Results 21 to 40 of 210
Egotistic would be writing a couple of pages of text and then declaring an ideology named after yourself. You know, something akin to "Redd thought."
Why do you come here to shit-post, and perhaps more importantly why is that all you seem to be capable of doing?
Because they are incapable of any deeper thought. I suspect liberal or libertarian.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
Given that criticism of a web site was your first and only real concern at the time, you clearly have an issue setting priorities regarding the revolutionary struggle.
You and ravn (sock puppet?) really have trouble discerning between posting on an online forum and participation in 'the revolutionary struggle'. Posting on RevLeft does not constitute a 'revolutionary struggle' and it does not influence actual events, and certainly me posting from the Netherlands doesn't affect struggles in the USA. And since your post was obviously intended to reach 'the masses' how they will perceive it is definitely relevant. It's also not very well written in that regard. In multiple ways, you are out of touch with reality. I'm not sure what the cause is.
pew pew pew
for liberals maybe, for people who call themselfs communists and revolutionarys the denounceiation of the police as an institution and the protector of the bourgeois state(and many other things) should be the "correct line" to take, wouldnt you say?
from reading this thread, mostly because your posts are shit.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
Then why do you post here? You're trying to influence somebody. Where's your concern for police brutality & racist violence? It isn't all about *you*.
I think a significant amount of people post here to kill time while at work or in class. Its a discussion forum not a propaganda organ. Your last sentence doesn't make much sense as everyone seems to be in agreement with him while no one seems to be in agreement with you. You should lurk for a few weeks and get a feel for the community before trying to come in and dictate things.
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
It's not either/or.
A lot of you guys are obviously coming from a position of over-entitlement & superficiality.
OK, your turn ...
Those with negative remarks in this thread mainly about the OP poster are the same naysayers in nearly every thread on Refleft where they raise their voice.
In most cases when they post, it's an ad hominem attack. Their first impulse is to be negative rather than try to build and promote revolutionary theory and understanding.
They are clueless that when making revolution, the struggle against all exploitation and oppression is central and required in order to build the movement to seize power and to later abolish classes and realize communism.
They are petit-bourgeois wannabees who while not capable of really contributing positive revolutionary theory and agitation, bitterly and childishly post psychopathic and egotistical ad hominem against those who do.
I guess it should be expected that the bourgeoisie will attack revolutionary politics and its promoters in every way possible, including trying to create a poisonous atmosphere everywhere by those like the same psychopaths in this thread.
Can everyone cool the fuck down and also stop using accusations of mental illness as a slur?
If folks want to call eachother bourgeois, middle-class, or cultist, it's a little silly, but to be expected I guess. Play it silly, make political arguments, or just let the thread die a natural death please.
These are all baseless claims.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
Is it fair to assume that you don't give a fuck about Michael Brown? Is it fair to assume that social justice is a low priority for you given your incipient classist attitude expressed by your self-serving presumptions? This thread isn't about you & your narcissistic assessment of demographics. Your appeal to popularity noted. Your hypocritical demand for somebody else not to dictate things while you do so yourself noted. Since this is a political discussion group, then you're here, just like everybody else, to push some sort of line whether consciously or not.
It won't matter what your line is if you don't learn how to read a room; nobody's likely to hear it after they've booed you off the stage.
I understand you're feeling defensive because people didn't respond favorably to your post but moralistically attacking people doesn't really further a political discussion much. If people focused on surface things about the political arguments being made, it's probably because the articles main points were nothing new, practical, or useful for this audience. Some here might vaguely agree with some arguments or some might disagree with all the main arguments, but nothing much stood out and so the parts that people thought were odd became the focus of discussion.
If you think a political line is important, then convince people of it and why it is relevant to them. Name calling and moralistic appeals don't really work for that imo.
It won't matter what your line is if you don't learn how to read a room; nobody's likely to hear it after they've booed you off the stage.
I understand you're feeling defensive because people didn't respond favorably to your post but moralistically attacking people doesn't really further a political discussion much.
If people focused on surface things about the political arguments being made, it's probably because the articles main points were nothing new, practical, or useful for this audience. Some here might vaguely agree with some arguments or some might disagree with all the main arguments, but nothing much stood out and so the parts that people thought were odd became the focus of discussion.
If you think a political line is important, then convince people of it and why it is relevant to them. Name calling and moralistic appeals don't really work for that imo.
Is this forum ran by people with thin skins or what? It doesn't matter if "nobody" agrees with me. I'm an adult. I didn't come here to join some Mickey Mouse club. You were perfectly fine to allow people to call another poster crazy but you're apparently afraid of people who can articulate what's wrong with that & what's wrong with some of the thinking that goes on around here. So morality is an issue. There's a lack of it on this site.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ
This is a lie, JH was not OK with it. And for the record, I agree with him.
Wrong- there's too much.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
Then why did he let it go on this long? & now you want to go on the record to *now* agree with *him*. What a sycophant.
How can there be too much morality? Do you prefer nihilism? Or is it because of your incipient commitment to narcissism?
I for one do not give a fuck about Michael Brown. I don't know him. I don't care about him. Nor do I care about him in this specific context. Michael Brown is a completely interchangeable person to me.
What I care about is that what happened to Michael Brown, and happens to countless others, happened because of the systemic nature of white supremacy/racism and because of the state as an entity and because of class society and capitalism.
Michael Brown is a mere personification of this issue for me.
Nothing we do will help him. At all.
And why MB specifically? Why not random person #7568 who was beaten and tortured somewhere else or a few months ago or a few months in the future? MB has become a label...a face to the issue. Nothing more.
Yes it is incredibly fair to assume that social justice is a low priority. Social Justice inevitable serves as a justification for the status quo by leaving the superstructures that are the root cause of the problems in tact. I focus on the superstructures and my activism is aimed at achieving that through any means..up to an including lending support to social justice initiatives when this is strategically necessary to advance the priority of ending class society.
But social justice is inherrently something that is aimed at creating a "better place" based on bourgeois morality and ideology (human rights ect...ultimately the aims of SJ are the exact same or a continuation of the ideals French Revolution) within the current system.
I think you'll find that historically JH and I don't really care for o e another. Not that I despise JH or anything, just that we don't mesh.
Oh man, this is great.
I'm a nihilist, numb nuts.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
It wasn't a slur.
Last edited by Tim Cornelis; 19th December 2014 at 19:56.
pew pew pew
Ok I'm willing to engage reddthink seriously for a little while. Why does reddthink contain so many elements of liberalism, like references to "the 99%" and "corporatocracy"? What use is a concept like corporatocracy to a revolutionary movement? The same goes for "the 99%". I feel like I might be channeling rafiq a little here, but these concepts are rooted in a petit-bourgeois mindset. A term like corporatocracy is clearly meant to imply a hostility to big capitalists specifically, not capitalism as a whole. Implying, at best, a position of neutrality towards the small capitalist. Though in real world usage it is actually used explicitly in defense of small business as we all know. '99%' of America would also include small business owners, not to mention some number of big capitalists as well. Does the revolutionary proletariat share interests with small and big capitalists? Is that what your decades of revolutionary experience has taught you?
What use is this theory to anyone? Does timmy really expect us to believe that his theory represents the new hope for revolution when it actively sides, either intentionally or unintentionally, with capitalists? Either tim redd is a man so bitter over his supposed past experiences with bob avakian that he has taken to tolling the communist community online with his ridiculous angelfire-esque website, or he is so out of touch with reality he can't even formulate an actual communist position on anything. Regardless of which is actually true, tim redd is not a communist and his position on anything deserves as much attention as any other loudmouth on the internet arguing in favor of small businesses.
Fuck you tim redd, I want to fight you in a cage match.
Signed Elizabeth, Grade 4
Last edited by Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages; 19th December 2014 at 20:09.
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
