Court System

[QueerVanguard]

So communism happens and WHOOOSH rape und murder disappear? Yay!
Pretty idealistic of you, to actually believe this.

How do you figure? It's literally idealistic to think murder and rape are somehow separable from the social relations we live with, products of bad morals or bad genes or whatever other right-wing garbage being pushed these days. It's no wonder you have Bevis and Buttbrain as your avatar.

Quite the contrary, your underlying assumption that people will magically become simply unable to commit murder in communism just might be a result of some stupid liberalism with its idea of the progressive perfectability of human beings, to the point they resemble angels really. You also got it all backwards as making a one-to-one correspondence between all sorts of anti-social behavior and capitalism is some lazy, lazy thinking (and factually incorrect really).

But hey, I'm really looking forward to this Heavenly realm that's communism.

Wow, I'm at a loss. Really. Never in a million years would I think I would hear people who call themselves Communists buying into the human nature essentialist crap peddled by Rush Limbaugh and other wonderful sacks of right-wing shit. So humans are doomed to forever kill and rape each other? Really? I guess we might as well just think LGBTQ phobia will never cease either or racism or sexism or nationalism while we're at it.

The notion that there will be no murder in communism is really naive and dull class reductionism in my humble opinion.

So I've been called naive twice now and stupid once by people I assumed were progressive and accepting. What's next? I'll be called a faggot, like I've been my whole life? Maybe a dupe of the Jews, like your hero Bakunin would say? Yeah, I don't think I'm on board with your version of Communism, full of "people's prisons" "people's courts" and "people's insane asylums", that shit's for the birds. Luckily I can see your rather right-wing views are in the minority.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is just radlib rubbish masquerading as the latest in r-r-revolutionary thought; quite frankly, I might be delusional (obviously something is not right with me if I continue to post on this site), but what you want is the present society, only with "revolutionary" phraseology (although, given my other exchanges with you, "revolutionary" might be a bit generous).

Whatever mate, it's not "radlib" but whatever.

It's not an "imposed consequence of anti-social acts", whatever that means, but a measure for collective protection, no different in principle than restraining someone who is trying to kill you.

Doublespeak. "It's not war, it's sustained hostility between armed parties" or something.

It does not constitute government over men, a term you put in quotation marks -

Because I was... quoting?

could it be that you aren't familiar with the distinction Engels makes between government over men and the administration of things?

No... Because I've quoted Engels many times on that (even before I was a Marxist: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=38 ), also enough to know you quoted him wrongly. "the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things"

It seems difficult to believe - more likely is that this distinction is completely incompatible with what you want, "red mental hospitals" and all.

It's not difficult, it's not. But whatever, you advocate for severely schizophrenic serial killers to roam freely in communism. The communities in communism will not, and since their will is the product of definite social relations and their environment as well, you cannot prevent them from doing it, as per determinism... or something.

Apparently you aren't going to answer seriously. I can't say I'm surprised by that.

Convenient for you to interpret it that way.

How do you figure? It's literally idealistic to think murder and rape are somehow separable from the social relations we live with, products of bad morals or bad genes or whatever other right-wing garbage being pushed these days. It's no wonder you have Bevis and Buttbrain as your avatar.

No it's not "literally idealist". Material conditions work in concert with nature.

So I've been called naive twice now and stupid once by people I assumed were progressive and accepting. What's next? I'll be called a faggot, like I've been my whole life? Maybe a dupe of the Jews, like your hero Bakunin would say? Yeah, I don't think I'm on board with your version of Communism, full of "people's prisons" "people's courts" and "people's insane asylums", that shit's for the birds. Luckily I can see your rather right-wing views are in the minority.

Boohoo. As if being called naive for the naive belief that murder will cease in its entirely, as opposed to being severely reduced, is on par with being called a faggot. Instead of throwing a tantrum to evade the burden of proof, do you have any reason to presuppose that murder will cease? Especially given that homicide in egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands was relatively common.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23340252

Cut off from modern life and surviving off wild plants and animals, these groups live like the hunter gatherers of thousands of years ago.

"They are the kind of societies that don't really rely on agriculture or domestic animals - they are primitive societies," explained Mr Soderberg.

"About 12,000 years ago, we assume all humans were living in this kind of society, and that these kind of societies made up about for about 90% of our evolutionary path."

Using the modern tribes as an analogy for earlier society, the researchers looked at cases where violent deaths had been documented.

They found 148 such deaths but very few were caused by war.

"Most of these incidents of lethal aggression were what we call homicides, a few were feuds and only the minority could be labelled as war," Mr Soderberg said.

"Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."

Most of the killings were driven by personal motives, he added, such as family feuds or adultery.

The researchers admitted that modern communities were not a perfect model for ancient societies, but said the similarities were significant and did provide an insight into our past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23340252

I do find the belief that communism will not have murder, rape, assault, conflict, fights, depression, mental illness, violence is naive and inaccurate (and class reductionist). But so far I've not seen any argument to support this, instead I've seen buzzwords and tantrums thrown around. So whatever mate. Continue with this self-delusion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whatever mate, it's not "radlib" but whatever.

Oh come on. You want "council courts" to act as dispute mediators on the basis of "customary law", throw in some fair trade organic chocolate and a reference to the Zapatistas and we can have you published by Lawrence and Wishart.

Doublespeak. "It's not war, it's sustained hostility between armed parties" or something.

Except I have explained the difference several times now. Isolation is not supposed to be a punishment but a security measure. If there is no significant risk of further killing, no isolation would be imposed.

Because I was... quoting?

Fair enough.

No... Because I've quoted Engels many times on that (even before I was a Marxist: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=38 ), also enough to know you quoted him wrongly. "the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things"

If you're going to be smug, at least be right. Either phrase is a translation from the original German, or French depending on the translation, and both are used. Perhaps the "persons" translation is used more widely; I wouldn't know. But needless to say, the meaning of both phrases is the same.

It's not difficult, it's not. But whatever, you advocate for severely schizophrenic serial killers to roam freely in communism.

Oh, no, we can't have that, can we "comrade"? Better ship those loons to our communist mental hospitals, or perhaps it is our communist police that should do so?

Obviously any investigation into the link between mental "illness" (perhaps we also need a communist DSM), killing etc. and class society is "idealist", as are attempts to address whatever difficulties people might be having in a socialist manner.

Here is the crux of the issue: Marxists, which you are not, realise that a change in the economic basis of society means a profound change in the superstructure. Communism is not just the negation of capitalism but also of class society in general, and of any sort of scarcity, rationing, competition etc. We want to smash the dross of class society - you want it all to remain, but on the basis of some Proudhonian pipe-dream about independent decentralised communes negotiating with one another. In short, yes, you are among the most right-wing members here, even if you habitually pat yourself on the back over how r-r-revolutionary you are.

Sure.

You were asked to substantiate your statement, you just restated it. I mean, fine. This way it's pretty obvious how bankrupt your position is.

edit: Oh, and not only were many, if not most, present hunter-gatherer societies pastoralists at some point in their evolution, primitive communism is defined by scarcity and precarity of life, which obviously communism in the strict sense will not be. The fact that you defend some sort of (presumably human) "nature" speaks volumes, in any case.

[QueerVanguard]

No it's not "literally idealist". Material conditions work in concert with nature.

There's that human nature assumption again. Seriously, put down the Peven Stinker and pick up the Marx and Engels, you're embarrassing yourself with that right-wing crap masquerading as "science".

Boohoo. As if being called naive for the naive belief that murder will cease in its entirely, as opposed to being severely reduced, is on par with being called a faggot. Instead of throwing a tantrum to evade the burden of proof, do you have any reason to presuppose that murder will cease? Especially given that homicide in egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands was relatively common.

Are you fucking kidding me right now? "Boohoo" "throwing tantrums" Uh, are you just completely oblivious to how indistinguishable that kind of language is from shit like "man up fag**t, you're acting like a hysterical woman"? What brought you to Communism, exactly? You were like a Fascist once upon a time and heard Glenn Beck say Communism was the same thing? Honestly, get a clue. I know it must be real tough being a privileged white cis gendered male (I'm amusing you are by your condescending posts, if you're not I apologize) and having to talk with we lowly queer POCs, but at least try to check how you talk to people from oppressed groups.

And for all your bullshit statistics about tribes killing people, who cares? I mean, really. It was called Primitive Communism for a reason. I know that non-Marxists like you reject that class societies were ever a progressive force, but the truth is they have been in many ways. We act *somewhat* more civil now and Communism is going to complete the process. That's pretty much what every Marxist I've ever read believed and it happens to be what I believe. But if you want to think rape, nationalism, murder, racism and sexism are here to stay because of our fallen "human nature" have at it hoss, just don't expect me to fight for a future consisting of your "people's prisons"

[Thirsty Crow]

H
Wow, I'm at a loss. Really. Never in a million years would I think I would hear people who call themselves Communists buying into the human nature essentialist crap peddled by Rush Limbaugh and other wonderful sacks of right-wing shit. So humans are doomed to forever kill and rape each other? Really? I guess we might as well just think LGBTQ phobia will never cease either or racism or sexism or nationalism while we're at it.

How about you drop this inane moral outrage pose and really stop with the bullshit pseudo-arguments?

Or you can, you know, show me where I refer to any such thing as human nature. Or, address the argument at hand, that your understanding of the relationship between capital and anti-social acts which aren't at all immediate products of the former is wrong. How about making any of these and stop cowardly hiding behind what is a logical fallacy - guilt by association.

But yeah, I see you're good at it since you've also tried to associate what Tim says with homophobia and sexism.

And while I'm at it, I think it is ridiculous to expect a complete elimination of such types of behavior. Cause, you know, shit happens. Yes, this is literally my stance on this - shit happens. I'd say it is very likely that such behavior would happen on a much, much smaller scale than now. This, of course. But to pretend that this can magically be swept away entirely - that not a single person could ever be able to commit murder - is, what exactly, theology draped in radical rhetoric, or merely foolish?

[QueerVanguard]

How about you drop this inane moral outrage pose and really stop with the bullshit pseudo-arguments?

There's nothing moral about it. Unlike some of the Proudhonists around here, I don't subscribe to any moral code. I fight for my interests as a POC queer worker, full stop. Any outrage I have is out of those interests and those alone.

Or you can, you know, show me where I refer to any such thing as human nature.

It's implicit in your argument, can't you see? If murder, nationalism, sexism, racism, rape and every other piece of crap behavior we see today is not derived from our social relations then it has to either be the result of crappy morals or a fallen human nature and if you happen to believe its one or both of the last two, you're in league with such "revolutionary" thinkers as Joseph de Maistre, Edmund Burke and co. Pick a side.

Or, address the argument at hand, that your understanding of the relationship between capital and anti-social acts which aren't at all immediate products of the former is wrong. How about making any of these and stop cowardly hiding behind what is a logical fallacy - guilt by association.

My understand is materialist, yours is idealist, that's all I need to know. It's duly noted that you think materialism, and by extension Marxism, is wrong on this.

But yeah, I see you're good at it since you've also tried to associate what Tim says with homophobia and sexism.

When someone is acting transphobic and sexist, you can damn well bet I'm going to call them out on it and you would do well to do the same thing if liberation from oppression means anything to you.

And while I'm at it, I think it is ridiculous to expect a complete elimination of such types of behavior. Cause, you know, shit happens. Yes, this is literally my stance on this - shit happens. I'd say it is very likely that such behavior would happen on a much, much smaller scale than now. This, of course. But to pretend that this can magically be swept away entirely - that not a single person could ever be able to commit murder - is, what exactly, theology draped in radical rhetoric, or merely foolish?

"Shit happens" Proudhonian idealism or Marxist materialism? Yeah, I think I'll go with Marxist materialism. Have fun running your "people's prisons" in your "people's nation" consisting of sexists, racists and the like, because, you know, "human nature" and all that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Oh come on. You want "council courts" to act as dispute mediators on the basis of "customary law", throw in some fair trade organic chocolate and a reference to the Zapatistas and we can have you published by Lawrence and Wishart.

I don't have the absurd illusion of the absence of conflict in communism I'm a "radlib", is that it? Because you appear to believe that there will be conflict (hence you advocating imposing isolation on individuals) and if there is conflict then it'd be wise to use conflict resolution methods, which is essentially a form of customary law. And again, I'm basing this on the experience of primitive communism, which is apparently liberal for their customary law.

Except I have explained the difference several times now. Isolation is not supposed to be a punishment but a security measure.

This doesn't address my point of doublespeak (that is to say, there's no difference except in semantics). What you advocate is isolation imposed by some organ or someone only when there's a (large) risk of recidivism. What you accuse me of is wanting to impose things ("government over man"), yet you want exactly the same things. But somehow I'm a "radlib" for it. It just seems that you think that you advocating imposed consequences (isolation in this case) is different because it's you advocating it, and somehow I'm liberal for it.

If there is no significant risk of further killing, no isolation would be imposed.

And again we do not differ on this at all, yet I'm the liberal and you are the revolutionary.

If you're going to be smug, at least be right. Either phrase is a translation from the original German, or French depending on the translation, and both are used. Perhaps the "persons" translation is used more widely; I wouldn't know. But needless to say, the meaning of both phrases is the same.

I don't think I was being smug. But allow me to me smug (and correct) now after all: the English translation ("government of persons") does not differ from the German text: "An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen." "Regierung über Personen" is translated as government of persons as 'über' can be translated as of.

Oh, no, we can't have that, can we "comrade"? Better ship those loons to our communist mental hospitals, or perhaps it is our communist police that should do so?

Oh, no, we can't have that, can we "comrade"? Better ship those loons to our communist exiled islands or isolated places in the middle of nowhere, or perhaps it is our communist police that should do so?

Basically your problem is is that I want there to be mental hospitals for mentally ill criminals, while you do not believe there will be such mentally ill people. Then what's the fucking problem? I want an institution for a problem you do not conceive will exist. If you're right, then obviously there wont be such an institution. If I'm right, I'm sure you'd want isolation and care of these individuals, as you suggested yourself! For fuck's sake.

Obviously any investigation into the link between mental "illness" (perhaps we also need a communist DSV), killing etc. and class society is "idealist", as are attempts to address whatever difficulties people might be having in a socialist manner.

Not really, as the mental health of hunter-gatherers has been investigated and concluded that their mental and physical health is superior, but not perfect obviously. You seem to be under the impression that communism will create a superman.

Here is the crux of the issue: Marxists, which you are not,

realise that a change in the economic basis of society means a profound change in the superstructure.

Yeah no shit.

Communism is not just the negation of capitalism but also of class society in general, and of any sort of scarcity, rationing, competition etc. We want to smash the dross of class society - you want it all to remain, but on the basis of some Proudhonian pipe-dream about independent decentralised communes negotiating with one another.

I never advocated this, in fact I explicitly said I did not. Rather I described the voluntary centralism of Leninism as decentralised. This pertains to semantics, not the content of the argument.

In short, yes, you are among the most right-wing members here, even if you habitually pat yourself on the back over how r-r-revolutionary you are.

I'm only 'amongst the right-wing members here' if you ignore all the bourgeois-socialists and accept the strawman you created to pat yourself on the back to front as more r-r-revolutionary than me. Do you really want to 'win' an argument through these disingenuous methods?

You were asked to substantiate your statement, you just restated it. I mean, fine. This way it's pretty obvious how bankrupt your position is.

It's self-explanatory.

edit: Oh, and not only were many, if not most, present hunter-gatherer societies pastoralists at some point in their evolution, primitive communism is defined by scarcity and precarity of life, which obviously communism in the strict sense will not be. The fact that you defend some sort of (presumably human) "nature" speaks volumes, in any case.

This is not an argument.

There's that human nature assumption again. Seriously, put down the Peven Stinker and pick up the Marx and Engels, you're embarrassing yourself with that right-wing crap masquerading as "science".

Nor is this an argument. Your "science" does not rely on empirical evidence but on tantrums and the like, not really science.

Are you fucking kidding me right now? "Boohoo" "throwing tantrums" Uh, are you just completely oblivious to how indistinguishable that kind of language is from shit like "man up fag**t, you're acting like a hysterical woman"?

Boo-fucking-hoo. I thought you were a man up until a second ago. But I guess you have your excuse now to again not address my point by throwing a tantrum again.

What brought you to Communism, exactly? You were like a Fascist once upon a time and heard Glenn Beck say Communism was the same thing? Honestly, get a clue. I know it must be real tough being a privileged white cis gendered male (I'm amusing you are by your condescending posts, if you're not I apologize) and having to talk with we lowly queer POCs, but at least try to check how you talk to people from oppressed groups.

Loooooool. Are you for real? Are you kidding? Are you really going down this road? Are you really? Are you really going to pretend this all about me being a privileged white cis gendered male oppressing scum? Fuck off and grow up (oops ageism), stop pretending to be a victim of me even though I didn't know you two were queer or women or poc. It couldn't have factored into this. Stop acting so pathetically because it really is, this needless victimisation, so you don't have to address me because "I'm the oh-so-sad victim of sexism and racism and homophobia of Tim Cornelis".

And for all your bullshit statistics about tribes killing people, who cares?

Well you claim to be "scientific" so... I doubt you know what it is or the implications of it, at least, and use "science" as empty phraseology so you can 'proof' you're right without annoying things like actual evidence.

I mean, really. It was called Primitive Communism for a reason.

That's really lazy, and inaccurate. It was called primitive communism because didn't have productive forces, not because it had uncivil human conduct.

I know that non-Marxists like you reject that class societies were ever a progressive force,

You 'know' wrong. You seem to be in the business of assuming bullshit really, as compensation for your lack of arguments it appears. I do not deny that different stages of development carried within seeds for progress.

but the truth is they have been in many ways. We act *somewhat* more civil now and Communism is going to complete the process.

You have made zero arguments to back this up (yet claim to be scientific).

That's pretty much what every Marxist I've ever read believed and it happens to be what I believe.

That sounds like faith, more than science. You can believe what you want, but the burden of proof is on you, and have shown none. You have given no arguments and no reasons, other than "hurrr, read Marx!".

But if you want to think rape, nationalism, murder, racism and sexism are here to stay because of our fallen "human nature" have at it hoss, just don't expect me to fight for a future consisting of your "people's prisons"

Again with these bullshit assumptions you and Vincent West make, or strawmen. Yes murder will continue to exist. I said nothing about the rest, nor about the existence of prisons. But anything to frame this favourably to you huh.

To summarise: you have no basis for the belief that murder will cease completely in communism and you bullshit around the issue trying to make it about you being a victim of sexism and making up bullshit about me. Fuck off really.

[Tim Cornelis]

Really, this thread is fucking idiotic. What I've been accused of in this thread for/after advocating dispute resolution by volunteers and mental hospitals: a fascist, a liberal, a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a right-winger, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist. For fuck's sake, this is utterly ridiculous.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's implicit in your argument, can't you see?

It is not an I'll show you how this is the case.

If murder, nationalism, sexism, racism, rape and every other piece of crap behavior we see today is not derived from our social relations then it has to either be the result of crappy morals or a fallen human nature and if you happen to believe its one or both of the last two, you're in league with such "revolutionary" thinkers as Joseph de Maistre, Edmund Burke and co. Pick a side.

You're arguing from the assumed standpoint of necessarily pinpointing some kind of a cause to such behavior in postulated communism.

I, on the other hand, quite literally say shit happens, which also means that I do not advance any kind of an idea of the ultimate underlying cause. I completely reject this underlying approach and merely say that I think one can say reasonably that isolated, sporadic acts like this are likely to occur. There is nothing rotten about some mystical "human nature", but folks can make the wrong call in a split second time.

At best you can dissect this complex web of multi-causality for some possible and immediate social therapy, as I don't think that the purpose to dealing with anti-social behavior is punishment, but making sure that it stops all the while fully integrating the person into society.

My understand is materialist, yours is idealist, that's all I need to know.

Yeah, it's more likely you really need to validate your own position no matter the debate at hand. And quite honestly, you can't even do that with style, but instead act like an obnoxious prick. But I bet you feel god abut yourself, so hey it's all fine, do what you need to do.

When someone is acting transphobic and sexist, you can damn well bet I'm going to call them out on it and you would do well to do the same thing if liberation from oppression means anything to you.

Oh now we've even cross the line of boasting about adhering to Marxism and materialism, so c'mon, why don't you take this to its conclusion and proclaim I do indeed stand against liberation from oppression?

As for my reaction, I can only repeat myself. Obnoxious prick, yeah, that would be it

"Shit happens" Proudhonian idealism or Marxist materialism?

Hm, that's interesting, it seems that the final verdict is I'm a Proudhonist idealist reactionary.

I need to modify that initial judgement, and say you can be quite amusing, I hope you'll stick around.

Really, this thread is fucking idiotic. What I've been accused of in this thread for/after advocating dispute resolution by volunteers and mental hospitals: a fascist, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a right-winger, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist. For fuck's sake, this is utterly ridiculous.

I always had a thing for comedy bordering on absurdism, seems you're not so lucky after all

[Loony Le Fist]

Are police any more duty bound to protect private property than they are people? Like if burglars try to break into my factory and the police don't respond properly are they legally accountable?

No. Frankly, I'm more concerned that they aren't duty bound to respond to citizens in immediate danger, than mere property.

Anyway, that is alarming, I would have thought police would have more of a duty of care, given that normal citizens can have a duty of care.

I don't know what the situation is with citizens. However, it is clear that police (in the US) have absolutely no duty to protect citizens. There are several cases that demonstrate this.

But in a way I can see the logic behind it. If you could sue every time a police officer screwed up it would open up a pretty big can of worms.

This isn't about screwing up and lawsuits. They simply do not have a duty to protect. This means every 911 call is ended with the lie. "Help is on the way."

Police are already immune from prosecution in the US, while acting on duty and in good faith. Also, the court testimony of an officer takes precedence over a regular citizen. In addition to this protection, they have no duty to protect.

[Tim Cornelis]

Hm, that's interesting, it seems that the final verdict is I'm a Proudhonist idealist reactionary.

Ah, reactionary, I forgot that one (added).

[Remus Bleys]

Tim you pull this shit all the fucking time.
Tim: "Your analysis is wrong"
Someone else: "Why?"
Tim: "Because it is wrong" or "It is wrong"
Someone else: "Well, that's not much of an elaboration"
Tim: "Of course you would say that. *Grammar/Spelling Correction, because that helps my argument"
Honestly I just picture you smugly typing on your computer about how fucking smart you are and then never elaborating or going in depth on why you are correct because secretly you know it's shit.

[Tim Cornelis]

Tim you pull this shit all the fucking time.
Tim: "Your analysis is wrong"
Someone else: "Why?"
Tim: "Because it is wrong" or "It is wrong"
Someone else: "Well, that's not much of an elaboration"
Tim: "Of course you would say that. *Grammar/Spelling Correction, because that helps my argument"
Honestly I just picture you smugly typing on your computer about how fucking smart you are and then never elaborating or going in depth on why you are correct because secretly you know it's shit.

What the fuck? It's exactly the other way around! Have you read this thread even?

(now I admit that my writing style makes me come across as smug but that's just how I write, and don't think you know me, mmmk).

[Remus Bleys]

What the fuck? It's exactly the other way around!

you literally went "You are ignoring the human agency" "Elaborate?" "By ignoring the human agency" "Thats a terrible elaboration" "Of course you would take it this way"
Like Jesus tim, I don't even know how to respond to that. You aren't revealing your criticism with anything but your authority. You're a smart guy and all but you never explicitly state how someone is doing something, just that they are. As such, how can that person respond to you? How can anyone respond to your criticisms if you keep them secret? (note that I don't really correct people's grammar)

[QueerVanguard]

Nor is this an argument. Your "science" does not rely on empirical evidence but on tantrums and the like, not really science.

Marxists aren't empiricists, we're dialecticians, that's what separates us from bourgeois social scientists and Utopian Socialists and it's one of the reasons we can be certain things like murder and rape aren't these timeless forces people like you think they are. Empirical findings conceals a deeper, dialectical reality that people like you just refuse to accept.

Boo-fucking-hoo. I thought you were a man up until a second ago. But I guess you have your excuse now to again not address my point by throwing a tantrum again.

How convenient for you. You'd think the word QUEER in my screen name would be a sign to you that I don't identify as a male, or maybe the fact I *explicitly stated* in my intro post that I'm a transsexual female would be a clue. And the lame excuse you "didn't know" is eerily similar to the "oh, but I have black friends!" kinda shit or "if she didn't want that attention she shouldn't have been wearing that".

Loooooool. Are you for real? Are you kidding? Are you really going down this road? Are you really? Are you really going to pretend this all about me being a privileged white cis gendered male oppressing scum? Fuck off and grow up (oops ageism), stop pretending to be a victim of me even though I didn't know you two were queer or women or poc. It couldn't have factored into this. Stop acting so pathetically because it really is, this needless victimisation, so you don't have to address me because "I'm the oh-so-sad victim of sexism and racism and homophobia of Tim Cornelis".

Here we go with more of the "hysterical" "whiny" "over sensitive fa**ot" crap I've been having to put up with my whole life, again. Even if you didn't know, which is a bunch of crap for the reasons I just listed, it's no excuse. Your entire demeanor reeks of white cis privilege, from you condescending tone to your refusal to accept when you're wrong. That's just my .02 cents, take it for what it's worth. But I will say this, I'm not just gonna shut up and take whatever you dish out to me just because you think you're entitled to my subordination. Dream on.

That's really lazy, and inaccurate. It was called primitive communism because didn't have productive forces, not because it had uncivil human conduct.

It was both.

You 'know' wrong. You seem to be in the business of assuming bullshit really, as compensation for your lack of arguments it appears. I do not deny that different stages of development carried within seeds for progress.

Uh huh.

You have made zero arguments to back this up (yet claim to be scientific).

That sounds like faith, more than science. You can believe what you want, but the burden of proof is on you, and have shown none. You have given no arguments and no reasons, other than "hurrr, read Marx!".

Again with these bullshit assumptions you and Vincent West make, or strawmen. Yes murder will continue to exist. I said nothing about the rest, nor about the existence of prisons. But anything to frame this favourably to you huh.

You brought up no reason to think racism, nationalism, sexism, rape and all the other shit we deal with today would end with Communism either. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe those things aren't permanent parts of "human nature" that we'll have to deal with after crapitalism is over, So why do you think murder is this crazy exception? Why is everything else dialectically material *but* murder?

Fuck off really.

Right back at ya, buddy.

You're arguing from the assumed standpoint of necessarily pinpointing some kind of a cause to such behavior in postulated communism.

Every effect has to have a cause, right?

I, on the other hand, quite literally say shit happens, which also means that I do not advance any kind of an idea of the ultimate underlying cause. I completely reject this underlying approach and merely say that I think one can say reasonably that isolated, sporadic acts like this are likely to occur. There is nothing rotten about some mystical "human nature", but folks can make the wrong call in a split second time.

Murder isn't something like dropping a pen, we're not talking about accidental death/man slaughter, but literal intentional murder. Something causes it and it ain't human nature or bad morals or Martians sending electromagnetic brain-altering waves from outerspace. It's alienation, it's exploitation, it's oppression; it's nationalism, class society, it's racism, commodity production, sexism: in a word, it's capitalism.

At best you can dissect this complex web of multi-causality for some possible and immediate social therapy, as I don't think that the purpose to dealing with anti-social behavior is punishment, but making sure that it stops all the while fully integrating the person into society.

You want to punish people for things they have no control over with "people's courts" and "people's police" like lil' Timmy wants to do, whereas I say we shouldn't lock up or discipline people for actions they have no control over. The good news is that after a couple of generations in a liberated society, such rotten behavior will be done for. But the revolutionary position is and always has been the elimination of courts, prisons and police full stop. No ands, ifs or buts about it.

but instead act like an obnoxious prick.

Back with insults again. Really good. Keep it up, I'm sure you have some real doozies you've picked up around folks like Tim.

Oh now we've even cross the line of boasting about adhering to Marxism and materialism, so c'mon, why don't you take this to its conclusion and proclaim I do indeed stand against liberation from oppression?

Maybe you are against liberation and ending oppression, maybe you aren't. I can't comment on that, only on your idealist assumptions.

Hm, that's interesting, it seems that the final verdict is I'm a Proudhonist idealist reactionary.

More or less, but it's not like you can't drop all that crap and come to the right side of the struggle.

[Tim Cornelis]

you literally went "You are ignoring the human agency" "Elaborate?" "By ignoring the human agency" "Thats a terrible elaboration" "Of course you would take it this way"
Like Jesus tim, I don't even know how to respond to that. You aren't revealing your criticism with anything but your authority. You're a smart guy and all but you never explicitly state how someone is doing something, just that they are. As such, how can that person respond to you? How can anyone respond to your criticisms if you keep them secret? (note that I don't really correct people's grammar)

Because I think it should be self-explanatory. Okay, maybe my elaboration was scanty, and that one time I said I didn't want to derail the thread but I made a side comment anyway was stupid. But it's fucking bullshit I never explain myself. If I look at a recent thread then I clearly demonstrate my case with arguments thoroughly.

[Loony Le Fist]

I know this really wasn't directed towards me, but your post made me think of some questions.

Marxists aren't empiricists, we're dialecticians, that's what separates us from bourgeois social scientists and Utopian Socialists and it's one of the reasons we can be certain things like murder and rape aren't these timeless forces people like you think they are. Empirical findings conceals a deeper, dialectical reality that people like you just refuse to accept.

Are you claiming that murder and rape are the result of social structure? I agree that in the majority of cases this is true. It does not cover all the cases, however.

You brought up no reason to think racism, nationalism, sexism, rape and all the other shit we deal with today would end with Communism either. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe those things aren't permanent parts of "human nature" that we'll have to deal with after crapitalism is over, So why do you think murder is this crazy exception? Why is everything else dialectically material *but* murder?

Do you think that racism, nationalism, sexism and rape would end with communism? Why would that be?

Murder isn't something like dropping a pen, we're not talking about accidental death/man slaughter, but literal intentional murder. Something causes it and it ain't human nature or bad morals or Martians sending electromagnetic brain-altering waves from outerspace. It's alienation, it's exploitation, it's oppression; it's nationalism, class society, it's racism, commodity production, sexism: in a word, it's capitalism.

Sometimes murder is passion or mental illness. How would classless society rid us of these?

You want to punish people for things they have no control over with "people's courts" and "people's police" like lil' Timmy wants to do, whereas I say we shouldn't lock up or discipline people for actions they have no control over. The good news is that after a couple of generations in a liberated society, such rotten behavior will be done for. But the revolutionary position is and always has been the elimination of courts, prisons and police full stop. No ands, ifs or buts about it.

The current justice system is completely flawed. It has also been applied in the most brutal way to deal out a de facto genocide powered by the death penalty. All one has to do is simply look at the statistics. In Florida, there has never been a single white person executed for a conviction of murdering a black person. Yet, in every case where a black person has been convicted of killing a white person, the death penalty has been applied. This strongly hints that the system is designed to murder poor and undesirable people, and profit from that. Not to meet out justice.

While I think there might be many fewer incidents of such, there would still be murder and insurrections. We would need a way to hold people responsible for these things. It makes sense to have trials, and have juries to convict people of crimes. In fact, without money involved in the process, courts would be more fair places. I would not be in favor of simply murdering those that would seek to cause harm. I am for capturing and having a jury convict them and another one meeting out pennace. Not for the sake of punishing the person, but rather to protect society. Nonetheless, I'm sure under communism, this would probably be a rare occurrence.

[QueerVanguard]

I know this really wasn't directed towards me, but your post made me think of some questions.



Are you claiming that murder and rape are the result of social structure? I agree that in the majority of cases this is true. It does not cover all the cases, however.

What makes these exceptions you have in mind special?

Do you think that racism, nationalism, sexism and rape would end with communism? Why would that be?

Of course I do, because I'm a dialectical materialism which means I understand that no current human behavior or practice is static and non-historical, all are changing and subject to being transcended.

Sometimes murder is passion or mental illness. How would classless society rid us of these?

Mental illness will end once alienation does, flawed genes don't cause this, flawed social relations derived from our mode of production do. As for these crimes of passion people go on about, they are the product of patriarchy and sexism which are themselves part of capitalist social relations. All the cases involve jealous people murdering their "unfaithful" spouses because the patriarchy has instilled in people a sense of monogamous proprietorship in the people they have sex with. Once the bourgeois family is exterminated in Communism polyamory will be the order of the day and we will no longer see people possessive to the point of murdering their lovers.

While I think there might be many fewer incidents of such, there would still be murder and insurrections. We would need a way to hold people responsible for these things. It makes sense to have trials, and have juries to convict people of crimes. In fact, without money involved in the process, courts would be more fair places. I would not be in favor of simply murdering those that would seek to cause harm. I am for capturing and having a jury convict them and another one meeting out pennace. Not for the sake of punishing the person, but rather to protect society. Nonetheless, I'm sure under communism, this would probably be a rare occurrence.

So you're not for true statelessness then, I guess you don't really think Communism is possible in that case.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxists aren't empiricists, we're dialecticians, that's what separates us from bourgeois social scientists and Utopian Socialists and it's one of the reasons we can be certain things like murder and rape aren't these timeless forces people like you think they are. Empirical findings conceals a deeper, dialectical reality that people like you just refuse to accept.

You have not demonstrated it either way. You can't go "dialectics" and expect me to come around to your position. I reckon that social ills like murder will drastically decrease, and that this is contingent on the development of socialism, and I find this sufficiently 'dialectical' if you will, in that I do not see the present murder epidemic, varying in intensity around the world, as timeless force and you have no shown why it's not 'dialectically enough'.

How convenient for you. You'd think the word QUEER in my screen name would be a sign to you that I don't identify as a male, or maybe the fact I *explicitly stated* in my intro post that I'm a transsexual female would be a clue. And the lame excuse you "didn't know" is eerily similar to the "oh, but I have black friends!" kinda shit or "if she didn't want that attention she shouldn't have been wearing that".

First, I'm a visual person and identify people foremost by their avatars. In fact, I mistook Vincent West for bricolage initially (until I took a closer look) as Vincent West has apparently recently changed his avatar to something with similar colours: http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=24076
Second, queer doesn't necessarily refer to gender.
Third, I don't read every fucking introduction and I had never heard of you until this thread.
Fourth, I called you mate.

Here we go with more of the "hysterical" "whiny" "over sensitive fa**ot" crap I've been having to put up with my whole life, again. Even if you didn't know, which is a bunch of crap for the reasons I just listed, it's no excuse. Your entire demeanor reeks of white cis privilege, from you condescending tone to your refusal to accept when you're wrong. That's just my .02 cents, take it for what it's worth. But I will say this, I'm not just gonna shut up and take whatever you dish out to me just because you think you're entitled to my subordination. Dream on.

Oh fuck you with you trying to frame me as sexist and whatnot. I'm condescending to everyone. I called 'white cis gendered male' Sinister Intents hysterical recently. It has fucking nothing to do with gender or shit. And I'll tell you what I'll tell him: you don't want to be called hysterical, don't act like it. And listen, I am always willing to challenge myself, when I interject a woman I wonder if I would've done the same if it were a man, I even changed the way I fucking sit in public transportation because of that campaign by Swedish feminists, perhaps you know. If there's any residual sexism, which there probably is, in me I'm not the person that'll deny it no matter what. So don't fucking come up with this bullshit that I'm sexist without knowing your gender, sex, or gender identity, don't give me bullshit about me being racist without knowing your skin colour, or any of this fucking bullshit. You cannot substantiate it.

I'm not asking you to shut up because I expect submission, I'm asking you to shut up because you are acting like a fool.

You brought up no reason to think racism, nationalism, sexism, rape and all the other shit we deal with today would end with Communism either.

Ha, what? So 'innocent until proven guilty'. Hey, you didn't explicitly mention fascism, so you think fascism will exist after the revolution or what?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe those things aren't permanent parts of "human nature" that we'll have to deal with after crapitalism is over, So why do you think murder is this crazy exception? Why is everything else dialectically material *but* murder?

Racism is contingent on class: darker skin colour is associated with lower class as working the field 'tans' you; furthermore, much racism stems from the idea that Africans or Arabs are lazy or freeloaders given their lower socio-economic background (which stems from the just world phenomenon, a psychological phenomenon whose existence is due to trying to cope with injustice brought forth by capitalism). Sinophobia and Antisemitism stem from the high socio-economic positions of these groups.
Nationalism's existence is contingent on the existence of the nation-state, without central minority control over society the basis for nationalism is gone and it will disappear after one generation (the born free generation).
Rape can be seen as outgrow of institutionalised sexism, and with its disappearance so will rape.
Murder, presently, is due to financial incentives or indirectly related to capital (job loss, depression leading to murder-suicide), so will be greatly reduced. But many murders are not dependent on class society, as we can infer from hunter-gatherers whom killed frequently over feuds and adultery.

Right back at ya, buddy.

Well I would if you stopped with this character assassination.

You want to punish people for things they have no control over with "people's courts" and "people's police" like lil' Timmy wants to do, whereas I say we shouldn't lock up or discipline people for actions they have no control over. The good news is that after a couple of generations in a liberated society, such rotten behavior will be done for. But the revolutionary position is and always has been the elimination of courts, prisons and police full stop. No ands, ifs or buts about it.

I explicitly said there'd be rehabilitation not punishment, twice now.

Back with insults again. Really good. Keep it up, I'm sure you have some real doozies you've picked up around folks like Tim.

Your character assassination preceded insults. I wasn't hostile or antagonising before you began spewing bullshit.

And still you have given no reason why you think murders will disappear, except for 'dialectics' without explanation.

Of course I do, because I'm a dialectical materialism which means I understand that no current human behavior or practice is static and non-historical, all are changing and subject to being transcended.

This is not an answer why you believe it will disappear. You can't go "dialectics" to everything. I could say, hands will disappear in communism, everyone who disagrees is a reactionary. Why? Well dialectics my friend. As a dialectician I understand this, why can't you, are you some kind of Proudhonist? This has been the essence of your argument. And why? I guess because you base it on faith, you instinctively feel that as if murder will disappear, but you don't have any explicit argument to use to demonstrate this.

[Loony Le Fist]

Of course I do, because I'm a dialectical materialism which means I understand that no current human behavior or practice is static and non-historical, all are changing and subject to being transcended.

These things might be overcome. Communism would alleviate a large degree of the problems. Transcending these problems would not be immediate, however.

Mental illness will end once alienation does, flawed genes don't cause this,

I encourage you to look at the scientific data here. Genes do play a role in mental illness. However, social factors play an important role in their development as well.

...flawed social relations derived from our mode of production do.

They contribute to a very large degree.

As for these crimes of passion people go on about, they are the product of patriarchy and sexism which are themselves part of capitalist social relations. All the cases involve jealous people murdering their "unfaithful" spouses because the patriarchy has instilled in people a sense of monogamous proprietorship in the people they have sex with. Once the bourgeois family is exterminated in Communism polyamory will be the order of the day and we will no longer see people possessive to the point of murdering their lovers.

Well crimes of passion also include things like rage, and other impulses. How would a communist society simply eliminate those things?

It would be a move in the right direction, regardless.

So you're not for true statelessness then, I guess you don't really think Communism is possible in that case.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a state to have a trial by jury and presumption of innocence.