Results 41 to 60 of 210
The most important part of this post hahaha.
"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.
You seem like that annoying guy who is forced to leave a protest after receiving too many angry comments and stares from selling your newspapers and promoting your own agenda.
Last edited by G4b3n; 19th December 2014 at 20:20.
"The people have proved that they can run it... They (the pigs) can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that's gonna scare somebody, but it ain't gonna scare nobody" ― Fred Hampton
“Mao Zedong said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He never said that power was a gun. This is why I don't need no gun to do my thing. What I need is some freedom and the power to determine my destiny” ― Huey P. Newton
Can you imagine though, when I walk on stage in my ultimate warrior getup and lay the smackdown on this dude and his basement grade-avakianism?
Ultimate warrior was a white dude though so his persona might count as racism. But only on a white guy maybe
Man is but a goat in the hands of butchers
If you're a right wing reactionary bourgeois provacateur. And it's clear you both are.Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages
You're clearly a sick right wing reactionary. You and your buddies in this thread shouldn't even be allowed in the "Opposing Ideologies" forum, since you are clearly fascists.
If it's true as baldly apparent in this thread, then why not state the truth? Right wing ideology and positions are a mental illness. They are so especially when they make their point in the ugly, despicable way these hooligans have done.Originally Posted by Jimmie Higgins
OK, more than psychopathic, politically those in this tread who have a problem with denouncing police brutality and murder are right wing, reactionary fascists. Plain and simple.Originally Posted by Jimmie Higgins
They have no valid cover for their vile right wing opposition to the fact that I'm raising the point that police brutality and murder against minorities must be opposed, including as embodied in the specific case having to do with Michael Brown. And I'm pretty sure they'd have the same sick right wing response if I had focused on Eric Garner.
Except none of that is what we've said, we've said that the things you do actually enforce police brutality.
I have shown my opposition to the police and racism in my life and on the streets- you have written down a half-baked idea that insults people. Well done.
"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.
Because the masses objected & became outraged about this particular incident because of the blatant contradictions that were readily apparent about it.
What is your mass line?** I'm not asking you to tail some spontaneous outrage BUT, while you give lip-service to being opposed to the systematic nature of oppression here, you display a callous contempt for this particular victim for no apparent reason. Do you care about any proletarians getting gunned down? & do you integrate yourself into these communities? Are you investigating the conditions of the people first hand? Are you propagating your revolutionary "wisdom" to the masses at least? Or do you prefer to just snidely sit on the sidelines & pontificate? This is the attitude you seem to be reflecting here. & you're putting that out as something "correct" when it is actually dubious. That doesn't *help* the situation, does it?
**And I do expect an answer to that question.
As an aside, why are you proud to be calling yourself a "Traiter For All Ages" (and the correct spelling is "traitor" not "traiter")? It's a weird petite bourgeois hipster posing label, that gives no truly revolutionary person confidence in judging what you are about. It may titillate the bourgeois spy apparatus, but beyond that it's trash.Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages
To get back to the issue, my knowledge of Marxism from the beginning taught me that the main enemy to be dealt with for the initial seizure of power by the revolutionary proletariat are the controllers of the large monopoly capitalist firms. That is and should be for all revolutionaries, Revolutionary Strategy 101.
And yes that means in addition to the working class, white collar petite bourgeoisie professionals, and small and medium farmers, we should also unite with the owners of small and medium sized companies. So yes that is why I use the "99%" to describe the coalition that is the base for making socialist revolution.
Later as a part of ongoing communist socialization and revolutionization of society after the initial seizure of power, we will have to transform the non-proletarian classes and strata into proletarians, thus abolishing them as strata and classes that are different from the proletariat. The timing of that after the initial seizure of power will in large part be based upon the events and state of affairs regarding the socialization and revolutionization of society in general and also in particular the degree to which the base - mode of production - has been transformed. This will be an ongoing long term process after the initial seizure of power by the proletariat. And the key to this is the state of play of the struggle of the masses against the bourgeois capitalist roaders right in the party, the government and various key institutions that exist across all aspects of society (the centrality and focus on this latter struggle against the capitalist roaders thoughout society including the party is a key tenet of Maoist Marxism).
Not sure why I would post and introduce trolling ideas because of experience with Avakian. And by using your bizarre, anti-revolutionary, "Traiter For All Ages" moniker and stance in this thread, you are not nearly one I would look to for determining what is an actual communist position.Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient
Really? As a revolutionary arguing positions, that's what you just had to say? What a juvenile joke you are.Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient
Last edited by Tim Redd; 20th December 2014 at 04:05.
Lol, you do realize this is the internet, we are on a forum, and that a username doesn't mean shit?
God damn bruh, you're something special if you think its that big of a deal.
"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.
lol, yes doxxer is my yes-person.
Doxxer is pretty much one of the most contrarian posters here and I don't think agrees with many of my political views. But it's ok and I can respectfully disagree.
I didn't "allow" this to go on, I saw this thread and attempted to make an appeal in an informal way for people to take a breath.
Politically I don't think calling people names in general is very useful (but anyone can get heated and do it) but I really don't think that revolutionaries should ever casually minimize mental illness or use it as an insult because it does a disservice to a highly marginalized and often oppressed set of people. Struggles of mentally ill folks are part of the class struggle and the struggle against oppression since capitalist societies tend to categorize anyone who can't work at the pace set by capital are just thrown away usually. Not to mention all the emotional or psychological dis function caused by the stresses of repetitive alienated work and a fucked up competitive society.
Morally I just think it's gross to kick around people who have serious problems.
morality imo is subjective on a couple of different levels. I don't have a problem with people having their own moral sense for interactions. My argument against morality is that it is not a good political starting point and not politically useful.
The moralizing in this thread though backs up my claim. "If you don't agree with this line, then you must not give a shit about racism and are against the revolution!" Moralizing to cover and hide any real political debate. It's what dictators and petty tyrants do to silence debate: you're with us and our war and torture or you're with the terrorists.
Moralizing just bullies people, it dosn't allow for the growth of any real political culture or consciousness. Workers are not going to run society because someone tells them they are shitty people if they don't revolt.
Again, if you think the "line" in the article is valuable, then make a case. You won't get anywhere by name-calling and so on.
If a username doesn't mean s**t, then why use a name at all? Labeling yourself "Traiter For All Ages", would only be done by someone who doesn't take, making communist revolution and realizing a classless communist society through continuous revolution after the initial seizure of power by the proletariat, as a serious goal to be achieved. It's throws up mistrust and doubt in the revolutionary process.Originally Posted by [B
If you think a case has to made for the OP denouncing the nationally known case of police brutality and murder regarding Michael Brown and then notes that that police brutality and murder is a general phenomena across the U.S., I wonder how you can seriously call yourself a revolutionary.
because that's not true and this argument both minimalizes oppressed people in capitalist society who have serious problems and underestimates ruling class and petit-bourgeois ideologies.
Also it's not true that anyone here that I have read is in support of the police or racism. You are conflating people not being awed by the article or having criticisms of it with people disagreeing that oppression and repression exist!
Who here has a problem with dennunciations of racism or police brutality. People were criticizing the article for other things.
Ok, ok, ok let me take a different tack and let's try and reorient this thread back to the article.
Here are my criticisms:
1. For this audience, saying that there is a war on black folks in the u.s. And it must be opposed is kinda like going to an Ayn rand forum and saying "do you guys (likely all guys on that imaginary forum) know that a=a... Isn't that a great insight?"
2. While there is a continum of oppression of black folks in the u.s. (This is a good point brought up in the article and I'd argue that historically the oppression of blacks has been the keystone of keeping the class system in order) I think it's too broad to say that the contemporary system of control is a straight line back to slavery. There are commonalities in that both are systems of control and oppression for the state, but it's too broad to have practical value or understanding. In short, the modern police/prison system of oppression have unique mechanisms and features and challenges and poltential forms of resistance. This "line" dosn't arm anyone against modern racism or the ideas that bolster it ("post-racial America" and "law and order" racism).
3. Criticizing the "hands up, don't shoot" meme is a little silly imo and misses the Forrest for the trees. Young, multi-racial groups of people are standing up to police brutality, shutting down freeways in protest, shedding illusions in the justice system and the middle class black respectable "leaders". Rather than criticizing a protest meme that we don't have any influence over anyway, just seems a bit out of touch. The article says that protesters should be doing more, but then dosn't really give much practical advice.
4. The combination of a lack of any revealing insight on the one hand (to make it interesting or informative to this audience) combined with a lack of any practical ideas about how these activists might further things in a more radical and revolutionar direction has left the article useless for trying to make any political argument to revolutionaries or for convincing non-revolutionaries being drawn into protests that revolutionary politics are needed to effectively challenge racism.
no, a case has to be made for why this article is useful for either revolutionaries or activists who have already denounced racism and the police. Who is the audience for this article?
Because it makes identifying the folks who agree with you easier.
Also that is the way the forum software works.
You can't see that this is paranoid, or reading too much into the username, and also that its ridiculous to think this forum matters in the context of revolution?
"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.
Only "one of"?
:'(
"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.
Wait, what? Holy shit, Uma. Thanks for invalidating literally every other post you've made on this forum, it'll save us the time.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
so you want class colaboration with exploiters, with the small and middle bourgeoisie. who of course have no interest in a proletarian revolution as they have anything to loose and nothing to gain from that. and yet you try to bend over backwards to include these people.
what do you promise them? that their proberty wont the be socialisted after the revolution? that they can go on and exploit workers?
and what do you tell the workers who fight against the capitalist system? that they must fightt he big but not the small/middle cappies? that they should go back to work for their petit bouregoise bosses?
first you want to ally with capitalists and than you want to fight capitalists roaders. how about not letting capitalists in and let them dominate the revolution to begin with?
ah the irony. the sad thing that you dont realize is of course, the joke is you and many people on here have a good laugh because of you.
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!
Who on earth is "Tim Redd" and why does he think he has some kind of breakthrough "theory"?
