Is it Impossible not to be Self rightous?

[Lardlad95]

Observing people speak on their beliefs especially here I find my self seeing that it is impossible. Because ideas conflict you can't argue your side without saying that the other is wrong, and by doing so you have put yourself on a pedastal because you are right and they are wrong.

So a person isn't able to see things from another perspective, because your perspective is so great.

And lets be honest with ourselves. There is not a socialist/communist here who doesn't look down on capitalists.

They are greedy, we are selfless, they are opressors, we are the opressed.

In short we are right, they are wrong. And that gives us an air of arrogance about us.

Read a post between a capitalist and a socialist and you'll see that each side has smug contempt in their words.

Or take for example athiests vs. the religous


Religous people are so patronizing, they think if you don't believe in God you are going to hell, and the religous pray for your heathen ass because athiests are on the wrong path, they are ignorant of the truth.

And I know the athiests will nod their heads when they read this because according to them religous people do act like that.

But athiests regardless of what you want to tell yourselves alot of athiests are just as arrogant.

People who believe in God are morons, they are blind zombies, they can't think for themselves, they aren't able to see the truth.

And I know some of the athiests will agree with those statements.

But think about it, what are you basing this on? Because they believe in something you can't see? Because they believe in an idea? That idea being God...


well some of you believe in the Idea of communism, no one can prove that works...but you still believe.

And the capitalists will call you an idealist.


What athiests do to christians is what capitalists do to communists, is what democrats do to republicans , etc.

It's an endless cycle where the person puts themself on a pedastal and puts the other person down.

For all this tolerance we preach we sure as hell don't practice it.


And of course I'm being self rightous by just posting this.

Everyone is self rightous every now and again

[sc4r]

Hmmmm well certainly it can be difficult to say the least. But impossible ? No I dont think so.

It is not that difficult to exchange ideas between people of goodwill provided both sides make an effort (sometimes a large effort) to avoid sneering or patronising the other at all times; in my experience that is usually how feuds get started; then they escalate (as you say with both always clainig to be 100% in the right).

Outright insults always cause problems obviously. But it is not at all infrequent that what seems to be the initial 'insult' is not.

Everything stems from respect. The outward appearance even if it masks a different inner feeling.

I feel that few of us feed other peoples Egos enough on the net. I have sometimes been completely defused because someone other than the person I was getting arsy with just said 'LOL nice one' or even 'hmmmm not a bad idea'. Look for nice things to say.

I can debate with capitalists. Several of the better debates I've had have been with them (TTT on Fixit, DA_champ, and here Von_Mises) all based on respect and lots of 'well I dont quite understand that point' and 'yes, I see what u mean' and 'I'm certainly being a bit subjective here' and 'Nice talking to you'. It all oils the wheels. Its when you get someone who wont play the game and respond immediately in like vein that problems arise even then. Few of us like to offer an olive branch twice.

I also feel it helps enormously to drum it into our heads that OUR VIEW IS ALWAYS WROMG, whats at issue is by how much. And of course it helps when debating with someone genuine to actually know what their views are ultimately founded on amd where it DOES work (Lassez faire Capitalism has extreemly honourable foundations for example and in its incipient infancy would be practically indistinguishable from anarchism - it is when it grows that the problems surface. The problem (ironically) with Lassex faire is that is suffers from the identical objection that gets thrown at communism - That it can only work as intended if everyone 'behaves'.

See You are right though :) Coz I've just demonstarted what a wordy prick I can be and quite possibly patronized you without meaning too.

best wishes.

[Lardlad95]

Hmmmm well certainly it can be difficult to say the least. But impossible ? No I dont think so.

>It is not that difficult to exchange ideas between people of goodwill provided both sides make an effort (sometimes a large effort) to avoid sneering or patronising the other at all times; in my experience that is usually how feuds get started; then they escalate (as you say with both always clainig to be 100% in the right).<

But sometimes this goodwill is nothing more than a tactic. For instance if you watch a religous show the speaker doesn't speak snidely, he has a calm pleasant demeanor. But do you honestly think he has respect for an athiest? For the most part conservative christians look down on people who don't follow a christian religion, if you are athiest, buddhist, hindu they look down on you somewhat

So these pleasantries while a good starting point aren't a gurauntee that the person doesn't look down on someone


>Everything stems from respect. The outward appearance even if it masks a different inner feeling.<

You are correct that the outward appearance matters since we can't read someone's inner feelings.

However I've known racist who seemed fine on the outside, but upon finding out their true nature it became harder for me to openly disscuss things with them.

As long as the surface doesn't crack everything is fine, but too often the surface does break and we see whats inside.

Also the point is to change the inside, if we are trying to change a person from cappie to socialist we want that person to make an honest change not a superficial one.

>I feel that few of us feed other peoples Egos enough on the net. I have sometimes been completely defused because someone other than the person I was getting arsy with just said 'LOL nice one' or even 'hmmmm not a bad idea'. Look for nice things to say.<

Very true, getting caught up in the heat of the moment can be easily resolved by a few witty/kind/humorous words. Someone coming in with a one liner can quickly leave both sides a little calmer

>I can debate with capitalists. Several of the better debates I've had have been with them (TTT on Fixit, DA_champ, and here Von_Mises) all based on respect and lots of 'well I dont quite understand that point' and 'yes, I see what u mean' and 'I'm certainly being a bit subjective here' and 'Nice talking to you'. It all oils the wheels. Its when you get someone who wont play the game and respond immediately in like vein that problems arise even then. Few of us like to offer an olive branch twice.<

Very true, if a mutual respect can be reached it's all gravy. I too enjoy debating capitalists, though the ones I debated no longer frequent the site, and for the most part we got along. Yet at the end of the day they were still very much wrong in my opinion and vice versa. And I think both of us would look at the other person as a misguided sould who needed to be put on the right path.

This isn't of course to say that I didn't respect them, but they had chosen the wrong side, thus I built up my own ego simply by talking to someone who i disagreed with.


>I also feel it helps enormously to drum it into our heads that OUR VIEW IS ALWAYS WROMG, whats at issue is by how much. And of course it helps when debating with someone genuine to actually know what their views are ultimately founded on amd where it DOES work (Lassez faire Capitalism has extreemly honourable foundations for example and in its incipient infancy would be practically indistinguishable from anarchism - it is when it grows that the problems surface. The problem (ironically) with Lassex faire is that is suffers from the identical objection that gets thrown at communism - That it can only work as intended if everyone 'behaves'.<

I like that mantra, but I would preffer to say that my idea isn't always right as opposed to always wrong. It's just a matter of how often I am right, which is of course is the same thing you said only reworded.

and of course every system has something right about it, depending on 1. how you look at it and 2. what "right" is exactley.

As you said lassiez faire capitalism can have good qualities yet we all see that in the end the good out weighs the bad.

For instance the United States used to be somewhat Lassiez faire and look at what happened, monopolies,child labor, great depression. (then they stole socialist ideas to fix it but that is besides the point)

So this is just a matter of it always being wrong and always being right to certain degrees.

The main problem is though that people don't want to admit that about their ideology.

Because if I'm wrong about something heaven for bid I'm wrong about something else.

people don't want to second guess themselves because that would mean that they don't have all the answers, so they need to believe they are always 100% right just to save face in their own mind

>See You are right though :) Coz I've just demonstarted what a wordy prick I can be and quite possibly patronized you without meaning too. <

meh I've done it before, I leave here for a while(a few wees) and come back pissing someone off without meaning to, it's just how I live my life... :)


Also another problem is when you have so many people agreeing with you it's hard to realize your own flaws.

Look at any religous disscussion and watch some athiests gang up on the 1 or two christians in the thread.

regardless of who is right with so much backing it turns into a mob, a relatively intellegent mob, but a mob none the less.

And this happens also in christian forums 1 athiest will literally be alone against dozens.

So when there are multiple people agreeing with you it gets harder to qestion yourself

[sc4r]

Not much I can add to that. It pretty much says it all.

There are a couple of things which are more about revealing how different peoples deep ways even of looking at things can be than anything else. This also causes problems sometimes for example :

It seems clear to me that I have a very much more behavioral orientation than you which will probably cause you to get angry at things which to me seem completely trivial and me to make judgements which probably seem over hasty to you.

I would not be very concerned at all about whether a converted capitalist 'truly believed', in fact I'd hardly even see the phrase as meaning anything (does that seem odd to you? I'm assuming it does, but it is completely accurate). I'd look only to give him a reason to behave as a socialist and look to see that he actually was. The only circumstance when 'inner belief' would matter to me about this subject would be if I was planning something and was concerned about infiltration. But then the quality I would be looking for would actually be better expressed as trustworthiness.

I dont have any 'inner belief' in socialism (well I probably do have some emotional attachment to it by now, but not I think in the way you mean). I'm simply convinced it works better and delivers a healthier society. If someone showed me that I was wrong intellectually (it could be done I suppose, although I would think it unlikely anyone would now come up with anything significant I have not heard before) I would change just like that. Certainly the branch of socialism I think is 'best' could be altered I'm sure.

Of course none of this means that I feel comfortable with someone I feel is pretending. Thats different; because that means they are decieving me. And yes I agree with you, one can sense it sometimes without any overt indications.
.
.
This line 'Because if I'm wrong about something heaven for bid I'm wrong about something else.' is I feel very very perceptive. I would reckon you have hit the nail smack on the head about a big cause of some problems. We honestly feel that if we acknowlege we are wrong even we know we are this will be used as a weapon by someone to 'prove' something else. We have to trust someone quite a lot before we risk it. Which can cause us to argue a bad point and really alienate someone.

The sad thing about that of course is that with Trolls on the net its even true, they will use it as a weapon. Dont matter when they are just a dumb flamer troll , they can be laughed at. But when it is one of the cleverer and more malicious sort its totally annoying (you know the ones who are good at subtly failing to argue honestly and who sometimes switch in and out of 'troll mode'. the ones who wait until you get incoherent with rage at them before becoming 'intelligent' but then claim you have been saying something totally different to what you have and point at your rage as 'evidence' that they are right).

I think I'm through. I'm just chatting really.

See ya.

[Elect Marx]

I believe you can discuss issues without being selfrightious as long as you are being objective and continueing along logical lines of a subject. This can be hard to do sometimes, that is why arguments get out of hand. I am very offended when someone ignores what I have said, then attempts to prove me wrong for "sport". I wouldn't mind having a desent conversation about any topic but it seems the more I develope my ideas, the more intolerable people grow. I don't think that you have taken into concideration the authoritiarian nature or the right wing which makes conversing rather difficult. As the right-wingers I have seen are offended by my very tittle as a Marxist, I see little hope in debate. Demonstration is far more powerful (actions speak louder than words).

[sc4r]

You will not achieve anything by arguing with only far right conservatives in the audience it is true.

Nor I regret to say with some sorts of far left people.

But this does not mean you cannot achieve anything ny arguing with them provided there are relative neutrals around. Never forget that your words go out to more than the person you respond to (easier said than done sometimes I know). So keep them intelligent. If you must insult a far right conservative while a neutral may be listening; then at least couche it in acceptable languade and if possible make it likeable (which usually means witty) as far as the neutral may be concerned.

You can persuade neutrals; not easily, but it can be done. But not if you are impatient and are never prepared to say 'on that you are right'. You are not right about everything (and of course neither am I).

To do this you will need to know the good points as well as the weak ones about both Liberal democracy and Capitalism. If you cannot show you understand them and not just your own ideas then chances are you will be rejected as merely dogmatic .

You can also persuade extreme capitalists ! I means really extreme, genuine idealistic lassez faire ones. They will listen if you are polite and knowlegable. You wont usally make them do a complete volte face overnight of course. Its unlikely they will have developed their views without considerable thought and so they wont be persuaded by dogma.

But it is not actually all that difficult to get them slightly re-assess their views. Having said that there are not actually all that many of them (Von Mises is the only one I've ever seen here for example).

Never forget. If a neutral can see your words then what you are is a salesman for Socialism. Few good salesment slag off the opposition in front of a potential 'client'; uts worth remembering, I wish I always did (feel free to remind me of this if you ever see me forget, which you will).

best wishes.

(Edited by sc4r at 8:14 pm on July 18, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Um, I just want to pick up on one point, and maybe you changed your tune at some point (I skim-read, sorry), but about atheists and relgious people: my mum is deeply Christian but she believes that non-Christians, and even atheists can enter heaven if they live good lives, and I'm basically an atheist but I know that's only because I don't "feel" God or anything, and if people want to belive in something like that then it's fine, as long as they don't get all "fire and brimstone" with me.

And capitalists, and people of all other ideologies than my own, well they don't always believe that only they are right, some are more flexible, although I haven't met many. I'm pretty flexible, there's no point in staying stuck in one place, although it is consistent which is one advantage. Personally I have different viess for differenct circumstances, when I look at the UK I'm more reformist, when I look at Latin America I think of revolution as a more viable option, and I also have to bear in mind that I don't understand economics all that well since I knwo so little about it, and also I don't know all the facts about any given situation. If people admit their ignorance they become less self-righteous. So basically I know what I've written could be complete bollocks, but given my limited knwoledge and experience I don't think it is.

[sc4r]

I dont think its bollox either. In fact its about as close to UnBollox as one will ever see.

Very succinctly put m8.

[canikickit]

[quoyr]my mum is deeply Christian but she believes that non-Christians, and even atheists can enter heaven if they live good lives[/quote]

Most Religious people I know in Ireland are like that. I think that's the general vibe among Catholics.

[suffianr]

I think me and Canikicit had a chat about this a few threads back, and we sort of knocked it down to something along the lines of Cultural Bias, to borrow a term from one of my Ethics classes.

Cultural Bias refers to seeing things from your own cultural perspective, so in a sense, we as leftists on a leftist board will generally adhere to our own 'brand' of leftist culture.

This is particularly interesting, because in a post-Soviet scenario, definitions and landmarks of leftist culture have broadened and diversified to encapsulate many different themes, and because the nature of this site permits the presence of radical and conservative views, there is no ultimate consensus on what is leftist culture and how leftists should respond to things...

For example, Stalinists might argue that most of us may have degenerated into Liberals (whatever that is), but if you pay attention to Bell Curves, well, most people tend to subscribe to the more 'mainstream' ideas, in terms of distribution.

OK, how about looking at this from a racial perspective; what do you know about the phrase "racial sentiment"?

What comes to mind is the negative connotation of shotgun-weilding Rednecks or bald Neo-Nazi stormtroopers...But hang on, racial sentiment means racial feelings, yes? Feeling for your own kind. Don't get confused.

Now, whilst most of us are fairly tolerant of other races, it is a truism that most of us subscribe to racial sentiment, that is, a feeling of affinity to those of our own race. We feel attuned to our own people, we feel that we might be the only ones to understand our own cultural predicaments. And we defend our mistakes, miscalculations and misadventures. That, ladies and gentlemen, is cultural bias.

This motivation for this is ultimately self-preservation, doing what's good for our own kinfolk, thinking what's best for our own people, blah, blah, blah...But that defines our actions, doesn't it? It predetermines or to a lesser degree influences our thoughts and ideas, our delivery of messages to others, our self-concept and personality.

Of course, I am Malay. I can't help it that my ancestors were Malay, or that they didn't bother to shag other people. But I'm Malay.

However, I don't see myself as Malay, but Malaysian. While I remain empathetic towards my own race, I'd rather equate myself with the rest of the people, the ethnic-Chinese, the ethnic-Indians and others, rather than harp on the fact that I'm Malay. Whilst I share affinity with other Malays, it won't stop me from feeling affinity with Chinese, Indians or Punjabis, because, and only because I consider myself a Malaysian above being a Malay. But that's just me. Get it?

So, racial sentiment, in the broadest sense, is cultural bias. And cultural bias is all about being self-righteous, for want of a better expression.

[Felicia]

Conservatives call me self rightous. But it's easy to get that reaction from a group of people who's political opinions differ greatly from your own. However, I don't understand why leftist are "self rightous" amongst themselves ;)

[canikickit]

Now, whilst most of us are fairly tolerant of other races, it is a truism that most of us subscribe to racial sentiment, that is, a feeling of affinity to those of our own race.

I don't.
I don't know many, or any people of other races, but I wouldn't feel any differently toward a Malay person (even if they were total wankers) and a white person. Why would I?

Sure, there's the whole "what's good for your own kind" thing, but the racial differences are so minor that I don't see how a situation would ever arise in which it would make a difference in my attitude.

[mentalbunny]

Language, by which I mean dialect and slang principally, makes a lot of difference, at least in my experience. I find it really hard to understand people with different cultures, like Jamaicans and those of a "ghetto" culture (you know what I mean, I don't knowow to put it right). So I don't even get to know them. If you work with a large group of people, or go to school, then there are a lot of people you never really get to knwo because of different interests, different lifestyles, so you feel different towards them, that's kinda cultural bias in a different way as to how LL describes it, it's not about nationality so much as interests and that kid of culture. I've probabl;y jsut written something totally irrelevant, sorry. I also can't type cos my hands are really cold.

[redstar2000]

This is a message board.

The options in matters of controversy are limited: (1) You have an opinion; you state it and defend it as best you can; you attack opposing opinions as wrong for one or more reasons; you offer evidence and logic to whatever extent you can; (2) You are unsure and say so; or (3) You have one or more questions and ask them.

Are there any other options?

People say there are...but I don't see them practice it. That is, people pay lip service to tolerance, respect for differing opinions, the possibility that one's own views could be mistaken, not flaming, etc., etc., etc.

They say this and even practice it until some controversy arises that really "strikes home"...that they feel really strongly about. Then they forget all that stuff and roll out the heavy artillery.

It seems to me that controversy means struggle...at least about matters that one really cares about at all. I suppose I could watch two Oxbridge dons argue over the authenticity of a 13th century manuscript and not be terrible involved one way or the other...just curious. But you'd better believe that they care...and, behind the scenes, flame each other to their respective colleagues at every opportunity.

We are emotional animals with the potential for rational thought; but our passions and our reason are all mixed together, not in separate air-tight containers.

This makes agreement...difficult; but all the more meaningful if actually achieved. I would far rather see honest and passionate disagreement then a pretended "consensus" that actually conceals deep disagreements if not mutual contempt.


To say that so-and-so is "self-righteous" is a pretty banal criticism...it's just another way of saying that so-and-so actually believes that he knows better than I and says so, in a vigorous way.

But what else can or should he do?

One can make an effort to be polite, of course...but if the matter is really serious, that goes down the drain very quickly.


It is all well and good to say that we can't admit we are wrong about one thing because it raises the possibility that we might be wrong about many things. But isn't that a truism by which we all operate? All of our current mistakes (if any) are trivial; all of our serious errors (if any) took place in the distant past and have no relevance to current controversies. How could we possibly tolerate any other hypothesis and still be able to function at all?

People who are really serious about "self-doubt" don't post to message boards at all...or if they do, they just pose questions (sometimes actually adding a plea not to be flamed for just asking).


This is a kind of "fuzzy" post because it's a "fuzzy" subject. But I do want to add that I see little to be gained by making any kind of special effort to attract "neutral" (much less "conservative"!) people to our views. I don't think people are really "neutral"--their life experiences up to this point either incline them to be receptive to our views or indifferent/hostile. Our "market niche" is people who are already rebellious in some sense...and hungry for more. It's a myth that we "convert" people to communism by argument or example; what really happens is that people begin to doubt the existing system and look for better answers...and, if we're any good at what we are trying to do, we supply those answers. They "convert" themselves.

Of course, anything that we do that undermines the legitimacy/credibility of capitalism--that creates doubt--adds to the size of our "market niche".

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:31 pm on July 22, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:26 pm on July 22, 2003
This is a message board.

The options in matters of controversy are limited: (1) You have an opinion; you state it and defend it as best you can; you attack opposing opinions as wrong for one or more reasons; you offer evidence and logic to whatever extent you can; (2) You are unsure and say so; or (3) You have one or more questions and ask them.

Are there any other options?

People say there are...but I don't see them practice it. That is, people pay lip service to tolerance, respect for differing opinions, the possibility that one's own views could be mistaken, not flaming, etc., etc., etc.

They say this and even practice it until some controversy arises that really "strikes home"...that they feel really strongly about. Then they forget all that stuff and roll out the heavy artillery.

It seems to me that controversy means struggle...at least about matters that one really cares about at all. I suppose I could watch two Oxbridge dons argue over the authenticity of a 13th century manuscript and not be terrible involved one way or the other...just curious. But you'd better believe that they care...and, behind the scenes, flame each other to their respective colleagues at every opportunity.

We are emotional animals with the potential for rational thought; but our passions and our reason are all mixed together, not in separate air-tight containers.

This makes agreement...difficult; but all the more meaningful if actually achieved. I would far rather see honest and passionate disagreement then a pretended "consensus" that actually conceals deep disagreements if not mutual contempt.


To say that so-and-so is "self-righteous" is a pretty banal criticism...it's just another way of saying that so-and-so actually believes that he knows better than I and says so, in a vigorous way.

But what else can or should he do?

One can make an effort to be polite, of course...but if the matter is really serious, that goes down the drain very quickly.


It is all well and good to say that we can't admit we are wrong about one thing because it raises the possibility that we might be wrong about many things. But isn't that a truism by which we all operate? All of our current mistakes (if any) are trivial; all of our serious errors (if any) took place in the distant past and have no relevance to current controversies. How could we possibly tolerate any other hypothesis and still be able to function at all?

People who are really serious about "self-doubt" don't post to message boards at all...or if they do, they just pose questions (sometimes actually adding a plea not to be flamed for just asking).


This is a kind of "fuzzy" post because it's a "fuzzy" subject. But I do want to add that I see little to be gained by making any kind of special effort to attract "neutral" (much less "conservative"!) people to our views. I don't think people are really "neutral"--their life experiences up to this point either incline them to be receptive to our views or indifferent/hostile. Our "market niche" is people who are already rebellious in some sense...and hungry for more. It's a myth that we "convert" people to communism by argument or example; what really happens is that people begin to doubt the existing system and look for better answers...and, if we're any good at what we are trying to do, we supply those answers. They "convert" themselves.

Of course, anything that we do that undermines the legitimacy/credibility of capitalism--that creates doubt--adds to the size of our "market niche".

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:31 pm on July 22, 2003)


Leave it to Redstar to write a thesis on the subject ;)


But I wans't really refferingto people felt about theirownopinions

I wanted to try to examin the attitudes of people towards their opponent

but hey what ever u believe is fine by me..

[sc4r]

There is something in what RS says for sure. The more important an issue is to you the less likely you are going to practise good manners, tolerance, or even strict honesty in debating it.

And this is why things always get most heated when it gets personal. Thats what is most important of all to all of use really I guess. Ourselves.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to control it. We can make an effort to steer clear of personal digs (you can absolutely guarantee that the reciever of a personal dig will see it as a more important than the sender), practise manner, and all sorts of other things.

WE can cultivate an attitude that the most important thing is truth even if we cant always live up to that idea.

This is what distinguishes 'fair debaters' from unfair ones. The fair ones do make more effort.

As to convincing neutrals : well you dont convert them in the sense of dragging them kicking, screaming and reluctant into the temple of socialist truth. You wont find anyone ever who says 'you know I have decided that you are god and I will accept everything you say'.

So I suppose in one sense you only ever 'convert' someone who is already fired up to be converted. But this only makes real sense if you are talking about the moment at which particularly significant thresholds are crossed. In reality people alter their attitudes in one of two ways :

1) They adopt the name of a belief, then find out what it is. This is actually pretty common.

2) They modify their views very very gradually. I dont think I've ever seen this happen just as a result of listening to one person. Nobody with much brain or independence is going to simply accept what anyone else says without cross checking and independently building.

'Converting' a neutral is not about baptising them, its about leading them gradually to see things your way.

Just as important is the fact that every inch gained matters. If someone starts off as a redneck republican and eventually ends up as a liberal we would hardly desrib him as a convert to Marxism. But that person will oppose Marxist goals quite a bit less. And that helps too.

If a capitalist can be persuaded to allow you to talk without interupting with nonsense designed to impede communication , even thats a help.

All progress in anything comes gradually. Sometimes the timeframe can be speeded up, sometimes slowed down, but nothing really happens in discrete bursts, all progress is gradual progress. It is only that some periods have more dramatic change in them than others. Most commonly even this only means that the build up went unnoticed (or was called something else).

Sorry I went off the subject.

Attention to manners matter. If you call someone a bad name you can bet your life they will notice. If you even imply it they will notice (not everyone else will, but they will). If you ignore their argument they will notice, and if you distort it they'll notice and get pissed off about it.

And some people will be too sensitive sometimes for other peoples tastes. This doesn't run in any way parrallel with outgoing sensitivity either. There are people who can sniff criticism at half a mile and yet happily lay down positive gallons of incendiary fuel themselves without ever knowing (or perhaps caring).

All we can ever do is be aware of this possibility and at least try to make an effort.

Once you have stopped talking to someone in any real situation you will have to fight them. That is definitely a bad option usually, for everyone. If you are going to stop talking I personally would suggest you at least have a fairly good idea that you are gonna win. To fight and lose really is the pits.

Theres one thing I would add. Even burned bridges can be repaired and fences can be mended. Lardlad and I are recent proof of that, we had a spat not so long ago. We got over it with (I like to think) a bit of determination to do so from both sides and a willingness to drop percieved slights in the interests of getting back to civility. Sometimes you have to accept explanations even if you harbour doubts that they are totally genuine and even express a more extreme acceptance than you actually feel.

All this should be obvious, and probably is. But none of us practise it half as much as we ought to.

Christ put it better than anyone ever has. It sums up both ethical behaviour in both argument and politics and life -

'Do unto others as you would be done unto'.

And think hard about whether you would really really care for someone doing to you what you are about to do to them. Think about what it means to them, not what it means to you.

Nuff said I think, I'm getting boring.

[redstar2000]

If someone starts off as a redneck republican and eventually ends up as a liberal we would hardly describe him as a convert to Marxism. But that person will oppose Marxist goals quite a bit less.

I don't think there's any evidence to support that contention. American liberals (there are few of them left these days) were always convinced anti-communists; any pro-working-class "reforms" that they endorsed were always done so with the explicit rationale of preventing the growth of communist sentiments in the working class (especially true during the 1930s).

Someone who moves from a far-right position to a liberal position in the political spectrum (an unusual move in itself--usually it goes in the other direction) generally goes to great pains to make clear his continued opposition to communism...if only to protect himself from right-wing accusations that he is "soft on communism".

It's rather ironic that the Republican presidential candidate in 1940 said that "we [Americans] are all liberals now". In 2004, both candidates will be "conservatives". They change the labels on the package from time to time; the content is always the same.

:cool:

[sc4r]

I'm sure you will rarely have seen such things. Thats because you would alienate such people immediately. They would see that you are unprepared to accept anything except complete capitulation to your view and hence not even bother to think about it.

But I've seen them happen quite often.

When you lead a bull to market you dont tell it to go all the way and keep demanding until it does; because it will never move at all. What you do is persuade it to move one foot at a time.

Care to explain how your education programs are going to work if nobody ever changes their views at all? I'm a little puzzled.


(Edited by sc4r at 3:02 pm on July 23, 2003)

[The Feral Underclass]

Being self rightous and arrogant is a good thing. I dont think there is anything wrong with saying that I am right. I am right...all the time!

[Felicia]

Quote: from Libertarian Commie on 9:36 am on July 23, 2003
Being self rightous and arrogant is a good thing. I dont think there is anything wrong with saying that I am right. I am right...all the time!

You're wrong.

You cannot be right all of the time.

[mentalbunny]

LC, you give the left a bad image, I just hope you're being ironic.

[redstar2000]

When you lead a bull to market you dont tell it to go all the way and keep demanding until it does; because it will never move at all. What you do is persuade it to move one foot at a time.

Well, perhaps you've had more experience with bulls than I have; I won't dispute the point.

With people, I think it works differently. As I indicated earlier, people are either receptive to one's ideas--based on their life's experiences--or not. If what you have to say "makes sense", then they incorporate it into their own complex of views...it becomes part of "their way of thinking about things".

I don't think there's much to the idea of people learning "one step at a time"...my subjective impression of my own learning process (how to use a computer for example) is that I was confronted with a rather bewildering morass of knowledge (including some well-meaning half-truths) and, after a few months of practice, things kind of "snapped into place" and I felt comfortable with the whole activity. I still add details of new knowledge to the total, of course, but unless I switched to a whole new operating system...I think, at least, that "I know what I'm doing".

I've seen a lot of newcomers to the left at Che-Lives...and many of them seem very bewildered at what they find. Yet, if they decide to keep at it, their posts improve, their questions become more perceptive, the arguments more knowledgable, etc. They begin to feel "comfortable" with a left "operating system".

You apparently think that I alienate people by giving them "the whole package"...as if it were a meal too large to eat at one sitting. Perhaps that does happen; it's not as if I've ever gotten an email that said "it's too much, redstar, I can't possibly swallow it all".

On the other hand, I've actually seen people on this board "pick up" on things I've said and use them in arguments with others...so I'm guessing that what they are doing is picking out the part of what I say that they find immediately useful while setting aside the rest for later consideration. (At least, I hope that's what's happening.)

That's fine with me, of course, I would be astounded (and a little worried) if someone ever came along and tried to convert the totality of my outlook into a dogma or a religion.

I do try very hard to convey an uncompromising revolutionary outlook and I hope very much that I convince as many people as possible to do the same. I don't "believe" in "gradualism" and I see no reason to disguise that in order to "lure" someone in my direction. There are many variants of reformism already out there (including your own); people who believe in and want "gradualism" have many choices...what could I possibly gain by trying to work up a convincing fake in order to "compete" in that "market"?

No, I am quite content to leave reformism to the reformists. I have different priorities.

:cool:

[sc4r]

I think you are missing the point on convincing neutrals.

Many people who arrive at this board belong in the first category of people I originally mentioned. Those who have decided what they want to be, but dont know quite what it is.

Those people will indeed be very receptive to an uncompromising message. Thats exactly what they want to hear, its why they came. They'll also be relatively uncritical of loose ends. IF you can put a double layer of sugar on your message by both promising them glorious revolution with all the grand phrases, and at the same time re-assuring them that you will never approve of anything unpleasant sounding to anybody. You'll win them alright.

Until the penny drops with them, or until somebody a bit more entrepreneurial from a different ideology gets to work on them and shows the gaping holes and contradictions in what you have been preaching. At that point they'll move away.

But those people represent a tiny tiny fraction of all people anyway. Most people will choose to be something else. Convincing THOSE people, the ones who have quite deliberately decided not to be socialists or anarchists or communists is when it get tricky. And if you cant persuade those people all you are left doing is hoping that a huge number of people just accidentally happen to decide to be socialists.

You'll say 'ahhhaaa but when they are totally failed by capitalism they will see'; No I'm afraid they wont. What will happen when they are totally failed by capitalism is that Fascists will tell them salvation lies there. Religions will grab at them too. Some of them will become convinced it's all the fault of the french/USA/UK whatever and join nationalist movements; capitalists will even tell themn that its because there is not enough capitalism. In fact they will go all sorts of ways. A few of them will come to you. But if you are going to rely on passing trade down a street (socialism) which most people have been told is a dead end you are not going to do much business.





(Edited by sc4r at 7:59 pm on July 23, 2003)

[canikickit]

Being self rightous and arrogant is a good thing. I dont think there is anything wrong with saying that I am right.

I agree, but within the realms of a message board, and expounding your own political and societal beliefs, and not to the extent that you block out opposing viewpoints.

I mean that you should have complete confidence in what you belive. I know I do.


that's kinda cultural bias in a different way as to how LL describes it, it's not about nationality so much as interests and that kid of culture

Did you mean Suffian, not LL?
Anyway, you didn't say something irrelevant, I just think that the culture you described is the only type that exists.

The culture of people, interests, beliefs, etc. The only reason there appears to be national culture, is because the people are influenced by the same things.

For example, Jamaican ex-patriots living in England will still share certain cultural traits with you. They'll perhaps use the same slang words in some instances, or they'll pick up on things which would be common usage on BBC TV. However, they'll all have had the pleasure of having relations who live in a country with the greatest music in history.

Anyway, I can't explain that point well, at all.

[redstar2000]

But if you are going to rely on passing trade down a street (socialism) which most people have been told is a dead end you are not going to do much business.

Well, that should make you happy, shouldn't it? I won't be out there competing with you for a "market share"?

What I don't understand is why you aren't "out there" recruiting the "neutrals" to your version of reformism. When you post here, your message is essentially "give up all that revolution crap and join me in real, practical stuff that can be done now".

Why should you expect to find a "receptive market" among people whom you admit are looking for a revolutionary perspective?

There are a few reformists here and perhaps your message is intended to encourage them in their chosen path; I don't have a particular problem with that.

What does rather "stick in my throat", however, is your suggestion that revolutionaries should "help" you in your chosen perspective...a perspective that has almost nothing to do with the kind of society we want or the methods we think best for achieving it.

That cannot go unchallenged.

:cool:

[Sensitive]

It is spelled atheist, not "athiest"...

I do understand that English isn't everyone's primary language here, but this common misspelling annoys me greatly. Especially when Americans do it! :angry:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:43 am on July 24, When you post gere your message is essentailly "give up all that revolution crap and join me in real, practical stuff that can be done now".

Why should you expect to find a "receptive market" among people whom you admit are looking for a revolutionary perspective?

There are a few reformists here and perhaps your message is intended to encourage them in their chosen path; I don't have a particular problem with that.


Obviously I do think there are many people here who would be receptive to an intelligent plan for instituting socialism.

My message is not give up all that revolution crap. It is give up exclusive devotion to that decidely unrevolutionary plan you advocate. I would think you are the first person in history to claim he was a revolutionary while working to a plan which calls for real action in 150-500 years time.

The point is that supporting my plan does not involve any compromise to yours worth talking about. I'm not saying to anyone 'you cannot believe in the same end goal as Redstar and share in my much more limited goal'; because anybody could. The only part of your message that I fundamentally object to, as opposed to just disagree with , is the 'dont support any other socialist initiative' bit; or the related one which is 'this bloke is not actually talking socialism'.

What could happen?

1) My plan works completely and we end up with a society that fuctions as I say it will - Then you just continue campaigning / educating for further progress. If people want what you are offering they'll go along with you, if they dont, they wont.

2) My plan works alright, but for some inexplicable reason what it produces is no better than what we have now - Then you continue campaigning / educating and you have lost perhaps 10% of your best possible timescale; at worst. To get to this worst case scenario you actually do have to assume that my plan delivers absolutely nothing at all though; and that, again for inexplicable reasons, you have made no progress at all towards gaining acceptance of your end goal during the 'shared period'.

3) My plan fails ever to produce anything. Well in that case you have lost nothing. My plan just becomes superseded by yours.

The only genuine objection I could see, apart from your arrogant demand to be acknowleged as the only true prophet, is that you think the working classes you covet will actually like my society and wont want to move further. If this is true then so what, it means what you are offering is not the best offer.

I could happily work with the Marxist Leninists too. I dont share their belief that it would be neccessary for an armed proletariat revolution to take control; but if in fact it was (because democratic process was subverted) I'd support them. Nothing in what I'm saying would detract from their message. In fact its the same message except that I dont think theeir 'uktimate sanction' would be needed.

In fact to all intents and purposes I am a Marxist Leninist in my approach to instituting socialism, just an optimistic one; and one with an alternative suggestion for economic planning post revolution/ transition. Rather ironically I'd say that this post revolution society I suggest actually would be essentially anarchist in character.

The other thing you dont seem to like is being asked to explain how either your plan or your post revolution society are expected to work. This is just tough, If you cannot explain then it's because you dont understand it yourself; you are just wishing.

Quite honestly I'm doing you a favour asking awkward questions; these questions are nothing like as tricky as the ones you would get asked if you ever achieved more than peripheral support from those few people who have 'just decided' to back you. If it ever got remotely close to the point where you might actually be in a position to do something the question would become both hostile and searching. Its only academic, because you never will, mind.



(Edited by sc4r at 3:04 pm on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I could happily work with the Marxist Leninists too. I don't share their belief that it would be neccessary for an armed proletariat revolution to take control; but if in fact it was (because democratic process was subverted) I'd support them. Nothing in what I'm saying would detract from their message. In fact it's the same message except that I dont think their 'ultimate sanction' would be needed.

That, at least, makes sense. In the advanced capitalist countries, nearly all of the Leninist parties have become reformist in practice.

That is, they either support "left" capitalist parties in bourgeois elections or they run their own candidates...they take the capitalist electoral spectacle seriously, just as you do.

In fact to all intents and purposes I am a Marxist Leninist in my approach to instituting socialism, just an optimistic one; and one with an alternative suggestion for economic planning post revolution/ transition.

Well, I'm not in charge of credentials for who is "to all intents and purposes" a Leninist and who isn't; you haven't called for a vanguard party yet, and that's generally considered the defining characteristic of Leninist orthodoxy.

But your version of "strong state socialism" does appear to converge with that of the USSR in many respects...most importantly, the locus of power. So perhaps you may achieve the status of "potential recruit" if not "full member".

Rather ironically I'd say that this post revolution society I suggest actually would be essentially anarchist in character.

And I would "suggest" that this flagrantly contradicts many of your other statements about what you envision post-revolutionary society to look like...a "strong state" hopefully controlled by parliamentary delegates freely elected in competition with pro-capitalist candidates, running a nationalized economy, complete with an elaborate hierarchy of laws and guardians, inherited wealth and significant inequalities (economic and social).

Anarchism is an especially "fuzzy" word, but it's not that fuzzy.

The other thing you dont seem to like is being asked to explain how either your plan or your post revolution society are expected to work.

No, I don't mind being asked those questions and whenever I have thoughts on the matter, I'm quite willing to share them at considerable length.

But the implication in your remark is that we communists are either "engineers" or "prophets"...and we are neither, of course, though elements of both may play a part in our reasoning.

Part of our "prophetic" function, if you want to call it that, is the attempt to spell out in some detail our "wish list" (as you call it)...what we consider the "minimum requirements" for a genuinely egalitarian, classless society...and we use that to evaluate both ourselves and others.

Thus, we often find ourselves saying things like "racists are not communists" or "misogynists are not communists"...much to the distress of those who would like some changes in the present economic order but want to keep the police around to enforce their personal superstitions.

To wish to overthrow the totality of capitalist society is, indeed, a daunting task...much more difficult than Marx and Engels anticipated. There are many "how will it work?" questions that I don't know the answers to.

But I know more than I used to...and so do others. At such time that large numbers of people become seriously involved in over-throwing capitalism and establishing communism...they will learn what they need to do. They will probably try many different arrangements, extending the successful ones and discarding the unsuccessful ones.

But the criteria for "success" will be much different than what you imagine or even can imagine--there will be an "egalitarian" and "libertarian" standard applied that will certainly weigh as heavily on every social decision as "efficiency" or "productivity" and possibly even heavier.

Communist society is not "just about the money", it's about liberation.

And that, when all is said and done, is what is missing from your "plan", other reformist "plans", and Leninist "plans". I don't deny that, if implemented with reasonable competence, that your various schemes would "work" (sort of)...after all, capitalism itself "works" (sort of).

But what you propose is not what I want. And therefore I don't see why I should waste a nanosecond "supporting" it...or why any other real communist should either.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Ok heres why you spend a few of those Nanoseconds.

Because doing it my way, you have a chance to get exactly what you want only much quicker. It really is that simple.

My way does not preclude doing it your way, even at the same time.

I said I was going to drop this, but the more I think about 'reformist' the less appropriate it seems. I'm quite sure that it was originally intended to apply to people who sought improvements through the existing liberal mechanisms, not people who sought to use the existing liberal mechanisms to achieve a complete change. To actually overthrow those same systems.

And I'm quite sure too that when you use the term thats pretty much how a lot of people will interpret it (as a bit of tinkering to sorta make things better for workers). Which makes it very distasteful to me, because it very much distorts what I'm saying. In fact a rule of thumb is that if someone rejects a label you pin on them then you are insulting them.

All I'm suggesting when all is said and done is taking additional actions to bring about the sort of change you want. In fact suppose I said that I was going to create a party to run in elections, not on my ticket of goals, but on yours. Would you object then? Why?

Its difficult to see how you could have any objection other than 'because you would not stick to it'. Which is pure surmise, and totally contradictory to the position about commitment levels that are assumed by you as a must for your ideas to work at all.

As to how close my idea is to Anarchy. Your sole objection seems to be that I advocate a 'strong state'; says who? only you. I advocate the weakest possible state that would serve to co'ordinate those things which require co-ordinating. I've even quite explictly said that anyone doing an 'administrative role' would be given no more reward or status than anyone else and made it quite clear (I thought) that such people would be dismissable at any time.

In fact it is exactly the idea of the market that allows me to do this. It reduces what has to be controlled directly by 'the state' quite massively (which is of course exactky why 'Anarcho-Capitalists' are so keen on a market (but with their rules for what can be traded of course).They too believe in a very minimal state.

If you honestly believe that the weakest possible state of that sort is none at all, I'd like to see you answer the questions about who would determine and fund new investments; while you are at it you could try explaining how any Redstar state is going to co-ordinate a defence against an agressor (any military person will tell you that an enemy which offers itself up piecemeal a bit at a time, or in uncoordinated fashion is a generals dream target).

What you will actually do, I guess, is describe something functuonally identical but pin different labels to it. Sorry but that is just sematics not a real argument. Try it and see, I'll bet I can quite happily say 'O yes Redstar thats exactly how I would do it too' without altering the substance of my position an iota.

There are any number of related questions about co-ordination, without even getting into the subject of what happens when, as it will in reality, some of the communes decide they have a different attitude to the rest of you in all sorts of nasty ways.

My 'market socialists' all work at what they want to work at, they retain the product of their own labour (less a small bit to fund cooperative ventures), They only have 'bosses' where co-ordination is required and there is no reason to assume these bosses have permanent status or extra rewards. They have as much say in any decisions that affect them as it is humanly possible to provide, They have an equal say with anyone else in social issues.

Sounds pretty close to Anarchic society to me - where are the fundamental differences ?

(Edited by sc4r at 6:29 pm on July 24, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 6:34 pm on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Because doing it my way, you have a chance to get exactly what you want only much quicker. It really is that simple.

My way does not preclude doing it your way, even at the same time.

It does nothing of the sort and I don't see how saying it makes it "so".

Your way involves a "minimal program" that is circulated to win the widest possible support in the shortest possible time; to win votes for a parliamentary majority; and to, at best, nationalize the means of production.

Mine is rather more than that, a lot more.

In fact suppose I said that I was going to create a party to run in elections, not on my ticket of goals, but on yours. Would you object then? Why?

Because the very act of participating in capitalist elections sends the wrong message.

"Vote for me & I'll set you free" ran a song lyric from the 70s and it was meant to be sarcastic. Participation in capitalist elections has been historically demonstrated to be both corrupting to the advocates and ineffective in achieving any substantive change in the social order.

It sends the message that the bourgeois political process--I believe you prefer the term "liberal democracy"--is "legitimate"...which, of course, it is not.

The view of communists is, to all intents and purposes, that there is nothing "legitimate" about the prevailing social order.

The same objection holds, of course, for your ideas about "socialist businesses". Even if they "worked" according to your intentions, that would be "good" for the workers involved but bad for the class. It would be sending another message of "legitimacy" as well as implying that any ordinary worker who wasn't part of one of these "socialist businesses" had only himself to blame for his plight...an idea that easily resonates with the general capitalist philosophy--"if you're fucked in life, it's your own fault".

Your sole objection seems to be that I advocate a 'strong state'; says who? only you.

Well, sc4r, actually you did.

All of which is why I do not think sensible anarchists should think that Anarchy is remotely the next step. A strong Socialist state is a must as an intermediate; then we can argue from there. June 22, 2003

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/index.php...did=64;start=15 (http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=64;start =15)

If you honestly believe that the weakest possible state of that sort is none at all, I'd like to see you answer the questions about who would determine and fund new investments; while you are at it you could try explaining how any Redstar state is going to co-ordinate a defence against an aggressor (any military person will tell you that an enemy which offers itself up piecemeal a bit at a time, or in uncoordinated fashion is a general's dream target).

I suspect that proposed new investments on a large scale will be debated and voted on in national referenda and the funding for them will be by special assessment approved at the same time. But it might be done other ways; predicting the features of classless society is "not easy".

In the event of aggression, the traditional communist strategy of guerilla war will almost certainly be the first resort. It has turned many a general's dream into a nightmare...as we see currently in Iraq. Temporary coordination will spread upwards as the magnitude of the aggression becomes apparent...there might eventually be actual armies in the field that will, of course, be disbanded after the conflict has ended. A permanent military establishment (other than the workers' militias) is "too dangerous" to keep around when unneeded.

My 'market socialists' all work at what they want to work at, they retain the product of their own labour (less a small bit to fund cooperative ventures)...

Now you return once more to the matter of competition in the marketplace, wealth differentials, etc. Even if they don't actually compete with each other directly (each enterprise produces something unique), the consumers still purchase one product and not another. Some enterprises prosper and others don't. Some grow richer, others don't (or even grow poorer). We've already discussed where that leads.

Before, you suggested that the central state would skim off the excess, keeping all the enterprises more or less equally prosperous. Now you say otherwise. But that course would mean the state apparatus--and the bureaucrats in it--would become a new capitalist class.

There's no way to make a market (competitive or non-competitive) "work" for communism. The production of commodities for sale undermines, slowly or quickly, and eventually destroys communism. It generates classes by virtue of its functioning.

Whatever is produced must be freely given to those who will use it.

Sounds outrageous, doesn't it?

:cool:

[sc4r]

Your way involves a "minimal program" that is circulated to win the widest possible support in the shortest possible time; to win votes for a parliamentary majority; and to, at best, nationalize the means of production.

Mine is rather more than that, a lot more.

No! The first part is almost flat not true, and you’ve been told it isn’t at least 3-4 times now. There is no ‘at best’ about it. That’s the minimum objective, and it’s a means to an end, not an end in itself. Winning a parliamentary majority is one way towards achieving the minimum goal in the shortest possible time. It’s not the only way, and I have quite explicitly said that if a faster method presented itself I’d take it.

As to the second part – yes it is, which is exactly why it is you that needs to drop your silly messianic objections to having any connection to any other movement. So that you can use those other movements as a bridgehead to where you want to be.

…the very act of participating in capitalist elections sends the wrong message. …It sends the message that the bourgeois political process--I believe you prefer the term "liberal democracy"--is "legitimate"...which, of course, it is not.

There is a little truth in that. Any participation of any kind in anything is bound to convey at least some impression that the process is legitimate to some people. However, you seem obsessed with process, not results here.

You are, I assume. going to using the ‘bourgeois media’ to communicate your message (certainly you are doing so now). Neither you nor I have any option, Bourgeois channels have to be used since they are the only ones that exist.

I’m not quite so worried about whether some people get the wrong ‘message’. I’m concerned with whether enough people get the right one that the type of society I would like to see becomes more likely.

It’s hardly a major concern anyway is it? since the ‘party’ I’m advocating would be campaigning on a ticket of ‘If You elect us we will totally change the system by which we were elected’ – I reckon that for most people that would make the right message clear enough.

The same objection holds, of course, for your ideas about "socialist businesses". Even if they "worked" according to your intentions, that would be "good" for the workers involved but bad for the class. It would be sending another message of "legitimacy" as well as implying that any ordinary worker who wasn't part of one of these "socialist businesses" had only himself to blame for his plight...an idea that easily resonates with the general capitalist philosophy--"if you're fucked in life, it's your own fault".

I’ve said probably ½ doz times that there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to run these businesses as socialist enterprises. They are intended as a strategic weapon, not as an early example of socialism in practise. If anything workers in these enterprises might be less well off than in others; because these enterprises are being run with the specific intent of undermining capitalist control over industry and media and it would be expected that at least some people would be committed to socialism in the future and prepared to make sacrifices for it.

As I’ve said many times before you demonstrate nothing honest by attacking ideas that are not mine.

Well, sc4r, actually you did { advocate a 'strong state}

”All of which is why I do not think sensible anarchists should think that Anarchy is remotely the next step. A strong Socialist state is a must as an intermediate; then we can argue from there. June 22, 2003”

Well, Redstar, there might be two explanations might there not? A) I’ve totally changed my mind, or B) you are quoting out of context. And of course, it’s the latter. You were talking about virtually no state at all; I used the word strong for contrast. ‘The weakest possible state’, what I advocate, is still strong compared to your ideas.

I suspect that proposed new investments on a large scale will be debated and voted on in national referenda and the funding for them will be by special assessment approved at the same time. But it might be done other ways; predicting the features of classless society is "not easy".

There are several problems identified here. 1. Without a central admin of any sort you are not going to be able to organise your referenda or even phrase the questions to ask. 2. You are often not going to be able to identify the problems / opportunities in the first place. In fact all you are doing is suggesting exactly the same thing I am but without describing the support mechanism to make it actually do-able.

You seem to actually delight in suggesting things that are ‘not easy’, and see merit in the fact that they are not. Actually I’d see your notions about communication as being not so much ‘not easy’ as outright impossible, or even more accurately totally undefined.

You cannot leave major questions of communication undefined. Communication is essentially what human societies are all about, it is the thing that allows us to co-operate.

In the event of aggression, the traditional communist strategy of guerilla war will almost certainly be the first resort. It has turned many a general's dream into a nightmare...as we see currently in Iraq. Temporary coordination will spread upwards as the magnitude of the aggression becomes apparent...there might eventually be actual armies in the field that will, of course, be disbanded after the conflict has ended. A permanent military establishment (other than the workers' militias) is "too dangerous" to keep around when unneeded.

All of which is no help at all really because we are not talking of eventually managing to persuade an invader to pull out leaving us with a ravaged society and infrastructure. We are talking of resistance which allows us to retain the society we have just build up and created. Guerilla warfare by itself has only occasionally been successful even at convincing a determined invader to leave anyway.

Personally I’ve no idea how co-ordination is supposed to ‘spread upward’. What does it even mean? I’ll leave largely unexamined the fact that yet again you cant actually find a way to express your concept in ways which don’t directly contradict it (there isn’t supposed to be an ‘upward’; remember?).

At no point do I actually suggest a permanent military as an ideological point. I say that the absolute minimum is a co-ordinating administration of some sort (which could perhaps quickly raise a military if one were needed). Personally I’d reckon that at least some sort of established military would be needed to ensure relative safety from attack; but if circumstances at the time say it isn’t then I certainly have no ideological objection to not having one.

Now you return once more to the matter of competition in the marketplace, wealth differentials, etc. Even if they don't actually compete with each other directly (each enterprise produces something unique), the consumers still purchase one product and not another. Some enterprises prosper and others don't. Some grow richer, others don't (or even grow poorer). We've already discussed where that leads.

No we have not. You have asserted without any discussion or reasoning that some get richer, and some get poorer, and I have both said that they don’t, and attempted to explain why this is not so. It is because they do not retain any profit themselves. If you wish to explore by all means do so, but please don’t have the bloody cheek to keep repeating stuff that has already been denied.

Yes some enterprises prosper (in the sense of becoming larger, not richer) and others decline. Unless you are seriously suggesting that you can see no merit in encouraging efficient enterprises (or those which produce stuff that is actually wanted), and never expect to see any change in what is wanted, then this is going to be a feature of any idea (socialist or not).

Before, you suggested that the central state would skim off the excess, keeping all the enterprises more or less equally prosperous. Now you say otherwise. But that course would mean the state apparatus--and the bureaucrats in it--would become a new capitalist class.

No I do not say otherwise; and no they would not become a new ‘capitalist class’. Can you explain why? Just because you say so?

I feel that using words like ‘skim’ is a rather obvious rhetorical device. In fact it’s a bit like the ones of calling me a reformist, or saying I’m ‘weaseling for imperialism’ – very cheap, and rather insulting.

No bureaucrat has any personal stake or interest in any enterprise, and like anyone else is not allowed to. In fact there is no reason why the administrators should not be representatives of their ‘communes’ I’d see this as unworkably cumbersome if left at that, but in principle there is no objection.

Essentially all you are saying (very vaguely and indirectly) is that you believe that there is no possible system of controls that could prevent people who have any special responsibility for anything from exploiting that situation for personal ends. Even if they did this does not make them capitalist (that’s a particular method of exploitation). But more importantly unless you are genuinely suggesting that all decisions about everything are made only in equal consultation with everybody (all 12bn of them) then some people are going to be in a position of responsibility in any system. Once again the biggest difference is only that you don’t recognise the practical problem and suggest no mechanism of any sort to deal with it.

The admin does not decide where to place investment on its own behalf, but implements the policy created by others. Just exactly how often and in what manner consultation is made is a matter of practicality not principle. In principle I too would like everybody consulted about everything. In practise that’s nonsense and a more workable compromise must be made.


There's no way to make a market (competitive or non-competitive) "work" for communism. The production of commodities for sale undermines, slowly or quickly, and eventually destroys communism. It generates classes by virtue of its functioning.

Which is Dogma pure and simple, There’s not a glimmer of explanation in that.

Whatever is produced must be freely given to those who will use it.

Sounds outrageous, doesn't it?

It sounds badly thought out. It assumes either an unspecified mechanism for determining what actually is wanted /needed, or alternatively that you are not concerned with producing what is needed at all.

The problem, dramatised, is that if you freely give a combine harvester to the first person (or commune) who is going to use it and it turns out that they could actually have made do equally well with a rake and shovel, you are going to have either a quite enormous amount of wasted production or a lot of disappointed people. In fact you’ll actually be doing the opposite of producing for use, you’ll be producing for non-use.

That’s the very simple version of this problem. Believe me it is a helluva lot more serious than that when you start to consider a complex set of demands; many of which can be partially satisfied in many ways.

Again it is about communication, you seem to totally ignore this and assume it is instantaneous, perfectly honest, perfectly accurate, perfectly considered, and perfectly conveyed to all people everywhere without any actual explanation as to how.

Essentially your idea works only if one assumes an infinite and instantaneous production machine. I’m not aware of plans for such a machine, perhaps you are.

[redstar2000]

Winning a parliamentary majority is one way towards achieving the minimum goal in the shortest possible time. It’s not the only way, and I have quite explicitly said that if a faster method presented itself I’d take it...which is exactly why it is you that needs to drop your silly messianic objections to having any connection to any other movement. So that you can use those other movements as a bridgehead to where you want to be.

This is the same linear progression that you and other reformists (including most Leninists) have advocated for more than a century.

Step 1: win a parliamentary majority (or come to power by some other method).

Step 2: nationalize the means of production.

Step 3: then start working on the communist project (if that's what you want to do; otherwise stop at step 2).

Now, here is my "messaniac" alternative:

Step 1: denounce the totality of capitalist society while encouraging resistance to its various forms of exploitation and oppression.

Step 2: proletarian revolution.

Step 3: begin communism at once...in as rapid a transition as possible; no fooling around with "intermediate" stages except as temporary expedients.

I understand that you say you want the "same things" as I do (some of them, anyway). I understand that you think that your path is the "practical" and "realistic" way to get from where we are now to where I want to go.

What I am attempting to communicate to you (without much success, I have to admit) is that history has repeatedly demonstrated that your path does not lead in the direction I want to go. It may appear to do so, partly because of the use of similar terminology. But things haven't worked out the way that either you or other reformists or most Leninists thought they would...we never got to your "step 3" and, except for the Leninists in a few countries, never even made it to your "step 2".

My "step 3" existed for, perhaps, a couple of years in Russia and maybe a year or so in Spain...so I'm not in a position to do a lot of boasting, and I'm willing to admit that.

But they went in the direction I want to go!

As to the "groups" that you wish me to "unite" with in some fashion, it seems to me they all pretty much want to go in your direction, not mine. The suggestion that I should "use" them to my advantage was intended to be helpful, I'm sure. However, you overlook the fact that they are, for the most part, professional users and manipulators of people; they'd eat people like me for breakfast...if I were so foolish as to choose to "play their game" on "their field" by "their rules".

However, you seem obsessed with process, not results here.

Guilty as charged...because process and results are connected. Not being a moral philosopher, I have no idea if the ends justify the means always, sometimes, or never; but I have absolutely no doubt that the means you use profoundly affects the results you achieve.

Of course, I "am obsessed" with "processes" for another, historical, reason. I am a revolutionary; the process of revolution is of extreme importance in my outlook. Any method of organizing people that "sends the message": "support us and we'll do it for you" has to be ruled out. It directly contradicts the whole purpose of my activity...to encourage people to do for themselves.

You are, I assume. going to using the ‘bourgeois media’ to communicate your message (certainly you are doing so now).

That's just silly; there have even been threads in Opposing Ideologies along the lines of "how can you commies use the capitalist internet, blah, blah, blah."

Yes, we use and will use capitalist technology to spread our message. A screwdriver does not have "an ideology" and neither does a computer. On the other hand, if you're suggesting that we purchase time on Fox Network or a full-page ad in The New York Times...well, it sounds like a bad idea to me. What do we gain by associating ourselves in public with known liars?

I’ve said probably ½ doz times that there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to run these businesses as socialist enterprises. They are intended as a strategic weapon, not as an early example of socialism in practise. If anything workers in these enterprises might be less well off than in others; because these enterprises are being run with the specific intent of undermining capitalist control over industry and media and it would be expected that at least some people would be committed to socialism in the future and prepared to make sacrifices for it.

I confess that this particular idea of yours is one that I find completely incomprehensible...I simply have no idea what the phrase "strategic weapon" could mean in this context. At the very least, your "socialists" would have to operate "as if they were capitalists"...and I think in practical terms, they would either be very "bad" at it or they would turn into capitalists themselves.

But perhaps it's moot; I can't imagine other reformists or Leninists (either one) going for this idea. Of course, I could be wrong about that...but it would shock me to see it happen.

As I’ve said many times before you demonstrate nothing honest by attacking ideas that are not mine.

The difficulty I have is trying to figure out what your ideas actually are...they seem very, well, plastic and difficult to pin down with any precision. In one post you claim to be close to "Marxism"-Leninism and in another, a kind of "anarchist". Sometimes you sound like you want a "weak USSR" and other times you sound like you want a more "radical" Sweden.

Perhaps that's endemic with reformism...the ability to appear to be different things to different people is an important part of its appeal.

1. Without a central admin of any sort you are not going to be able to organise your referenda or even phrase the questions to ask. 2. You are often not going to be able to identify the problems / opportunities in the first place.

Again, this is silly. There are probably ways to accomplish those tasks. Shall I suggest one? Or ten? Or 100? Can you grasp that people in that period might very well choose a way that doesn't even exist now? (Making any and all of the methods I might suggest sound utterly archaic.) Could it be that someone besides me might think of a far better way to do it?

Like most (all?) reformists, you are stuck in the present. Whenever reformists try to envision the future, it's sort of like now only "more so". They can incorporate specific changes into their vision...but they cannot imagine any really fundamental differences between the present and the future. They are "used" to incremental change and that's really all they can think of.

[i]You cannot leave major questions of communication undefined. Communication is essentially what human societies are all about, it is the thing that allows us to co-operate.

Good point. I'll note that communications have changed rather dramatically over the last few decades and the pace seems to be accelerating. What things will be like in this field by the end of this century is certainly hard for me to imagine.

My "provisional" conclusion: it will be harder and harder to lie...and easier and easier to expose the liar. I think that steadily increases the vulnerability of capitalism as well as the practical possibilities of communism.

But, admittedly, I'm speculating.

We are talking of resistance which allows us to retain the society we have just build up and created.

In that case, given the realities of modern military technology, you're talking about "pre-emptive" warfare...which means building up a large military apparatus capable of doing that...which results in, sooner or later, an ambitious general who thinks classless society needs some "firm discipline". You may have saved your infrastructure, but you've lost your revolution.

Once again, what you set up has "laws" of its own, develops an "ideology" of its own, etc. A "professional soldier" (private or general) is not just another "worker" who happens to be wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon; his material conditions shape his ideas. And those ideas, needless to say, are about as unfavorable to classless society as they come...being fundamentally fascist.

Personally I’ve no idea how co-ordination is supposed to ‘spread upward’. What does it even mean?

"Upward" was an unfortunate choice of words, wasn't it? I simply meant that as the scale of the invasion became clear, larger and larger numbers of resistance fighters from more and more parts of the country would be mobilized...coordination would embrace more and more of the country as the conflict escalated. There might even be temporary generals...military necessity is a harsh master. Neither the Russians nor the Spaniards were able to both save their revolution and defeat their enemies in the field.

Perhaps our fortunes will be better...but history offers no guarantees.

It is because they do not retain any profit themselves. If you wish to explore by all means do so, but please don’t have the bloody cheek to keep repeating stuff that has already been denied.

Yes, denied in this post. But this is what you said yesterday...

My 'market socialists' all work at what they want to work at, they retain the product of their own labour...

If they retain the product of their own labor, then some will prosper--get richer--and some will not. If the state appropriates all the profits, then those who run the state will prosper.

Either way you choose to go (from one day to the next), you still get the pre-conditions for the emergence of a new capitalist class.

And that is why it is not "dogma" but plain common sense to say that the market generates classes by its very functioning as a market.

Essentially all you are saying (very vaguely and indirectly) is that you believe that there is no possible system of controls that could prevent people who have any special responsibility for anything from exploiting that situation for personal ends.

True, I am not infatuated with "systems of controls"...I don't think there's any magic institutional formula "guaranteed" to prevent abuse. And phrases like "special responsibility" and "personal ends" are as "fuzzy" as any that I use.

But even a "vulgar" Marxist knows that where weath is involved, ways are found to make its influence felt...and what that leads to. The USSR had plenty of "controls" and so did "People's" China...they didn't help.

My conclusion is that communism is only practical with the conscious participation of the working class; without that, no amount of institutional engineering is going to make much difference and, in the long run, no difference at all.

You appear to believe that a new social order is something like a well-designed machine...once it's completed, you turn it on and it runs itself after that and you can go do something else.

Not exactly.

It assumes either an unspecified mechanism for determining what actually is wanted /needed, or alternatively that you are not concerned with producing what is needed at all.

As if people were unable to ask...or respond.

:cool:

[sc4r]

On Sc4rist approaches to implementing Socialism.

I think the clue to what calling enterprises owned by the socialist movement within a capitalist society ‘strategic weapons’ means, was contained in the 1000+ words I’ve written elsewhere saying that it was intended both to reduce any new socialist government’s initial reliance on industries controlled by hostile parties and also to provide resources to allow a socialist message to actually be communicated during the build up period (hence the specific identification of media industries as a prime target).

Yes, the enterprises would have to function as capitalist ones while existing within a capitalist system. The enterprises NOT the people running them. The people running them function as Socialist ambassadors and/or advocates and/or agents. Just in fact as your educators would. But my guys have a focus.

Its been explained at great length why the people running my enterprises should have at least a fighting chance of retaining their socialist beliefs and why they could not hope to actually benefit personally from the actual enterprise success. You chose not to dispute the explanation then. It’s bloody dishonest to wait until now when the focus has switched (you do this about numerous other things too).

Saying as you do, ‘oOooh it might not work’. Is to say the least a very unsubstantial objection.

‘OOOOOOHHHHH Redstar’s Idea might not work’ Not very informative is it?.
.
.
.

Objections to Redstar’ism.

There are probably [insert large number here] ways to accomplish those tasks ( in rely to ‘Without a central admin of any sort you are not going to be able to organise your referenda or even phrase the questions to ask. 2. You are often not going to be able to identify the problems / opportunities in the first place’.). Shall I suggest one? Or ten? Or 100? Can you grasp that people in that period might very well choose a way that doesn't even exist now? (Making any and all of the methods I might suggest sound utterly archaic.) Could it be that someone besides me might think of a far better way to do it?

Can you actually suggest one then?


Good point. I'll note that communications have changed rather dramatically over the last few decades and the pace seems to be accelerating. What things will be like in this field by the end of this century is certainly hard for me to imagine. {in reply to a question about communicating economic demands and production responses and an observation that RS leaves all such questions unanswered}

My "provisional" conclusion: it will be harder and harder to lie...and easier and easier to expose the liar. I think that steadily increases the vulnerability of capitalism as well as the practical possibilities of communism.

But, admittedly, I'm speculating.

You are also failing to understand what communication means in this context. Despite promptings in the previous exchange that we are not merely discussing communications technology, but actually what it is that is communicated, you still seem focussed on the method.

It does not matter what communications technology you assume (short of instantaneous awareness by all people of what all other people want and how much plus instantaneous calculation by everyone of how the resulting quite massive equation can be solved) you are still left with the question of how, in a situation where billions of people value different things differently, you propose to ensure that at least an approximation to an optimum solution is reached to the questions of what to produce, in what quantities, when, and who to give it too.

Again if you actually tried to answer the mini example question I posed about Combine Harvesters, or shoes (and now apples) etc. you’d reveal very much more conclusively what your actual solution is. Waffling gets you off the hook (perhaps) as far as ‘winning’ the debate goes, but to anyone who is actually looking at substance reveals very conclusively that you don’t know.

The honest thing to do would be to either A) attempt an answer, or B) say you don’t know.

.
On Personal Standpoints and Expertise.

RS : Like most (all?) reformists, you are stuck in the present. Whenever reformists try to envision the future, it's sort of like now only "more so". They can incorporate specific changes into their vision...but they cannot imagine any really fundamental differences between the present and the future. They are "used" to incremental change and that's really all they can think of.

Bullshit. If you mean that when I envision the future I anchor the belief of what might be possible in what experience I have and what believable structures I, or anyone can describe, then yes I do. If you are going to let go of THAT anchor then lets postulate the bloody infinite instantaneous production machine I ridiculed earlier on.

If you want to talk Sci-Fi fine, lets do it; I thought this was a serious discussion though.
,
,
RS : The difficulty I have is trying to figure out what your ideas actually are...they seem very, well, plastic and difficult to pin down with any precision. In one post you claim to be close to "Marxism"-Leninism and in another, a kind of "anarchist". Sometimes you sound like you want a "weak USSR" and other times you sound like you want a more "radical" Sweden.

Perhaps that's endemic with reformism...the ability to appear to be different things to different people is an important part of its appeal

I reckon that I’ve very clearly spelled out several times pretty exactly what my views are. I’ve responded to very vague objections with really quite detailed answers (and even thrown in a fair amount of basic economic theory since you don’t seem to have it and its really rather a pre-requisite for understanding socio economics).

I’d like to say you’ve responded in kind but you have not. Asked to answer really very basic example questions (like how would you decide who to give shoes to) the silence is deafening.

If what I advocate (which is most definitely not reformism) seems to satisfy many people then its because it actually may seem appealing. Frankly I doubt this is true yet though. It is true that it will have answers to many of the objections you or anyone else cares to lob. That’s because it is a pretty robust model. That, RS, is a strength. That’s what well thought out ideas are supposed to be able to do.

I answer elsewhere the accusation that my ideas are either a weak USSR or a radical Sweden. They are of course neither by any meaningful measure.


On Military defence of a new Society:

RS : We are talking of resistance which allows us to retain the society we have just build up and created.

In that case, given the realities of modern military technology, you're talking about "pre-emptive" warfare...which means building up a large military apparatus capable of doing that...which results in, sooner or later, an ambitious general who thinks classless society needs some "firm discipline". You may have saved your infrastructure, but you've lost your revolution.

Yep. That’s why I did in fact say that I thought that ideology or no ideology such a permanent military would be required initially.

Once again you resort to ‘OOOOO but it could go wrong’ arguments. ANYTHING can go wrong. ANYTHING. But the fact is that compared to how likely it is that your guerrilla defence would go wrong (virtually certain) it’s very definitely the lesser of two risks.

Why can’t one or more of your Guerilla units (powerful enough apparently to dissuade an invading army) decide to exercise a bit of freelance initiative? Why cant several of them join up and do so? Nothing stops them of course, in fact given that there are more of them it’s almost certain some of them would.

Your only defence is their ‘commitment’. That’s no argument at all. I can make the exact same defence, but with considerably fewer people I have to assume it about.
.
.
Rs : Once again, what you set up has "laws" of its own, develops an "ideology" of its own, etc. A "professional soldier" (private or general) is not just another "worker" who happens to be wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon; his material conditions shape his ideas. And those ideas, needless to say, are about as unfavorable to classless society as they come...being fundamentally fascist.

Why? No reason at all really. Just because you say so? Again I can say exactly the same thing about your guys.

And most importantly again : WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WE WOULD IDEALLY WANT, but about something which you yourself admit is needed to contain a much more immediate and definite threat/risk.
.
.
"Upward" was an unfortunate choice of words, wasn't it? {when describing ‘coordination ‘speading’ within his supposedly totally non hierarchic resistance movement} I simply meant that as the scale of the invasion became clear, larger and larger numbers of resistance fighters from more and more parts of the country would be mobilized...coordination would embrace more and more of the country as the conflict escalated. There might even be temporary generals...military necessity is a harsh master. Neither the Russians nor the Spaniards were able to both save their revolution and defeat their enemies in the field.

Oh I see. ‘Coordination is going to embrace the country’. There was me thinking that abstract concepts took very few initiatives of their own. Perhaps I’ve been misunderstanding and there is a Snr.General Coordination. I didn’t know you meant a person of that Name.

Sorry m8, that’s a non-explanation. When someone asks you how an operational event would come about you have to say how it would work in operational terms, not answer from the book of nice sounding and hopeful phrases.

What you actually describe is not co-ordination at all but piecemeal response. The very thing you were supposedly improving on when you decided to call it co-ordination.

And since I see that you eventually are going to resort to generals anyway (after having already allowed your enemy to get well and truly started on fucking your brand new society up) why exactly not do it before any damage has been done. If you think an army is difficult to control before a fight with established lines of communication to civilian government, then you would not like to contemplate what it is like after winning a messy one and without any established procedure.
.
.
.
Market Socialism. Markets, and basic economics

I’ve started a new thread to discuss it in which includes answers to your ‘questions’ posed in that last post. This one is way too messy and I'm afraid In order to stand any chance of making you grasp the benefits of markets some economic discusion is required. To cover it here would take up far too much space in what is already a sprawling argument.

[Lardlad95]

THisdiscussion and all disscussions look inherently wrong on the new format

[blackemma]

Lassez faire Capitalism has extreemly honourable foundations for example and in its incipient infancy would be practically indistinguishable from anarchism

When I first read that, I thought you wrote "horrible" and was about to launch into a big flame war. ;) In all seriousness though, you make a good point, but there&#39;s more to anarchism than political liberalism. As Rudolph Rocker pointed out, anarchism is the synthesis of political liberalism (in that you are right) and economic socialism (which you didn&#39;t bring up, but I&#39;m sure you realize). This is why anarchists are called libertarians - a combination of political freedom and economic equality.

Laissez-faire capitalism is utopian and hasn&#39;t really existed in its perfect form, even in the United States there were always tariffs being put up by Republican presidents and so on and Britain has always had a history of intervention in its economy, even if on behalf of the upper-classes. What exists in America today is more or less corporatism, the economic system that existed in fascist Italy and later modified in Nazi Germany. By corporatism, I am referring to the system wherein private property remains but is placed under stringent socio-economic controls and society revolves around a state-business partnership that pretends to ease class antagonisms but in effect serves only to disempower the people.

So when speaking of today&#39;s capitalism, I would argue that it has nothing whatsoever in common with anarchism and that the so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are about as anarchist as the Khmer Rouge. The foundations of classical liberalism dealt with the rejection of unjustified authority. At the time, those forces were largely made up of more visible ones, the two most blatant abusers of authority being the Church and the State. Hence, liberalism&#39;s ongoing hostility towards expansive government and the seperation of Church and State. Taken to its logical conclusion, however, liberalism would ultimately reject private property as a way of enslaving the masses and limiting personal freedom. This is also why socialism can be seen as the next stage in historical development, after liberalism. Taken still a step further, one has anarchism or communism, whichever one prefers - they&#39;re really the same thing.

[Elect Marx]

blackemma,
Are you a Marxist as well as an anarchist? Marxism is the gateway to anarchism. This quote reminds me of what you were saying, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." —Benito Mussolini.
The US has fallen away from it&#39;s ambitious begings in genocide and slavery, no wait, we&#39;ve still got it.

[blackemma]

blackemma,
Are you a Marxist as well as an anarchist? Marxism is the gateway to anarchism. This quote reminds me of what you were saying, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." —Benito Mussolini.
The US has fallen away from it&#39;s ambitious begings in genocide and slavery, no wait, we&#39;ve still got it.

I&#39;d agree with Howard Zinn&#39;s response when someone asked him whether or not he was an anarchist: something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. I try not to get too hung up on labels, but generally I think it would not be totally inaccurate if you wished to call me anarchist. Morpheus and I have had discussions on this topic, but they&#39;re too long to post here. If you&#39;re interested, visit this site (http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=genanarchism) and read the discussion "Is it anarchism?" for a discussion on my beliefs as well as those of Morpheus and several others.

I find we tend to agree in discussions, so I think it&#39;s rather irrelevent what you wish to call me. It&#39;s simpler to simply consider me a comrade. :)

[Valkyrie]

Corporatism, however, in the modern sense of the term, can stand alone as an economic system with/without the State.

Corporatism was only one element of Mussolini&#39;s Fascism.
hence, in Italy, there were legistator&#39;s that repesented Only the corporation&#39;s interests.

But Corporatism, not to be defined as Fascism, as Fascism by itself is much more pervasive at the societal level restricting civil liberties, etc. just restricting life in general.

However...

The State, (as I see it) is ALWAYS Totalitarian and Fascist no matter what it&#39;s socio-economic system. Laws and Legislation for Better or worse (Worse) are nothing but a form of totalitarianism in that there is a distinct line of demarcation of what one can and cannot do. (totalitarianism) Civil liberties are granted, or rather taken for granted, moreless, not based on any kind of democratic consenses decided by the masses, but are in place only because they&#39;ve been granted from that same far-reaching, all-encompassing, virulent, totalitarian power-structure called The State that assails at every level of society. One stroke of the pen and the little concession we have now are gone. Doesn&#39;t matter what the economic system entails. S0, accordingly, they are two very distinct entities, though very united in wiping each other&#39;s ass.

I read an article from Spunk Press that obviously left an impact on me as I have not forgotten the ridiculous import of it all. It was about the law in many states requiring the mandatory wearing of life preservers for people who are passengers of boats. The question posed was... Why the enaction of this Law? Should then, also, a swimmer be required to wear a life-preserver as the chance of drowning was much more prevalent than sitting in a floating structure above water.

That&#39;s The State for ya&#33; --- Can never justify itself.

Sorry Lardlad.. I am way off topic.

[Valkyrie]

Hey LardLad&#33;&#33; What do you mean the discussions all look inherently wrong on the new format&#33; Let&#39;s hear it&#33;&#33;

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 07:16 AM
Hey LardLad&#33;&#33; What do you mean the discussions all look inherently wrong on the new format&#33; Let&#39;s here it&#33;&#33;
I mean the entire format is far to "light" for a serious messege board. This is a problem that can&#39;t be fixed no matter how many emoticons you add

[anti machine]

of course we are self-righteous. we are created in the image of a vain god. self-lessness is a near impossibiblity so long as the individual exists.

and i LIKE it that way