theology. They are provocative racial caricatures intended to inflame hatred against Arabs and justify genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe Iran. It's about race not religion. And you choose to associate yourself with these people.

In order for your misguided opinion to be fact we would have to know one of two things:

A) The artist has confessed to being a racist and has confessed that his intention were racist when presenting these cartoons.

B) Confirmation that all Arabs are Muslim, therefore any depiction of a Muslim is a depiction of all Arabs.

The jury is still out on A so all we can do is assume; either way.

We know B is false so you can't use that claim.

You claim simply has less integrity than a wet paper bag son.


Why not just put up a swastika and a link to "Triumph Of The Will" for fun nightime viewing.


Comaring shit you don't like with "Nazis" and "swastikas" as a tired and boring practice.

It will get you nowhere jack.


Strange, your vacuous, vague, eccentric ramblings remind me someone else who once posted here.

I'm sorry you're confused.

Actually I'm not sorry.

Did that confuse you as well?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
B) Confirmation that all Arabs are Muslim, therefore any depiction of a Muslim is a depiction of all Arabs.

The jury is still out on A so all we can do is assume; either way.

We know B is false so you can't use that claim.
I understand your position but you have to agree that Islam is tied to a certain ethnicity and look. Just as Christianity is tied to whites, or at least used to be, Islam is today tied to people who look Middle-Eastern. I myself know this for a fact because....well I am from the Middle-East and a lot of people assume I'm a Muslim for no real reason other then my looks.

I'm sorry but when a "regular" person sees me out on the street here (Netherlands) 9 out of 10 times they think I'm a Muslim. So it obviously has a basis that Islam is tied to a certain ethnicity, I'm not sure how you could ignore that?

[jasmine]

In order for your misguided opinion to be fact we would have to know one of two things:

A) The artist has confessed to being a racist and has confessed that his intention were racist when presenting these cartoons.

B) Confirmation that all Arabs are Muslim, therefore any depiction of a Muslim is a depiction of all Arabs.

The jury is still out on A so all we can do is assume; either way.

We know B is false so you can't use that claim.

You claim simply has less integrity than a wet paper bag son.

The artist isn't important. The drawings were commissioned and used by racists with a specific political agenda. That is clear, irrefutable fact. I'm afraid your formal logic is just so much bullshit.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Led
I understand your position but you have to agree that Islam is tied to a certain ethnicity and look. Just as Christianity is tied to whites, or at least used to be, Islam is today tied to people who look Middle-Eastern. I myself know this for a fact because....well I am from the Middle-East and a lot of people assume I'm a Muslim for no real reason other then my looks.

So?

I'm using a cartoon that depicts the "prophet" Mohammad. Period.

If some religious apologists cats don't like it then tough!


I'm sorry but when a "regular" person sees me out on the street here (Netherlands) 9 out of 10 times they think I'm a Muslim. So it obviously has a basis that Islam is tied to a certain ethnicity, I'm not sure how you could ignore that?

So I'm supposed to change my behaviour based on the absurd view of "most regular Nederlanders" into something that dismisses the fact that they are behaving in a manner that is unjustified?

Sorry Led, I prefer to fight reactionary thought, not pussy foot around it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 12, 2007 05:50 pm
So?

I'm using a cartoon that depicts the "prophet" Mohammad. Period.

If some religious apologists cats don't like it then tough!
I don't have anything against you using that picture, actually I think it's a good thing. I would've done it myself if I cared enough about that issue.


So I'm supposed to change my behaviour based on the absurd view of "most regular Nederlanders" into something that dismisses the fact that they are behaving in a manner that is unjustified?

Sorry Led, I prefer to fight reactionary thought, not pussy foot around it.

Well I was just saying that it is tied to race, I'm not saying that's your fault, I know you don't tie it to race yourself, but I'm just saying the generally it is tied to race, at least here it is.

If I am attacked by some Nazis for being a Muslim they would do it based on my looks, so I think that proves enough that it has a certain "look" to it.

That picture itself was a depiction of Muhammed based on that "look". That's not necessarily racist, but it promotes it amongst the mainstream audience, that's something out of your power, I know, but it's something you have to acknowledge and also fight against. I think that if you focus your attention on just one side of it, you run the risk of forgetting about the other side...

[jasmine]

I don't have anything against you using that picture, actually I think it's a good thing. I would've done it myself if I cared enough about that issue.

What planet do you live on? These images are all about provoking and justifying violence against people of your ethnicity.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:14 pm

I don't have anything against you using that picture, actually I think it's a good thing. I would've done it myself if I cared enough about that issue.

What planet do you live on? These images are all about provoking and justifying violence against people of your ethnicity.
No it wasn't, the issue was totally blown out of proportion, not by the people who made that cartoon, but by Islamic fundamentalists in Denmark who got offended. I've seen the spokesperson for the fundamentalists giving interviews on TV, he was a homophobe, sexist, conservative asshole of the greatest extent. If he didn't go on his trip to the Middle-East to ask those governments, specifically Iran, for support against one stupid cartoon, no one would've heard about it and it would've been a non-issue.

I don't care if nuts like him get offended, it plays into their hands when it gets blown out of proportion, and the thing I'm worried about is that people draw wrong conclusions from it by believing that everyone who has a certain look supports the idiotic views that people like the fundamentalists have.

It has to be remembered that only a small minority of Muslims participated in the attacks on Danish shit, the overwhelming majority of Muslims themselves didn't give a shit!

Although I will say this: tying religion to a "look" or ethnicity is reactionary in and of itself, I think opposing that is more constructive than attacking the religion which is a victim of this ignorant conscious racist profiling.

[jasmine]

No it wasn't, the issue was totally blown out of proportion, not by the people who made that cartoon, but by Islamic fundamentalists in Denmark who got offended. I've seen the spokesperson for the fundamentalists giving interviews on TV, he was a homophobe, sexist, conservative asshole of the greatest extent. If he didn't go on his trip to the Middle-East to ask those governments, specifically Iran, for support against one stupid cartoon, no one would've heard about it and it would've been a non-issue.

I don't care if nuts like him get offended, it plays into their hands when it gets blown out of proportion, and the thing I'm worried about is that people draw wrong conclusions from it by believing that everyone who has a certain look supports the idiotic views that people like the fundamentalists have.

It has to be remembered that only a small minority of Muslims participated in the attacks on Danish shit, the overwhelming majority of Muslims themselves didn't give a shit!

Have you read the article I linked to a few posts back? The point is not the reaction of Islamic fundementalists but the intention behind the images and the perception of those images by anglo saxons. They were commissioned by racists who would like to exterminate your ethnic group in the same way the Nazis exterminated the Jews.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LEd+--> (LEd)Well I was just saying that it is tied to race, I'm not saying that's your fault, I know you don't tie it to race yourself, but I'm just saying the generally it is tied to race, at least here it is.[/b]

That's an opinion that's fundamentally wrong and reactionary and I will not justify it by ignoring it.

Whether that be in Holland or elsewhere.


That picture itself was a depiction of Muhammed based on that "look"

You mean the look of someone from the Islamic faith in that region in a turban and a beard?

Ummm.....yeah.


silly tit
What planet do you live on?

We call it Earth.

I don't know how you say it in your native Neptunese.

Perhaps you can shed some light on the subject.

[jasmine]

I repeat: The artist isn't important. The drawings were commissioned and used by racists with a specific political agenda. That is clear, irrefutable fact. I'm afraid your formal logic is just so much bullshit.

[Dr Mindbender]

Vinny Im still awaiting your customary brand of 'witty retort' to my last post. How much longer will it be or am i to assume victory in the war of words?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by DJ Jazzi Jasmine: Spinning for the new generation
The drawings were commissioned and used by racists with a specific political agenda.


So it's not the drawings that piss you off it's how a certain group of people spun the drawings to suit their purposes that pisses you off.

Thanks for proving my point, son.


m afraid your formal logic is just so much bullshit.

Being that you're a natural dealer in the art of bullshit, I would have thought you would have smelled your own stink by now.

How do you say that on Neptune?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by half=pint laddie
Also, I didnt 'call' you an anti-semite, I added to your list of 'religous phobias' as you so eloquently put

I think you're confused again.

Think about what you just said real hard and then start over.


I suppose the insination that im an alcoholic is supposed to be funny because I'm Irish? If ad hominem xenophobic insults is your idea of 'modern communism' i'd hate to see your idea of regressive communism. pfffft. Run along, pissflap.


Are you saying that only alcoholics order pints?

All I insinuated is that you're probably drunk considering the content of your posts and your ability to comprehend the written word.

Now don't you have a Bushmill's bottle to fall back into shrimpie?

[jasmine]

So it's not the drawings that piss you off it's how a certain group of people spun the drawings to suit their purposes that pisses you off.

And by using the same drawings you associate yourself with those people.

This is not subtle - in the current political climate depict the arab prophet as a terrorist and you promote racial violence against Arabs. You may actually be so stupid you cannot see this but you should be banned from this board.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by silly tit
And by using the same drawings you associate yourself with those people.

Nope.

You associate me with those people.

Nothing more.


You may actually be so stupid you cannot see this but you should be banned from this board.

I have a feeling you will beat me to the ban-wagon long before I hitch a ride on that sucka, son.

In addition, have you gotten the note from your mommy and daddy that will allow you to fly alone?

Let me know because I'm still waiting for you to come and "bash my skull".

Actually fuck all that jazz, here's some advice:

Pack up a little knapsack and sit out on the highway with your thumb extended.

When a '72 Chevy Nova pulls being driven by a freaky looking cat with wet lips and a hard on:

Get in.

[jasmine]

Why would I bother with the opinions of another "Socialist" rag?

Haven't you gotten sick of their crap yet? That does nothing to prove that the "real intention" of the was to depict Islamic icons but really target all Arabs.

Just ignore the evidence. Believe the racists.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:36 pm
I repeat: The artist isn't important. The drawings were commissioned and used by racists with a specific political agenda. That is clear, irrefutable fact. I'm afraid your formal logic is just so much bullshit.
Whatever it was made for it is clearly not being used in that fashion by Vinnie. When are you going to fuck off for a stretch again so the adults can go back to talking, cockpouch.

[jasmine]

I have a feeling you will beat me to the ban-wagon long before I hitch a ride on that sucka, son.

You are an imbecile who cares about nothing and knows nothing. Racism, marxism, anarchism it's all the same, it's all in your head. You should be put out of your misery.

[jasmine]

Whatever it was made for it is clearly not being used in that fashion by Vinnie. When are you going to fuck off for a stretch again so the adults can go back to talking, cockpouch.

Vinny is promoting this shit. It's racist to the core. You know this but you're too spineless to deal with what you know.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:09 pm

Whatever it was made for it is clearly not being used in that fashion by Vinnie. When are you going to fuck off for a stretch again so the adults can go back to talking, cockpouch.

Vinny is promoting this shit. It's racist to the core. You know this but you're too spineless to deal with what you know.
Listen you blithering cretin there is nothing racist about attacking the prophet Mohammed on the reactionary edifice which has been set up in his name. Simply because political islamists share a few of the same targets as us does not make them allies, or even remotely close to being such.

Stop embarrassing yourself, your posts are barely worth the bandwidth.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny Backpeddler+--> (Vinny Backpeddler)
I think you're confused again.

Think about what you just said real hard and then start over. [/b]
No, I understood you perfectly fine. You are intentionally avoiding my reply to avoid looking like a idiot, which is understandable given the circumstances.


Originally posted by Vinny Backpeddler+--> (Vinny Backpeddler)
Are you saying that only alcoholics order pints?[/b]
No I am making your insinuation even more ridiculous through hyperbole.

Vinny [email protected]

All I insinuated is that you're probably drunk considering the content of your posts and your ability to comprehend the written word.
The only evidence you have to assume that I'm drunk is my nationality, ergo you made an ill-educated xenophobic remark.
Bearing in mind I have a second level or preliminary university certificate in English Literature, I'd say that my understanding of the 'written word' is almost certainly better than most people's.

Vinny Backpeddler

Now don't you have a Bushmill's bottle to fall back into shrimpie?
Thats right, keep digging that hole...

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:09 pm

Whatever it was made for it is clearly not being used in that fashion by Vinnie. When are you going to fuck off for a stretch again so the adults can go back to talking, cockpouch.

Vinny is promoting this shit. It's racist to the core. You know this but you're too spineless to deal with what you know.
I might actually agree with Jasmine for once. Not only is he an islamophobe, it seems he's also a 'celtophobe' for want of a better word.

[jasmine]

Listen you blithering cretin there is nothing racist about attacking the prophet Mohammed on the reactionary edifice which has been set up in his name. Simply because political islamists share a few of the same targets as us does not make them allies, or even remotely close to being such.

There is nothing reactionary about allying with racist scum. Socialists do it all the time.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:14 pm
This is your proof? Who is the author?

The hard reality is that the communist organisations have dwindled to insignificance. The truth is is that were Marxism relevant its organisations would have a presence in the working class - it doesn't. This is a bullshit argument probably made by a member of a small (maoist?) sect.
My author is history, maybe you should check it out sometime?

Yes, but why are these organizations dwindling in significance? You have been unable to provide a factual analysis based on how the actual "idea" of Marxism is somehow flawed. You have also been unable to reach at the roots, and explain why it has not had a popular presence with the working class. There is definite historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed that made it impossible for them to develop, and gain a following with the workers. If you are in a country in which skilled labor is paid at substational wages in comparison to unskilled labor, in which social services and programs are available, in which there is ongoing ventures for dominance over the global market, then you will not have a revolutionary situation in which the significance of revolutionary organizations will be raised.

As Tom Sutton said in Hard Times:


I don't think we're basically a revolutionary country. We have far too large a middle class. The middle class tends to be apathetic. An apathetic middle class gives stability to the system. They never get carried away strongly, one way or the other. Maybe we'll have riots, maybe we'll have shootings. Maybe we'll have uprisings as the farmers did in Iowa. But you won't have a revolution.

He was right. But he made the same mistake that you have been making through your posts - that the social position of the working class will never change at this point. That there will always be a large middle class that will divide the workers into those who are apathetic, and those who are committed to revolutionary change. But alas, it has changed. The capitalist's ability to extract surplus-value is being stretched; their lust for the realization of profits has came into direct confrontation with the most basic interests of the working class - employment, education, healthcare, social security, and an overall decent standard of living. Unemployment and poverty has increased, debt has reached a very high level, the gap between the rich and the poor is unheard of, and even right-wing commentators have admitted that there is a "war on the middle class".

As for your droning on about the peasantry, I think Engels clearly displayed why it is not a revolutionary class in the quote that I provided to you.

Just as the rising bourgeoisie and landowning class grew into an antagonistic position in which their further growth depended on whether they threw off the yog of the feudal system, the proletariat is in that same situation. They have continued to grow as a class, and it has became increasingly impossible for the capitalists to continue their profits without dehumanizing the working class further.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by little drunk guy
The only evidence you have to assume that I'm drunk is my nationality, ergo you made an ill-educated xenophobic remark.

Your posts did the just just fine; there was no need to bring nationality into it.

How dry I am.......How dry I am.......


No, I understood you perfectly fine.

I doubt it's easy to understand anything when you're filled to the gills with hooch, little guy.


Thats right, keep digging that hole...

I'm sorry, you must prefer Jameson when on one of your binges.

My bad dog. :lol:

[jasmine]

Okay Red Dali - I will reply, tomorrow.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 12, 2007 11:28 am--> (Jazzratt @ September 12, 2007 11:28 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 07:06 am

Islam isn't a race you silly tit.

Read this article and then explain to me why these images are not racist.
They aren't intrinsically racist. It depends on context shitflake. [/b]
No; you're the shitflake. I can see it clearly.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I remember you said this once.


The peasantry did not abolish feudalism. The slaves did not abolish slave society. Why should the working class abolish capitalism? There are leaders and lead and the lead do not run the world.

Maybe we should be examing why they couldn't evok revolutionary change, rather than examine history from such an illogical viewpoint.

The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)


The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 12, 2007 07:54 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 12, 2007 07:54 pm)
little drunk guy
The only evidence you have to assume that I'm drunk is my nationality, ergo you made an ill-educated xenophobic remark.

Your posts did the just just fine; there was no need to bring nationality into it.

How dry I am.......How dry I am.......


No, I understood you perfectly fine.

I doubt it's easy to understand anything when you're filled to the gills with hooch, little guy.


Thats right, keep digging that hole...

I'm sorry, you must prefer Jameson when on one of your binges.

My bad dog. :lol: [/b]
This is just fucking childish. Pathetic.

What was that about 'leaving politics to the adults?'

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 01:42 pm
This is just fucking childish. Pathetic.

What was that about 'leaving politics to the adults?'
Even the adults can use a jester to juggle for us during the inevitable lows in the thread.

Variety is the spice of life pee-wee.

Do you do card tricks do? That would be great fun.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 12, 2007 08:52 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 12, 2007 08:52 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 01:42 pm
This is just fucking childish. Pathetic.

What was that about 'leaving politics to the adults?'
Even the adults can use a jester to juggle for us during the inevitable lows in the thread.

Variety is the spice of life pee-wee.

Do you do card tricks do? That would be great fun. [/b]
Yes, variety is the spice of life, unfortunately the spices of 'islamic hotheads' and 'drunken irishmen' seem unpalatable for yourself and therefore subject to most ridicule, regardless of how unfounded.

I dont do requests.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I dont do requests.

Come on, you know we've all been waiting for your famous rendition of "good ship lollipop".

Tutu and all.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 12, 2007 09:27 pm

I dont do requests.

Come on, you know we've all been waiting for your famous rendition of "good ship lollipop".

Tutu and all.
what you masturbate over is up to yourself but please keep it in whatever dark region of your brain that came from because i dont want to take an interest. Failing that, keep your insidious habits behind closed doors.

[jasmine]

Yes, but why are these organizations dwindling in significance? You have been unable to provide a factual analysis based on how the actual "idea" of Marxism is somehow flawed. You have also been unable to reach at the roots, and explain why it has not had a popular presence with the working class. There is definite historical and material conditions in which these parties were formed that made it impossible for them to develop, and gain a following with the workers. If you are in a country in which skilled labor is paid at substational wages in comparison to unskilled labor, in which social services and programs are available, in which there is ongoing ventures for dominance over the global market, then you will not have a revolutionary situation in which the significance of revolutionary organizations will be raised.

Of course there will not be a revolutionary situation if capitalism is able to provide a reasonable standard of living for a substantial section of the working class. And this is where you completely miss the point. Capitalism stabilised itself after a prolonged period of crisis in the first half of the 20th century after defeating the working class. The growth of capitalism and the situation you describe results from a series of historic defeats for the working class.

Marxism was also destroyed from the inside primarily as a result of the development of Stalinism. Many of the best Marxists of the Russian revolution like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky and many others were murdered by Stalin. Add their names to those lost in the defeat of the German revolution like Liebnicht and Luxembourg and you have the destruction of a generation of leaders and theoreticians. No movement could survive this and Marxism didn't.

It may well be that capitalism collapses into crisis again but what reason do we have to believe that Marxism will rise from the ashes? The lessons that may have been learned in those defeats has been lost because there is no organisational continuity - there is now a scattering of competing sects and their only connection to past events is through texts.

I understand the quote about the differences between the slave and the proletarian but when the chips were down between about 1918 and 1945 the proletariat, in the concrete events of the day, did not show itself to be a revolutionary class. History proved Marx wrong. This was the laboratory test and the formula was wrong.

Believe me, this gives me no pleasure, and it pains me to see some of the people here who call themselves Marxists and besmirch a fine tradition with their ignorance, indifference and immaturity, but this, I think, is how it is.

Thank you for providing a serious contribution to the discussion.

[jasmine]

Why would I bother with the opinions of another "Socialist" rag?

Obviously you prefer to endorse the racism of the Jyllands-Posten, whose history includes supporting Hitler. You are undergoing an evolution, and have been doing so for a while, soon you will bring your thinking (such as it is) into line with your racist emotional preferences and embrace the extreme right - which is where you belong. Please take Jazzratt with you. His sycophancy has become more than embarassing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:53 am
Obviously you prefer to endorse the racism of the Jyllands-Posten, whose history includes supporting Hitler. You are undergoing an evolution, and have been doing so for a while, soon you will bring your thinking (such as it is) into line with your racist emotional preferences and embrace the extreme right - which is where you belong. Please take Jazzratt with you. His sycophancy has become more than embarassing.
Sure thing honey bunch.

How's that note coming?

[jasmine]

Decide for yourselves - but take a stand.


The World Socialist Web Site unequivocally condemns the publication by a series of European newspapers of defamatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and killer. These crude caricatures, intended to insult and incite Muslim sensibilities, are a political provocation. Their publication, initially by a right-wing Danish newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism, was calculated to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.

The decision of the right-wing Danish government to defend the newspaper that initially published the cartoons, and of newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Hungary, both conservative and liberal, to reprint them has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the defense of secularism. Such claims make a mockery of these democratic principles.

The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that it occurs in the midst of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, new threats against the Palestinian masses, and the preparations to launch sanctions, and eventual military aggression, against Iran.

It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.

In the name of the fight against terrorism, governments throughout Europe are implementing repressive measures that target, in the first instance, Muslim and other immigrant populations, while preparing the ground for the destruction of the democratic rights of the working class as a whole. These police state preparations go hand in hand with an offensive against the jobs, wages and living standards of working people and an ever-greater concentration of wealth in the coffers of a wealthy and privileged minority at the top.

One does not have to uphold Islam, or any other religion, to sympathize with the indignation of Muslims around the world who have expressed their outrage at the racist drawings flung in their face by media outlets that claim to be defending Western secularist values against the dark hordes from the East.

On Friday, protests against the publication of the cartoons spread across the Middle East, northern Africa and Asia, with thousands demonstrating in Iraq, tens of thousands in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and some 50,000 filling a square in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. Muslims also protested in Britain and Turkey.

The events that have led up to the present confrontation make it clear that the publication of the cartoons was a political provocation. The Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which first published twelve caricatures of Mohammad on September 30, supports the right-wing government headed by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen—a government that includes in its coalition a rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.

Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”

The newspaper proceeded to publish twelve drawings. These included a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a smoking bomb, another with Muhammad on a cloud in heaven telling an approaching line of suicide bombers that he had run out of virgins with which to reward them, and a third depicting the prophet grinning wildly, with a knife in his hand and flanked by heavily-veiled women.

In October, Prime Minister Rasmussen refused to meet with the ambassadors of eleven predominantly Muslim countries who had requested a meeting to discuss their objections to the cartoons. Setting the tone for the ensuing developments, Rasmussen declared that the cartoons were a legitimate exercise in press freedom, and implied that there was nothing to discuss.

The affront was stepped up when a Norwegian magazine published the drawings in January. Denmark continued to ignore protests by Danish Muslim groups and other Muslim organizations until the end of January, when Saudi Arabia and Syria recalled their ambassadors from Denmark and the Saudi regime initiated a consumer boycott of Danish goods.

Only when the boycott spread and the Danish company Arla Foods, the second largest dairy producer in Europe, announced that its Middle Eastern sales had completely dried up, did the Danish government and Jyllands-Posten issue statements of regret, while defending the decision to publish the cartoons.

This week the simmering controversy exploded when the French newspaper France Soir republished the cartoons. Defending its printing of the drawings in an editorial on Thursday, the newspaper’s editor wrote: “Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots.”

Other newspapers in France, including the liberal Libération, followed suit, printing some or all of the ugly cartoons. Le Monde, for its part, ran a sketch of a man, presumably Mohammad, made up of sentences reading, “I must not draw Muhammad.”

The German newspapers Die Welt, Die Tageszeitung, Tagesspiegel and Berliner Zeitung, the Dutch papers Volksrant, NRC Handelsblad and Elsevier, Italy’s La Stampa and Corriere della Sera, Spain’s El Periodico and two Dutch-language newspapers in Belgium were among those that published some or all of the cartoons over the past several days.

In Britain, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all showed some of the cartoons on television news broadcasts.

An indication of the political forces and motives behind the deluge of racist caricatures was the decision of Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament who has proposed a law that would ban women from wearing burqas, to post the cartoons on his web site “as a token of support to the Danish cartoonists and to stand up for free speech.”

Among those European politicians and government officials who have sprung to the defense of the Danish government and the media outlets that published the images is French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. With quintessential cynicism, the man who helped incite last year’s anti-police riots in the largely Muslim immigrant suburbs of France by referring to their inhabitants as “scum” and “gangrene” has now adopted the mantle of press freedom to support yet another attack on Muslims.

The absurd attempt to give this anti-democratic assault a democratic veneer is exemplified by Sarkozy, who authored the current state of emergency that has gutted civil liberties in France. The French government of Sarkozy and President Jacques Chirac set the precedent for such anti-Muslim attacks by imposing—with the support of the Socialist and Communist parties and the “far left” Lutte Ouvrière (Workers Struggle)—a ban on Muslim girls wearing head scarves in the public schools. This overt attack on religious freedom in general and the rights of Muslims in particular was likewise passed off as a defense of secularism and the “enlightened” values of the French Republic.

The real content of the supposed crusade for secularism and press freedom was shown in the first wave of mass deportations of French Muslims under a law championed by Sarkozy in the aftermath of last year’s riots. The law provides for the summary deportation of all foreigners who are indicted—not convicted—of crimes. Hundreds of youth were arrested by Sarkozy’s riot police during the disturbances, and these are now threatened with being shipped out of the country.

The new Grand Coalition government headed by Angela Merkel has likewise called for stronger measures to evict foreigners from German soil.

The foreign policy interests behind the anti-Muslim attack were indicated by the Netherlands’ announcement of plans to send additional troops to help police Afghanistan for US imperialism.

On Friday, the US State Department issued a statement opposing the publication of the cartoons. “These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” said a department spokesman, adding, “We fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”

This intervention is entirely hypocritical, coming from a government that has sought repeatedly to muzzle the American press and has waged a brutal attack on Muslims within the US. The Bush administration has, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, spearheaded the assault on Muslims around the world, using the so-called “war on terrorism” as the pretext.

Washington’s “respect” for the beliefs of Muslims was exposed before the eyes of the world in the pictures of sadistic abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where military and intelligence officials employed tactics designed to exploit Muslim beliefs and sensibilities.

The official US response to the publication of the cartoons is largely motivated by immediate concerns over the impact the provocation could have on Washington’s imperialist operations in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

Some who defend the publication of the cartoons claim they are examples of satire—as though crude appeals to the basest and most bigoted impulses can be equated with genuine social or cultural criticism. In fact, the images plastered on the pages of European newspapers and broadcast on television news programs have far more in common with the type of anti-Semitic caricatures made infamous by the Nazis than they do with satire.

That such outpourings can have anything to do with a struggle for secularism in opposition to religious belief is absurd. A genuine critique of religion can be conducted only on the highest intellectual level, appealing to science and reason—not ignorance and fear.

The current episode reveals the enormous dangers facing the working class from the visible decomposition of democracy in all of the capitalist countries. The promotion of anti-Muslim chauvinism, and all forms of communalist and nationalist poison, is the expression of a social system that is mired in insoluble crisis and incapable of meeting the most basic needs of the broad masses of the people.

The only antidote to such backward and reactionary politics is the development of a united movement of workers of all countries, religions and nationalities in opposition to war and in defense of democratic rights against the capitalist ruling elites and the system they uphold. The program upon which such a struggle must be based is socialist internationalism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by jizzmine
Decide for yourselves - but take a stand.

The first stand I would like to take is against kids posting a long ass article instead of a portion of it and a link.

The second stand I would like to take is against reactionary socialists who apologise for religion and fundamentalism.

The third thing I would like to take a stand against is when kids post articles that completely refute what they are trying to say.

Let's look at a portion of little Jizzy's article:


Last September, the newspaper asked forty cartoonists to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad, something that is proscribed by Islamic law as blasphemous. Spelling out the provocative and inflammatory aim of this exercise, the chief editor said its purpose was “to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.”


And another:

Where does it say that the artists were asked to draw pictures of Arabs that would be considered offensive?

It doesn't of course.


The newspaper proceeded to publish twelve drawings. These included a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a smoking bomb, another with Muhammad on a cloud in heaven telling an approaching line of suicide bombers that he had run out of virgins with which to reward them, and a third depicting the prophet grinning wildly, with a knife in his hand and flanked by heavily-veiled woman

See the pattern?

Prophet Muhammad...Prophet Muhammad.....Prophet Muhammad.....

Not Arab....Arab.....Arab....

Hey Jizzy: Shit or shinola?

Watch your step! :lol:

[Labor Shall Rule]

It will collapse again; even bourgeois economists have admitted that capitalism has periods in which their system would be thrown into a period of crisis. It is moments like these in which workers will question the legitimacy of the entire capitalist system. As the capitalist class has less material resources to inject another venom of reformism into the working class, it will be unable to stop a revolutionary spasm from challenging their order and stability.

If you look at capitalism, it's like a dying monster; a fire simmering away slowly, only bouncing back up after a few trinkles of gasoline was applied to it. In China, the workers will no longer like to be apart of the "sweatshop of the world", so cheap labor will be relocated to Africa and North Korea, and soon the workers there will feel the same sentiments, until eventually, profits will run on a point of inevitable decline in which the remaining vestiges could only be attained through a fascist dictatorship and world war, which will again, add a few tears of gasoline to the simmering fire, until it eventually goes out.

As far as Marxism being 'discredited', you only just told me what happened to the movements that called themselves 'Marxist-Leninist', you never offered an analysis explaing how the actual "idea" of Marxism lead to it's failure. You can not 'judge' whether the "idea" is wrong unless, after the seizure of the political power by the proletariat in industrialized countries, they somehow fail to achieve their objectives, which is highly unlikely considering that they will have a massive surplus, and the productive forces would be developed to a level of making socialism a realizable fact.

The proletariat, however, has shown itself to be a revolutionary class. Considering that the productive forces need to be developed to a high level in order to make socialism an immediate possibility since it will permit the elimination of general want, and also the breaking down of the division of labor, the only social stratum that is capable of facilitating such change is the one that is immediately involved in the production process itself. How can you create a society of free producers if you do not think that producers are the revolutionary class? Can you argue otherwise, instead of offering stupid one-sentence explanations on how "the peasants and slaves rised up too!" If that is your perspective on things, then I would argue that it unmaterialist and ahistorical.

It doesn't matter if the working class claims to be "Marxist" or not. If you understand the capitalist system from a critical angle, and approach the class struggle and the political situation that entails it from the correct historical and theoretical perspective, then you will be able to enlarge and revitalize a revolutionary movement. In other words, the recipe described by Marx can be accomplished by anarchists, 'Christian' socialists, and any other variant that claims to be seperate from the theories of Marx and Engels. It will be accomplished by workers, whether they fancy themselves a Marxist or not. As Pannekoek said, "the masses’ own experiences are bound to foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent. World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually."

[Labor Shall Rule]

"In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark."

Does this not make it obvious that the political motivation of the newspaper was to divide the working class with the cartoon?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:20 pm

Does this not make it obvious that the political motivation of the newspaper was to divide the working class with the cartoon?

Does this not make it obvious that the political motivation of the newspaper was to divide the working class with the cartoon?

Why because the people who ran the paper 80 years ago were fascists?

Unless they've secretly found the fountain of youth I doubt we're going to see a bunch of 100 year old fascists in jack boots running the printing press. :lol:

Once again you have amazed me with your mystical powers and ability to see into the minds of people you have never met.

I think you need a TV show that will follow that other "mystic" John Edward.

You would be famous.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The entire paper is right-wing. It endorsed the Conservative People's Party for decades. The leading members of the Board of Trustees include David Gress, who does not hestitate to bring out the eurocentricity in his writings, and is also an avid anti-communist. According to the European Network Against Racism, which was funded by the European Commision, "out of 382 JP articles on immigrants, 212 were negative." This study was down before the illustration was published. In other words, they have scapegoated immigrants, who tend to be mostly from Arab countries.

[jasmine]

It doesn't matter if the working class claims to be "Marxist" or not. If you understand the capitalist system from a critical angle, and approach the class struggle and the political situation that entails it from the correct historical and theoretical perspective, then you will be able to enlarge and revitalize a revolutionary movement. In other words, the recipe described by Marx can be accomplished by anarchists, 'Christian' socialists, and any other variant that claims to be seperate from the theories of Marx and Engels. It will be accomplished by workers, whether they fancy themselves a Marxist or not. As Pannekoek said, "the masses’ own experiences are bound to foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent. World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually."

I agree that capitalism may well enter a deep crisis again at some point in the future but I just don't think history bears out what you are saying here. Marx himself made the point that the proletarian revolution is different from all preceding revolutions because the majority would take power. I don't see how any class can take power without having a clear, uniting concept of its own interests. Past experience shows that revolutionary consciousness develops in a minority of the class only even in periods of deep and profound crisis.

Of course history is a only a guide, it's not an absolute proof, but you posit proletarian revolution as the single possible, actually necessary outcome of the collapse of capitalism. Not even Marx himself said this - he thought the "common ruin" of both the major classes was possible.

When you ask, if not by proletarian revolution then how will socialism be realized I freely admit I don't know. I think the left generally has reached an impasse with no clear way forward. As I said in answer to a previous post I think it's possible to fight defensive battles against various forms of oppression such as racism and sexism but I don't think anyone has a clear strategy for removing capitalism.

[jasmine]

Where does it say that the artists were asked to draw pictures of Arabs that would be considered offensive?

The images are offensive. That's why they appeal to you.

Why are you seeking to justify the actions of a clearly anti-immigrant, anti-working class newspaper?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by red+--> (red)
The entire paper is right-wing. It endorsed the Conservative People's Party for decades[/b]

That can be said about almost every newspaper in the world. If you think that being a leftist means that you have to boycott everything that's "capitalist" then it's time for you to strip down to your keks and move into a cave.


jizz
The images are offensive. That's why they appeal to you.


Damn straight!


Why are you seeking to justify the actions of a clearly anti-immigrant, anti-working class newspaper?

I don't live in Denmark so I can give two fucks about what your opinion is of a newspaper that I will probably never read.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:31 pm
When you ask, if not by proletarian revolution then how will socialism be realized I freely admit I don't know. I think the left generally has reached an impasse with no clear way forward. As I said in answer to a previous post I think it's possible to fight defensive battles against various forms of oppression such as racism and sexism but I don't think anyone has a clear strategy for removing capitalism.
You may be interested in this article:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1530348,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1530348,00.html)


In October 1997 the business correspondent of the New Yorker, John Cassidy, reported a conversation with an investment banker. 'The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right,' the financier said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Marx's approach is the best way to look at capitalism.' His curiosity aroused, Cassidy read Marx for the first time. He found 'riveting passages about globalisation, inequality, political corruption, monopolisation, technical progress, the decline of high culture, and the enervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are now confronting anew, sometimes without realising that they are walking in Marx's footsteps'.

[jasmine]

I don't live in Denmark so I can give two fucks about what your opinion is of a newspaper that I will probably never read.I don't live in Denmark so I can give two fucks about what your opinion is of a newspaper that I will probably never read.

Of course you don't read this rag you just reflect its views.

Let me tell you a few things Vinny, I grew up in a communist family that goes back three generations. I have arrived at my own views of Marxism following a good deal of study and whilst I don't expect the revolution anytime soon I respect and understand the tradition. You are not a Marxist or an Anarchist or any mixture of the two. You are a scummy racist, many here have felt it and I understand the reluctance of some to say it.

I don't care whether I am banned or not, but all you deserve is a good kicking and I hope someday you get it.

To the admin: ban me if you want and keep the scumbag, is this really the board you want?

[Matty_UK]

Jasmine:


There were historical battles and historical defeats. The revolutionary element of the working class was always a minority (amongst the rank and file and the leadership). These defeats lead to a decomposition of the marxist movement whilst capitalism survived and grew.

Were Marx's idea of socialism or barbarism (the inevitable common ruin of the contending classes) correct this should not have happened.

Looking at the news today, it seems we could be on the brink of barbarism. The bank Northern Rock has had to get an emergency loan of the Bank of England, but no other bank is willing to lend money to it. The problem seems to be banks have been lending too much money as capitalism needs ever higher consumption to counteract the tendency of profit rates to decline, but now banks have lent too much money to people unable to pay it back. As banks depend on borrowing money off each other to survive, if Northern Rock goes it could mean all the banks will follow. And as they are all in the same situation as Northern Rock, they could start feeling the same effects irrespective of Northern Rock's position.

If this happens, we would witness serious worldwide economic depression, worse than that of the 30s.
What the outcome is depends on socialists; I find the socialist movement frustrating because there's a lot of people who deliberately strive to be anti-social and sub-culturey which doesn't do much for our credibility, or they're educated folk who refuse to have contact with the working class. Just because we've been defeated and discredited doesn't mean that will last forever, it's just going to be harder work.

Strikes seem to be on the rise again at least in the UK, we need to start visiting picket lines and explaining to workers what's happening to them.


This is true but does the working class have the capacity to develop "revolutionary consciousness" ie the capacity to shape society in its own class interests rather than just rebel sporadically? Can the working class actually create its own state power in the interest of the majority? As I said in an earlier post the peasantry also rebelled and temporarily siezed power.

The working class HAVE seized state power, in the USSR, and though it didn't last we can learn they are capable of forming state power.

What they did fail at was industrialising the country. As inhuman as it sounds, capitalist exploitation seems to be necassary for industrialisation. The USSR's capitalism looked different to the wests because the small Russian bourgeoisie could not compete with the imperialist bourgeoisie, but as in Western Europe industrialisation was made possible by the accumulation of capital through exploitation of the workers. Only when capital is concentrated in one individual or one organisation can it be directed to gather all the materials necassary for industrialisation.
This is why socialism failed in the USSR; people ALLOWED Lenin to put the worker's soviets under state control.

If the working class manage to seize power today, the economic benefits would be so massive any attempt to crush socialism would be prevented. Production for profit holds back the expansion of production, and the dependancy on waged labour necassary in capitalism prevents the automation of work and reduction of working hours across the board.

Peasants on the other hand, on rare occasions that they did rebel without simply following a rogue noble, merely wanted to farm their land and be left alone, even though there are examples of them fighting to defend common land from being enclosed. Unlike a proletarian revolution, they cannot expand production in any way, and the feudal system of tax-exploitation allowed the nobility to accumulate the wealth necassary for a strong military. A society of free farmers does not have this advantage, so will always be unable to defeat the aristocracy.


I agree but Marx and Engels did think Marxism was scientific. They did believe they had uncovered the laws that literally dicatated human development.

Maybe they did, but most revolutionary socialists are neither Marx nor Engels. ;)


I think that Marxism as a social movement was defeated, probably decisively, in the period between the two world wars. What should we do now - well we can fight defensive battles against rascism and facism (for me these are the most important issues) or other aspects of oppression and try to assess the past as dispassionately as possible in order to look for a way forward.

Why do you think racism and fascism are the most important issues?

Surely the best way to combat these is to raise awareness of a socialist alternative within the working class, so disaffected workers don't blame whoever nationalists/fascists are scapegoating instead of fighting the real cause of their problems?

I'm very wary of people seperating issues like racism/sexism/homophobia from the class struggle, it tends to breed watered down liberalism rather than revolutionary consciousness. The struggle against them is important but seperating them from class war is dangerous.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by jizzy
Of course you don't read this rag you just reflect its views.


I don't know what their "views" are any more than you do. All you have is an opinion on what you think their "views" could be.

I won't be so bold as to try and predict the "views" of a multitude of people I will never meet.

When you're making your "predictions" do you wear a cute little hat like Johnny Carson did?


I have arrived at my own views of Marxism following a good deal of study and whilst I don't expect the revolution anytime soon I respect and understand the tradition.

Keep studying jack, you ain't even close.


You are not a Marxist or an Anarchist or any mixture of the two

Is that what your Tarot Cards told you? Or perhaps the "spirits on the other side" filled you in.


You are a scummy racist

And you're a turd-blossom poopy-drawers. :lol:


don't care whether I am banned or not, but all you deserve is a good kicking and I hope someday you get it.


Come one come all! No reactionaries like yourself will turned away.

Remember kid: Phoenix, AZ.

[jasmine]

I don't live in Denmark so I can give two fucks about what your opinion is from a newspaper that I will probably never read.

This newspaper you don't give two fucks about is a racist newsaper that provided you, a scummy racist shitbag, with your avatar.

[jasmine]

I don't know what their "views" are any more than you do. All you have is an opinion on what you think their "views" could be.

Yes you do. They are racists just like you. Have been for decades. Where is Jazzratt by the way?

[jasmine]

Oh admin, where are you?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:13 pm

This newspaper you don't give two fucks about is a racist newsaper that provided you, a scummy racist shitbag, with your avatar.
Not that I really care but: prove it.


Oh admin, where are you?

I'm sorry but the Admin can't come to the phone right now, he's too busy laughing at you.

[jasmine]

Not that I really care but: prove it. because
You are already hated and a joke. And where is Jazzratt? Where has he gone?

You've been deserted by your sycophant and everybody else sees you as racist scum because you endorse a racist newspaper. Cryotank Screams!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by jizz
You are already hated and a joke

Probably not as much as you are hated considering that you're restricted and I'm not.


and everybody else sees you as racist scum because you endorse a racist newspaper.

More crystal ball mysticism from our resident seer.

No back to the subject:

Prove it.

[jasmine]

I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:59 pm
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.
I'm glad to see that in a fit of megalomania you have decided "your word" is to be considered "law".

You know there is medication you can take for narcissistic personality disorder.

I suggest you talk with a psychiatrist on what meds will best suit your case.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The unstudious Jaz
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

Actually Jaz you do; you made the claim, so you have to back it up. That is, of course, if you want to be taken seriously; not that you are in much danger of that.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+September 14, 2007 10:40 pm--> (Invader Zim @ September 14, 2007 10:40 pm)
The unstudious Jaz
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

Actually Jaz you do; you made the claim, so you have to back it up. That is, of course, if you want to be taken seriously; not that you are in much danger of that. [/b]
...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that using racist charicatures - which happen to use religion as their medium of attack on a people - is somehow less racist. If nothing else, Vinny is a bigot and a xenophobe.

[Invader Zim]

...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Yes there have been, but more people disagree. Of course the latter group is correct, Islam is not a 'race' and only a complete idiot would suggest it is; ergo, Vinnie is not a racist.

So do you have any evidence to support your position; or can we simply skip it and get to the part where I note that you are an idiot? It will save time for both of us.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 14, 2007 11:36 pm



...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Yes there have been, but more people disagree. Of course the latter group is correct, Islam is not a 'race' and only a complete idiot would suggest it is; ergo, Vinnie is not a racist.

So do you have any evidence to support your position; or can we simply skip it and get to the part where I note that you are an idiot? It will save time for both of us.
:lol: you're so witty! As I said, Vinny is if nothing else a xenophobe. Your argument is like saying "Kikes aren't a race! I hate Jews but I'm not a racist!" Sorry, that's bullshit. Call it racism, bigotry, or xenophobia but it's clear that one of those terms applies to Vinny. and I guarantee you that the bullshit "CC" opinion is far from the fact; anybody who has a sliver of rational thought can see that Vinny is using whatever means he can to make a xenophobic stand. Who cares if it's under the mask of "anti-religion"? He sounds like fucking Glenn Beck.

Let's skip to the point where you get a life and stop being a little *****, instead.

[jasmine]

you're so witty! As I said, Vinny is if nothing else a xenophobe. Your argument is like saying "Kikes aren't a race! I hate Jews but I'm not a racist!" Sorry, that's bullshit. Call it racism, bigotry, or xenophobia but it's clear that one of those terms applies to Vinny. and I guarantee you that the bullshit "CC" opinion is far from the fact; anybody who has a sliver of rational thought can see that Vinny is using whatever means he can to make a xenophobic stand. Who cares if it's under the mask of "anti-religion"? He sounds like fucking Glenn Beck.

Absolutely right. So go ahead and ban the restricted anti-racists and keep the racist scumbag.

Of course the problem with that is it won't resolve the problem. You'll still have a racist running free on your board and boosted by the support he'd been given his remarks would become increasingly foul and offensive.

I guess the reason nothing has been done so far, one way or another, is because of divisions in the so-called CC. It's good to know some people can see clearly.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Dean+September 14, 2007 11:23 pm--> (Dean @ September 14, 2007 11:23 pm)
Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 14, 2007 10:40 pm

The unstudious Jaz
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

Actually Jaz you do; you made the claim, so you have to back it up. That is, of course, if you want to be taken seriously; not that you are in much danger of that.
...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that using racist charicatures - which happen to use religion as their medium of attack on a people - is somehow less racist. If nothing else, Vinny is a bigot and a xenophobe. [/b]
Actually he referred to me as a 'drunken leprechaun' and as a 'drunkenstiltskin'. It is precisely this brand of ignorance that the Irish have had to fight tooth and nail at the hands of the English for centuries. Celts are a different race to anglo-saxon nations so technically this is racism.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 15, 2007 11:27 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 15, 2007 11:27 am)
Originally posted by Dean+September 14, 2007 11:23 pm--> (Dean @ September 14, 2007 11:23 pm)
Invader [email protected] 14, 2007 10:40 pm

The unstudious Jaz
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

Actually Jaz you do; you made the claim, so you have to back it up. That is, of course, if you want to be taken seriously; not that you are in much danger of that.
...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that using racist charicatures - which happen to use religion as their medium of attack on a people - is somehow less racist. If nothing else, Vinny is a bigot and a xenophobe. [/b]
Actually he referred to me as a 'drunken leprechaun' and as a 'drunkenstiltskin'. It is precisely this brand of ignorance that the Irish have had to fight tooth and nail at the hands of the English for centuries. Celts are a different race to anglo-saxon nations so technically this is racism. [/b]
Ha, the probability that you are a 'Celt' is slim. The amount of intermigration within the British Isles, and the rest of Europe indeed, over the centuries rendered the probability that you are a through and through Celt highly remote. But assuming that you are, the charge is completely stupid anyway. I come from a place dominated by Q-Celtic (Manx) back in the day and being decended on the other side of the family from P-Celtic speakers (Welsh), which incidentally older than Q-Celtic, which is what Gaelic is derived from. So when he insuts you by calling you a 'drunken leprechaun', which is specific to Ireland, I do not feal insulted despite also being of Celtic origion.

So no, calling you a 'drunken leprechaun', is not racist, nor does it insult Celts.


Incidentally, the 'racialists' intent on catagorising us all by 'race', simply placed Britain (as in the land mass), Ireland, the surrounding Islands, Scandinavia and the surrounding areas on the edge of this area (Northen France, Northern Germany, etc) as 'Nordic'. This is in no small part because Britain and Ireland in particular have been invaded and counter invaded so many times, colonised and re-colonised, that beyond 'White Caucasion' any kind of narrower classification becomes increasingly difficult. But then again, the idea of 'race' is ludicrous anyway.

[Dr Mindbender]

The fact remains, regardless of my personal bloodlines he was insulting me because of my land of origin, which is synomonous with the celtic race. That in itself could be construed as prejudiced against those of their ethnicity. I honestly dont see any margin for complacency or apolgism regarding this. If you have gusto against any form of prejudice, then you should have the same across the board. I dont buy your argument that the 'white caucasian race' cant be narrowed down though. The celts for centuries, were regarded as uncouth savages which is why they were relegated to the far off rocky and unfarmable extremities of the british isles such as cornwall, wales and the scottish highlands. To this day, there is still exists huge economic disparity between England and its so called 'partners' within the union. Not to mention the contempt for those partners within the English beourgiouse mindset, the terms 'taking the mick' and 'beyond the pale' are both based on anti-irish sentiment.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+September 15, 2007 12:22 pm--> (Invader Zim @ September 15, 2007 12:22 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 15, 2007 11:27 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 15, 2007 11:27 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:23 pm

Invader [email protected] 14, 2007 10:40 pm

The unstudious Jaz
I don't have to prove anything. You are scum, many people here know this, there's no need for proof or persuasion.

Actually Jaz you do; you made the claim, so you have to back it up. That is, of course, if you want to be taken seriously; not that you are in much danger of that.
...as if there haven't been a slew of people pointing out Vinny's racism already.

Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that using racist charicatures - which happen to use religion as their medium of attack on a people - is somehow less racist. If nothing else, Vinny is a bigot and a xenophobe.
Actually he referred to me as a 'drunken leprechaun' and as a 'drunkenstiltskin'. It is precisely this brand of ignorance that the Irish have had to fight tooth and nail at the hands of the English for centuries. Celts are a different race to anglo-saxon nations so technically this is racism. [/b]
Ha, the probability that you are a 'Celt' is slim. The amount of intermigration within the British Isles, and the rest of Europe indeed, over the centuries rendered the probability that you are a through and through Celt highly remote. But assuming that you are, the charge is completely stupid anyway. I come from a place dominated by Q-Celtic (Manx) back in the day and being decended on the other side of the family from P-Celtic speakers (Welsh), which incidentally older than Q-Celtic, which is what Gaelic is derived from. So when he insuts you by calling you a 'drunken leprechaun', which is specific to Ireland, I do not feal insulted because I am also of Celtic origion.

So no, calling you a 'drunken leprechaun', is not racist, nor does it insult Celts.


Incidentally, the 'racialists' intent on catagorising us all by 'race', simply placed Britain (as in the land mass), Ireland, the surrounding Islands, Scandinavia and the surrounding areas on the edge of this area (Northen France, Northern Germany, etc) as 'Nordic'. This is in no small part because Britain and Ireland in particular have been invaded and counter invaded so many times, colonised and re-colonised, that beyond 'White Caucasion' any kind of narrower classification becomes increasingly difficult. But then again, the idea of 'race' is ludicrous anyway. [/b]
And noone in the British Isles was called a "Celt" or "Celtic" until the 1600's and 1700's -



The first person to use the term "Celt" in relation to Britain and Ireland was George Buchanan in 1582. [citation needed] After its employment by Edward Lhuyd in 1707,[9] the use of the word "Celtic" as an umbrella term for the pre-Roman peoples of Britain gained considerable popularity in the nineteenth century, and remains in common usage. However its historical basis is now seen as dubious by many historians and archaeologists, and this usage has been called into question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt#Use_of_t...ain_and_Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt#Use_of_the_term_for_pre-Roman_peoples_of_Britain_and_Ireland)

And allnative Europeans are descended from seven women (Mitochondrial Eves) and 10 men anyway, so there is no real difference between the European peoples anyway, just like there is no real difference between any two humans from anywhere in the world. In fact, everyone alive today is a descendant of the first people to farm rice on the Yangtze, to build the pyramids, to invade Europe in longboats etc - http://itotd.com/articles/226/most-recent-common-ancestors/

[Invader Zim]

he was insulting me because of my land of origin

Yeah mate, and thats xenophobia, not racism. But ultimately he is not doing it because he has a problem with the Irish, but because he knew he would succeed in getting a reaction from you.

And no I'm not bothered by it simply because if you are daft enough to let being called a 'drunken leprechaun' in any way annoy you, then mate... you need to grow a thicker skin.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 15, 2007 11:33 am

he was insulting me because of my land of origin

Yeah mate, and thats xenophobia, not racism. But ultimately he is not doing it because he has a problem with the Irish, but because he knew he would succeed in getting a reaction from you.

And no I'm not bothered by it simply because if you are daft enough to let being called a 'drunken leprechaun' in any way annoy you, then mate... you need to grow a thicker skin.
so if he calls a black man n****r does he need to grow 'thicker skin'?

Read the edit to my last post for longer historical perspective. The 'material scientific' evidence may be arbitrary, but the fact remains the cultural divisions exist and are protected by the dominant hegemony which isnt helped by Vinny's jack-assed statements about spirit swigging fairies.

[Invader Zim]

so if he calls a black man n****r does he need to grow 'thicker skin'?

The term 'nigger' was used to denigrate the supposedly racially inferior slaves in order to maintain the illusion that they could be classed as sub-human livestock. Indeed the term was used for a long time to mean anyone who wasn't white. There are plenty of examples from the archives that show English colonialists calling those from India, etc, as 'niggers'. Indeed the term comes from the Portuguese word for 'black', which is of course 'Negro'. The reason why the term has infiltrated so much into modern culture is because the Portuguese empire was the most prolific slave trading empire, transporting in excess of 4 of the 10 million slaves that survived capture and transportation in Africa and then on the middle passage. So the term, which was bastardised into what it is now, originally was merely descriptive. The term has been deliberately changed to become a term to denigrate. I am afraid to say that calling you a pissed leprechaun doesn't quite have the same historic ties that make the term 'nigger' so abhorrent.



Read the edit to my last post for longer historical perspective.

----


The celts for centuries, were regarded as uncouth savages which is why they were relegated to the far off rocky and unfarmable extremities of the british isles such as cornwall, wales and the scottish highlands.

Well, I hope you will forgive my sticking to the case of Wales, because I know a lot more about it than the other examples having gone to a Welsh university just so I could study Welsh history among other things.

Actually, the reason why they were 'relegated' to such locations is because the enviroment made migration a largely undesirable prospect (not that by now that will have made any difference) and invasion difficult. This has left a certain imprint upon the cultures that existed in these areas, which is why the languages are in some cases still spoken daily as a primary language. The ancient cultural impact could only survive in the more romote locations. For the most part the Brythonic languages fell victim to numerous invasions from out side influences within the British Isles. Only in the more isolated regions could it survive.

While of course the English crown in the Medieval period was most disinclinded to tolerate 'insolence' from its neighbors whom had been reduced to fiefdom, as indeed the English crown had been to the French crown. It is from this era that I suspect the attitude towards the Irish, Welsh and Scottish was founded, largely because they were unruley and wouldn't pay their tribute. That certainly was the case when it came to Llewelyn ap Gruffydd, who having been 'sticking it' to the Englishman for years finally went to far (or rather his brother Dafydd did by attacking Hawarden) and got himself killed and the penal laws placed upon Wales.

However the claims that the Act of Union in Wales (1535) (Laws in Wales Act) was designed specifically to further segrigate the Welsh by destroying the language, are a load of shit.

So all in all I think you are paying the English a diservice and making spurious claims that even Gwynfor Evans would not have made. And before you call me an English nationalist, which some fools on this site have done, remember that I am not English and nor is where I come from part of the Union.


To this day, there is still exists huge economic disparity between England and its so called 'partners' within the union.

Well of course there is, just as there is a large economic disparity between North and South England. But this is largely because of the basis of the local economies, Englands much vaster population rather than some vague conspiricy to keep the Taffies and Northerners poor. Even within the countries there is a large disparity when it comes to wealth, South Wales is much better off than the North for example.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:43 pm
And where is Jazzratt? Where has he gone?
I'm terribly sorry but whilst you were whining on and on about how militant anti-theism can be construed as racist I was getting on with my life.

Try it someday, I hear it's good for the psyche. Maybe you'll even talk to some ordinary people who think your particular brand of psuedo-marxism and constant shouts of "racist" at patent non-racists is a pathetic joke.

Oh yeah and it's not really like Vinny needs me to act as some "knight in shining armour" - after all he seems to be doing pretty well handing your arse to you on his own.

[Invader Zim]

Your argument is like saying "Kikes aren't a race! I hate Jews but I'm not a racist!"

Sweetie, the 'Jew' comparison doesn't work because Jeudaism is a religion which happens to be near, though not quite universally, unique to one ethnic origion. This means that Islam and Jeudaism are incomparable on this score.


and I guarantee you that the bullshit "CC" opinion is far from the fact; anybody who has a sliver of rational thought can see that Vinny is using whatever means he can to make a xenophobic stand.

You guarantee it do you? Well as you are wrong and a fool, your guarantee is worthless.


Originally posted by Jaz
It's good to know some people can see clearly.

Jaz, if you think that Dean here makes points with any kind of clarity, then you must view the world from a very myopic perspective.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 15, 2007 01:07 pm

Your argument is like saying "Kikes aren't a race! I hate Jews but I'm not a racist!"

Sweetie, the 'Jew' comparison doesn't work because Jeudaism is a religion which happens to be near, though not quite universally, unique to one ethnic origion. This means that Islam and Jeudaism are incomparable on this score.
Judaism, you mean?

Do you realize how idiotic it is to even claim that the Jews are a race? The distinctions between Irish and English are more prominent; anybody who has read or studied the Torah or Old Testament can tell you that Jewish blood is heavily intermingled with the blood of the people in the middle east, Palestinians in particular.

Also, there are many Jewish converts, and Jews who have renounced their religion.

The point is not that the Jews are or aren't a race so much as what it means to say "towelhead" or "kike." It's xenophobic, be it certainly racist or not. You admitted that yourself. But somehow you defend it; just lovely.

[Invader Zim]

Do you realize how idiotic it is to even claim that the Jews are a race?

Sweetie, race is a made up concept.


It's xenophobic, be it certainly racist or not

Well I think we can safely say it is not 'racist', mildly xenophobic perhaps in that the leprechaun is a faerie myth local to Ireland, but it is not derogatory slang comparable to 'kike', 'nigger', 'sand-nigger', etc. In the context, which was to simply irritate as opposed to oppress, it is even less so.

However laying into extreme political Islam is neither racist or xenophobic and anyone who says it is, is either a apologist for reactionary religions because they mistakenly think that defending a fundermentalist group of ideologues is the same as 'anti-imperialism' or a bigot themselves attempting to associate all Muslims with reactionary political Islam or, and last but not least, a complete fool.

You can take your pick which you are.

[jasmine]

However laying into extreme political Islam is neither racist or xenophobic and anyone who says it is, is either a apologist for reactionary religions because they mistakenly think that defending a fundermentalist group of ideologues is the same as 'anti-imperialism' or a bigot themselves attempting to associate all Muslims with reactionary political Islam or, and last but not least, a complete fool.

As I pointed out earlier many times those images were commisioned and published by extreme right wingers in order to demonise and scapegoat the muslim community. The intentions behind that were clearly racist - and please don't bore us with any more logic-chopping about how precisely to define bigotry. It was not an attack on "extreme political islam" but on an entire, oppressed community.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:29 pm
As I pointed out earlier many times those images were commisioned and published by extreme right wingers in order to demonise and scapegoat the muslim community. The intentions behind that were clearly racist - and please don't bore us with any more logic-chopping about how precisely to define bigotry. It was not an attack on "extreme political islam" but on an entire, oppressed community.
Does that level of stupidity come to you naturally or did you have to practice?

Regardless of where the images originate VR's use of them is an entirely legitimate stab at political Islam. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[Invader Zim]

As I pointed out earlier many times those images were commisioned and published by extreme right wingers

And? What kind of ridiculous logic are you using? Do you suppose that a history text books on the NSDAP can be accused of anti-semitism because it happens to contain a Swastika?

It doesn't matter one bit who commissioned the cartoon, what matters is why Vinnie is using it.

A site that may help you (http://comp.uark.edu/~mpianal/philosophy_basic_logic.html)

[jasmine]

Regardless of where the images originate VR's use of them is an entirely legitimate stab at political Islam. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Do you actually believe that is what he is doing? Do you have any idea of the current political situation in Europe and the attacks taking place against immigrant communities. Do you care at all? I don't think you do. He's consciously associating himself with those attacks. There are none so blind ... really.

[Invader Zim]

Do you have any idea of the current political situation in Europe and the attacks taking place against immigrant communities.

Well Jaz, I live in Europe; so yeah I do. I am also pretty sure that Jazzratt lives in Europe as well.

[jasmine]

Do you suppose that a history text books on the NSDAP can be accused of anti-semitism because it happens to contain a Swastika?

It doesn't matter one bit who commissioned the cartoon, what matters is why Vinnie is using it.

And, you fool, if someone used a swastika as their avatar would that be okay as long as they came up with a good enough excuse? After all the history of the symbol is not important.

You fall back on stupid lawyers arguments to justify and defend an obvious racist. I'm willing to believe you are simply an idiot but Vinny hates arabs, (sorry muslims). Just read his posts.

And Jazzratt - the only reason you are so dog-loyal to Vinnie is because he said nice things about you. You actually liked me for a while, remember, after I paid you a compliment. You really are that easy. You have no principles, none at all.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:18 pm
You fall back on stupid lawyers arguments to justify and defend an obvious racist. I'm willing to believe you are simply an idiot but Vinny hates arabs, (sorry muslims). Just read his posts.
You calling anyone stupid is just rich.


And Jazzratt - the only reason you are so dog-loyal to Vinnie is because he said nice things about you.

I don't think agreeing with someone qualifies as "dog loyal". I also don't recall him paying me a compliment, but I'm sure you're going to tell me where and when he did.


You actually liked me for a while, remember, after I paid you a compliment. You really are that easy. You have no principles, none at all.

I try to like everyone and you are capable of being intelligent, it's just you're being fucking stupid at the moment and I don't mince my words or suffer fools gladly.

[Invader Zim]

you fool

Jaz, at least I can sleep tonight knowing what a 'race' is and why Islam isn't one. So if I'm a fool, heaven alone knows what that must make you.


if someone used a swastika as their avatar would that be okay as long as they came up with a good enough excuse?

Quite. I can think of numerous reasons when use of the Swastika symbol would be acceptable, the most obvious is because the Swastika long pre-dates the NSDAP and had connotations which are diametrically opposed to the values of that party. Indeed there are numerous cultures that either do or have employed the Swastika, and I can see no problem with that. The problem lies not in the image but the kind of people who typically employ the symbol today; nazis and fascists. If someone is using the symbol for another purpose, such as to mock the Nazi regime - for example - then why should they not use the symbol in their avatar? If Vinnie is using an image of Mohammed to critique extreme political Islam or even Islam as a religion in general, why shouldn't he?


After all the history of the symbol is not important.

The history of the symbol is important, including the history of the symbol prior to 1920.



You fall back on stupid lawyers arguments to justify and defend an obvious racist.

Jaz, I'm going to say it again because you obviously weren't paying attention when you have been told this before; Islam is not a race.


I'm willing to believe you are simply an idiot

You can believe what you like, but like I said above; at least I don't confuse religion with race.

[jasmine]

You can believe what you like, but like I said above; at least I don't confuse religion with race.

Your formal arguments are nonsensical. Anti muslim = anti arab. Or do you know nothing about what is happening in the real world? The immigrant communities targeted by the police are mainly arab, muslim, poor immigrants. Fuck you and your logical categories.


Quite. I can think of numerous reasons when use of the Swastika symbol would be acceptable, the most obvious is because the Swastika long pre-dates the NSDAP and had connotations which are diametrically opposed to the values of that party.

Do you live in the real world? These days, given the holocaust, who uses the swastika as a symbol?

You are an ignorant fool, but just watch Vinny over the next 6 months as he operates with your approval. He's a racist and you are a self-justifying idiot.


I don't think agreeing with someone qualifies as "dog loyal". I also don't recall him paying me a compliment, but I'm sure you're going to tell me where and when he did.

It was to do with your insults - he told you your insults made his heart flutter. Remember. This is who you are. I could win you to my side tomorrow - but I don't want a pathetic sycophant like you.


If Vinnie is using an image of Mohammed to critique extreme political Islam or even Islam as a religion in general, why shouldn't he?

Who is he trying to persuade? George Bush will give you the same reasons for the slaughter in Iraq. Vinny lives in the USA, why isn't his avatar attacking Bush? He's just a reflection of the Bush ideology - anti-muslim (extreme of course, terrrorist, bomb on his head) - he's a neo con and you are too stupid to see it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:48 pm

I don't think agreeing with someone qualifies as "dog loyal". I also don't recall him paying me a compliment, but I'm sure you're going to tell me where and when he did.

It was to do with your insults - he told you your insults made his heart flutter. Remember. This is who you are. I could win you to my side tomorrow - but I don't want a pathetic sycophant like you.
That was Cryotank Screams, a completely different member with an entirely different posting style, IP address and set of political views. I know it's hard for to hold the concept of "other people" in your head, but do try.

I don't join the "sides" of people I don't agree with. But this argument is stupid.

Oh by the way:


Do you live in the real world? These days, given the holocaust, who uses the swastika as a symbol?

http://www.manwoman.net/images/Manny.jpg
This dude. That one with the dots around each "point"? Yeah, that's a Jewish symbol.

[jasmine]

That was Cryotank Screams, a completely different member with an entirely different posting style, IP address and set of political views.

This is a lie. An outright lie. Vinnie is Cryotank and you know it.

The photo is an act of desperation. Maybe I'll set up a member with a swatiska as an avatar anonomously and let's see how everyone reacts.

Why can't you just oppose racism? Because you are scum like your little Cryotank friend.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:18 pm

That was Cryotank Screams, a completely different member with an entirely different posting style, IP address and set of political views.

This is a lie. An outright lie. Vinnie is Cryotank and you know it.

The photo is an act of desperation. Maybe I'll set up a member with a swatiska as an avatar anonomously and let's see how everyone reacts.

Why can't you just oppose racism? Because you are scum like your little Cryotank friend.
Vinnie has that avatar because of the disgusting apologism of for political islam of a big chunk of the left.

Just because the bourgeosie that is leading the arab population to death and misery under the banner of muhammad happens to be arab, is criticizng muhammad racist?

[Dr Mindbender]

maybe the way left wingers are bickering like this over such a petty issue is exactly the beourgiouse strategy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:18 pm

That was Cryotank Screams, a completely different member with an entirely different posting style, IP address and set of political views.

This is a lie. An outright lie. Vinnie is Cryotank and you know it.
Look, if you want to believe whatever wild fantasies it's up to you but for fuck's sake don't drag me into them.


The photo is an act of desperation.

Looks like a photograph to me.


Maybe I'll set up a member with a swatiska as an avatar anonomously and let's see how everyone reacts.

Maybe instead of doing that you could take your meds, I think it would make everyone around here a lot happier.


Why can't you just oppose racism?

That sort of implies that I don't oppose racism. Being part of AntiFa, confronting racists in real life and so on doesn't mean shit to you does it?


Because you are scum like your little Cryotank friend.

Oh, kitty's got claws - getting personal now is it? :rolleyes:

[jasmine]

Okay so the photo was your clincher - the proof. The problem is you are looking for a clever little abstract argument to alibi the scumbag. But as Lenin was fond of observing the truth is concrete. George Bush argues, just like Vinny, that he is combating islamic racist terrorism. Do you believe Bush? Vinny associates directly with images he himself freely admits appeal to him because they are offensive, Offensive to whom? Islamic terrorists? Or Muslims and Arabs in general? Maybe I've missed it but I don't recall a single word from Vinny or Jazzratt or Invader Zim in condemnation of the racists who commissioned and published the images.

Do you condemn these racists for publishing the images? Yes or no?

There is a political context to all this that you want to disappear. The assault on immigrant communities, the genocidal war in Iraq, the plans for attack on Iran.

Muslims, Arabs are the enemy in phoenix arizona where Vinny lives. It's a racist diversion from the realm issues. Vinny and those who alibi him are part of the Bush crusade.

[black magick hustla]

:) That would have been a good argument if Vinny hadn't spend some years in jail for political action.

[Invader Zim]

Maybe I've missed it but I don't recall a single word from Vinny or Jazzratt or Invader Zim in condemnation of the racists who commissioned and published the images.
That would be because it is irrelevent.


Vinny associates directly with images he himself freely admits appeal to him because they are offensive, Offensive to whom? Islamic terrorists? Or Muslims and Arabs in general?

None of those Jaz, but because it winds up dumbasses like you.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by jasmine+September 16, 2007 07:54 pm--> (jasmine @ September 16, 2007 07:54 pm) Okay so the photo was your clincher - the proof.
[/b]
No, it pretty much still looks like a photograph to me.



Do you condemn these racists for publishing the images? Yes or no?

No. I condemn them for being racist.



marmot
:) That would have been a good argument if Vinny hadn't spend some years in jail for political action.

pwnt.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by tiny little man sportin' breath o' Bushmills.+--> (tiny little man sportin' breath o' Bushmills.)Actually he referred to me as a 'drunken leprechaun' and as a 'drunkenstiltskin'. It is precisely this brand of ignorance that the Irish have had to fight tooth and nail at the hands of the English for centuries. Celts are a different race to anglo-saxon nations so technically this is racism.[/b]

I didn't know Rumplestiltskin was Irish....I always remember him as some type of goblin.

Keep fightin' those orangemen pee-wee. At the very least it will keep your sorry ass from sticking your nose into any more leftist issues.

Thank goodness.


Originally posted by [email protected]
And no I'm not bothered by it simply because if you are daft enough to let being called a 'drunken leprechaun' in any way annoy you, then mate... you need to grow a thicker skin.


I never thought the day would come when AK-47 and I were on good terms.

Shocking.

I guess I can dig it though; you seem to have grown up a lot in the past 4 years.


little jizzy snack cakes
The intentions behind that were clearly racist

You're like a broken record...

[jasmine]

That would have been a good argument if Vinny hadn't spend some years in jail for political action.

What was the political action?


No. I condemn them for being racist.

You don't care.


That would be because it is irrelevent.

Exactly. you couldn't care less.

Vinny is a worthless racist and you are his scummy supporters. Live happily ever after together.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:30 pm
Vinny is a worthless racist and you are his scummy supporters. Live happily ever after together.
Concession accepted (assuming you're finally buggering off in a huff).

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Jizz
What was the political action?

Who the fuck are you?

J. Edgar Hoover?

Piss off Johnny wannabe FBI.

[Invader Zim]

Exactly. you couldn't care less.

You're quite correct; I couldn't care less about ludicrous red herrings you come out with to distract the issue.



Vinny is a worthless racist and you are his scummy supporters.

I know how much you want it to be true, but repeating it until the sun sets won't make it so.

[jasmine]

That would have been a good argument if Vinny hadn't spend some years in jail for political action.

Again, what was the political action? I don't work for the FBI by the way. If the good old boy was convicted and has done his time why the big secret?


That would be because it is irrelevent.

No, that would be because you don't actually condemn them. You support the publication of those images by avowed racists.

I don't know who you people are exactly but socialists, communist or anarchists you are not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by jizz
Again, what was the political action? I don't work for the FBI by the way. If the good old boy was convicted and has done his time why the big secret?


I know.

It takes at least a small amount of brains to work for the FBI; you just don't cut it.

In any case it's none of your business for what I did time for and where.

Too bad son.


No, that would be because you don't actually condemn them. You support the publication of those images by avowed racists.

Are you going to quote the entire staff of the newspapers "vows" to being racist?

Perhaps it's a triple-dog super-ultra-secret society tht you can't prove but somehow "you know it's true".

I think it something called the "He-man woman haters club" or something like that.

Sorry Spanky, you crapped out again.

http://www.4alfalfa.com/ImagesMain/Commentary/photohemanshirt.jpg

[jasmine]

Vinny's status now:

Member Group Banned

Maybe those who so vehemently supported him would like to comment on the "injustice".

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:05 pm
Vinny's status now:

Member Group Banned

Maybe those who so vehemently supported him would like to comment on the "injustice".
It was the CC's decision, arrived at democratically. I disagree with it and think it shows a worrying double standard (for example why aren't a number of members who have said far worse things banned? Why aren't I banned?) but I'm happy that the vote was fair.

Now, are you going to defend your position or will it be trolling from now until we finally swing the ban hammer at you.

[JazzRemington]

Why is this thread even continuing? Jasmine was shown that he/she/it is wrong and the thread degenerated into an argument about who or what is racist. I demand action be taken. Cold, hard, swift, sexy action.

[jasmine]

It was the CC's decision, arrived at democratically. I disagree with it and think it shows a worrying double standard (for example why aren't a number of members who have said far worse things banned? Why aren't I banned?) but I'm happy that the vote was fair.

Now, are you going to defend your position or will it be trolling from now until we finally swing the ban hammer at you.

Jazzratt, how is it possible to discuss with someone whose avatar is "fuck your opinion"?

Vinny is a racist and that's why he was banned. I opposed his racism and all you came back with was your usual abuse. I think your behaviour is the result of ignorance (God only knows why you were made the mod of the religion section!!!). I don't think you are the same as Vinny, he was very conscious about what he was doing, you are reactive and your reactions lead you into some very reactionary places.

You ask the question "why aren't I banned" (bad grammar!). I don't know but I suppose your lack of conscious intent helps you - racism is a cancer of the most malignant type and it needs to be combated. You have to decide which side you are on.


Jasmine was shown that he/she/it is wrong and the thread degenerated into an argument about who or what is racist. I demand action be taken. Cold, hard, swift, sexy action.

Have a nice evening.

[RedStarOverChina]

What exactly was it that got him banned? Don't tell me it's cuz he opposed Islam.

[jasmine]

What exactly was it that got him banned? Don't tell me it's cuz he opposed Islam.

He was a racist. How complicated is that?

[RedStarOverChina]

Prove it.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
What exactly was it that got him banned? Don't tell me it's cuz he opposed Islam.
I think it was because he used the word "chick."

Seriously.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 26, 2007 07:46 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 26, 2007 07:46 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
What exactly was it that got him banned? Don't tell me it's cuz he opposed Islam.
I think it was because he used the word "chick."

Seriously. [/b]
He was banned for being an obnoxious troll. Racism and sexism were certainly factors though.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 26, 2007 07:46 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 26, 2007 07:46 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
What exactly was it that got him banned? Don't tell me it's cuz he opposed Islam.
I think it was because he used the word "chick."

Seriously. [/b]
It was because peole in the CC didn't like him. The "official" reasons were simply bullshit because some CCers can't stand being honest.

Jasmine


Jazzratt, how is it possible to discuss with someone whose avatar is "fuck your opinion"?

Argue facts, not opinions?


Vinny is a racist and that's why he was banned.

1) He's not a racist.

2) That wasn't the reason given for his banning anyway.


I opposed his racism and all you came back with was your usual abuse. I think your behaviour is the result of ignorance

I think you're a ****, but what people "think" is neither here nor there.


(God only knows why you were made the mod of the religion section!!!).

LSD is the mod of the religious section (as well as an admin) - I am the moderator of opposing ideologies.


I don't think you are the same as Vinny, he was very conscious about what he was doing, you are reactive and your reactions lead you into some very reactionary places.

Are you playing the "how many permutations of the word 'reaction' can be shoehorned into a stupid screed" game?


You ask the question "why aren't I banned" (bad grammar!).

Ah, so it is. I would edit it to say "why am I not banned?" but I cannot be arsed.


I don't know but I suppose your lack of conscious intent helps you - racism is a cancer of the most malignant type and it needs to be combated. You have to decide which side you are on.

Racism is bad, yes but that is not relevant.

The other Jazz


I demand action be taken. Cold, hard, swift, sexy action.

Your wish is my command, locked.