Can a society exist without religion?

[ziggyfish]

It's true, though, a person could be disabled and still have a 'thanks' button next to their post. Then they could state that they had some form of problem, and people might thank them as a result, because they get emotional about such things. If only that meant something, which it doesn't.

That is true ableism right there.

Have you not heard of Stephen Hawking? or these people?

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman...cle_0060.shtml

I knew I guy who was in a car accident, and suffered brain damage, couldn't speak walk or even feed himself. A few years later, he said to me (yes he literately spoke to me as you would speak to a normal person), you can either be a survivor or a thriver, its up to you.

'Freedom' and 'liberty' are physical materials, and some of each dies each time someone kills a French person. They are made of freedom and liberty, and also contain for example friends and equality within them, materially, so that in a sense an attack upon the French people was an attack upon liberty and freedom itself. Obviously unconscious particles can hardly be 'free,' and indeed the Soviets were accused of reducing people to atoms and particles in the social organism as they indeed may have done sometimes, and people fear 'totalitarianism' in part due to citizens' being 'unfree' and there subjected to the social order completely, such that this seems an unproductive place to look for analogies that they might like.

That worked out for the Soviet Union didn't it?

[ziggyfish]

"Freedom" never existed in the sense that you attempt to construe it. Before the state existed, vast intricate social rituals, whether tacitly or concisely acknowledged, always existed as a means of enforcing collective discipline in pre-state societies. The qualifications you have provided for "freedom" is a reactionary perversion - the freedom to do what one pleases at the expense of others. No such "freedom" existed unconditionally in any human community, not even the present one.

Do you actually know what reactionary means. How can someone be reactionary when the world they want hasn't ever existed according to you.

[ziggyfish]

"Personal freedom". What great personal freedom that only 5% of people have it. Of course, no one "prioritizes" things around equality, OR "personal freedom". That's because what qualifies something as left and right does not hinge upon those two. You are a right-winger - EVEN compared to most liberals, you are a reactionary.

I didn't say rich, I said wealth, i.e:

Wealth: “The ability to survive a certain number of days forward”.

You can have a lot of money, and not be wealthy (large amount of expenses, i.e paying wages). You can also have little money and still be wealthy. There is a difference.

All people who work hard, can survive for a long time (couple of months) without an income if their job stopped today. Thus 80% of people are wealthy. Not everything is about money.

[ziggyfish]

God I'm so fucking sick of this, honestly, I'm so fucking sick of this. I spend 8 times a day explaining to people the pathological dimension behind attempting to find every single fucking thing SOLELY UNIQUE to our modern era to some ontological inevitability, some timeless force with a mind of its own that makes itself bear through men and women. It is not only superstitious, it's plainly fucking obnoxious. This is not "my" definition of what constitutes being a liberal, it is OBJECTIVELY any REAL scientific assessment of what it means to be a liberal and what it doesn't. And the context that which being a liberal would be possible did not exist before the 30 years war, argument over.

There is no definion of Liberal and there will never be one. If there were a definition of Liberal, then we would not be able to think freely right? Liberalism has always existed, just in different forms or another, Your definition of liberalism has only been around for a relatively short period of time. My definition has been around for a lot longer.

"Trade unionism was occurring before the 14th century". No, child, it wasn't, the trade unionism of proto-capitalism and later of industrial capitalism was not the logical conclusion of whatever arbitrary fucking example of people who happen to work collectively demanding better terms. That is an ABSTRACT means of defining 'trade unionism'. It certainly did not exist "well before" the 14th century, the example you yourself give was of society on the cusp of the decline of feudalism. But let's be serious: HOW THE FUCK in ANY meaningful sense were these LIBERALS? How were LIBERALS at the forefront of these disputes? Are you literally fuckgin stupid? Even as far as the enlightenment goes, liberals would not be in this position. The notion that liberals are some ancient guardian angel asserting the standards of morality found in the modern era is so fucking stupid and cheesy you could go ask to make a movie with Tim Allen in it.

Your definition of trade unionism started in the textiles industry, in 1774.

And it was "the people" and "not the state" who were socialists and communists through the 19th century to the early 20th century. Tell me what is significant here, please, tell me. The Nazi party formed independently of the German state, does that make Hitler a liberal? What you say is so ridicu---

....

But anyone can fucking talk out of their ass with personal freedom. "I want the personal freedom to enslave others". That's ALL IT MEANS in this context.

Lets not mention Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pop, Nicolae Ceausescu, Mengistu Haile Mariam, or Jyoti Basu. Don't forget Hitler was a National Socialist. No these people were not liberal because "I also consider a liberal to be anyone who takes responsibility for their own actions and situation, and does what ever they can to make their life better. The most important value my version of a liberal has to have is anything he/she does must not limit the freedoms of another person.". The people limited the freedoms of other people, and thus are not a liberal as I define it.

HOLY FUCKING shit.

I agree.

[[ another tourettes episode that makes no sense ]]

And yes, we get it, you define a liberal in terms of worthless, anti-scientific arbitrary abstractions that could apply to virtually anyone else. Every signifcant intellectual did not "go along with the crowd", what the FUCK is your point? But in fact, in our postmodern age, it is fashionable to not go along with the crowd. So you ARE in fact going along with the crowd, because nothing is more cliche'd and prominent than your stupid little fucking idea. keep telling yourself you're an enlightenened beacon in a totalitarian distort, child, it's so cute.

Maybe you can tell me your definition of science. I define it as "Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe.". Maybe your definition is different?

And immediately following every liberal revolution, like the English civil war, society became as it is in 2015 over night. A revolution does not happen to immediately guarantee smooth sailing you fucking idiot, but to clear the way for it. The fact that famines, and "unemployment" followed Left revolutions means what to us? As for a lazy population, this is purely ahistorical, your teacher in high school might have taught you this, but is groundless. If anything only much, much later were people in - for example - Eastern bloc countries "lazy", but who cares if they were "lazy"? Society could afford their laziness. "Laziness" was never the problem.

I fail to see how the Soviet revolution helped man kind at all. After the millions of deaths that occured during the revolution, Its a economy still based on capital and are privatizing their industries.

Yes, those poor values, like honor killings, slavery, serfdom, hunger superstition and backwardness. Shame on the Communists for destroying them. And yes, the revolutionaries destroyed their countries. The stark increase in literacy, mass education, the opening of opportunities for backward peasants to have their kids sent of to be doctors and professionals, the long term elimination of famine, the exponential rise in the conditions of life in general, increased medical services, the building of cultural and soical infrastructure en masse, ETC.

Which is why it baffles me as to why you guys defend islam.

Why should we Communists, who have a deep understnading of North Korea's history and the context of its endurance, why would we expect it to? Of course, if you lack these qualifications, you can just flail your fuckign arms around like a moron and go "dakjda;flkhgeru north kurrea iz da communist and derefore diz is what any communism in da 21st century wud luk lik hurrurur". Like LOL, holy SHIT!

Why shouldn't you? You guys always say communism is scientific, shouldn't you be analysing whether your hypothesis is correct?


I'll reply to the rest of your ramblings tomorrow (as well as your original post).

[RedMaterialist]

Liberalism has always existed, just in different forms or another, Your definition of liberalism has only been around for a relatively short period of time. My definition has been around for a lot longer.

Well, you've gone from saying that liberalism has been around since the beginning of time to "around for a lot longer."

When exactly did liberalism begin?

[ziggyfish]

Well, you've gone from saying that liberalism has been around since the beginning of time to "around for a lot longer."

When exactly did liberalism begin?

I ttink you will find that the beginning of time has been around for a lot longer then 1810 (during Spanish War of independence, to be more specific, liberalism started the city of Cadiz in 1810 ).

[RedMaterialist]

I ttink you will find that the beginning of time has been around for a lot longer then 1810 (during Spanish War of independence, to be more specific, liberalism started the city of Cadiz in 1810 ).

England in the 17th century, and France and America in the 18th predated the Spanish revolution. The ideas of liberalism, individual liberty, equality, and the freedom and protection of contract rights, all began to coalesce between the 16th-19th century. Now what was going on in Europe during that time? Capitalism had mostly destroyed the power of feudalism. And most important to the capitalist is the individual right of contract, the protection of property rights, equality before the law, in other words, no more special privileges for the nobility.

Liberalism is the direct product of the bourgeois capitalist mode of production.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that liberalism began in Cadiz, Spain, in 1810? Most liberals think it sprang full grown from the head of John Locke.

[Guardia Rossa]

Which is why I believe that it doesn't matter how much "force" the state/government/collective has,

State = Government = Collective? So State = Administration = People?

it will also be the people who have the final say.

So people, that are not in the collective, will have a final say?
Or the collective will have the final say? But that is a contradiction, Mr Free Thinker!

And each revolution that the Left has created famine, unemployment, and a lazy population.

So, the people/collective, decided what to do, had the final say, and created a new society, yet, they are wrong. There is no freedom of choice in this position of yours.


The only solution to this contradiction is to say that the people not in the "collective" (The bourgeoisie) are the ones deciding everything in the last instance, and that your freedom of choice is the freedom to choose between two things of the same type and essence. Or, exactly the system we have today, bourgeois democracy, where we are given the choice to elect an idiot, or another idiot. Which is what you claim to be "socialism".

It is very practical. If you want something, no one will ever just give it to you. You need to work long hours, sacrifice a lot if you really want it.

Oh, the bourgeois do that too? And even with our new technology, the new machinery, that practically works alone, with no need for human labour? Do you base this "fact" on the reality or in the ideology? Let me answer.

This is the way it should be. It breads a society that isn't lazy and that can innovate, and advance.

So, while the people/collective should have the final say, they cannot choose a socialist society because it breeds "Lazyness" and "Can't innovate"? Why this "need" for hard work and innovation? Is it a material need or a ideological need? Let me answer.

Liberal is not right wing, its a different breed of politics, focusing on freedom and free speech rather than equality.

Oh, Mr Free Thinker, so Left-Right is equality index!? Liberal is "another thing"?!

"Freedom"? But didn't you just said that "Don't matter how much power the people have, only the people will have the final say", while at the same time saying "They can't choose a different society because that leads to a bad society where they don't work hard"...?

No these people were not liberal because "I also consider a liberal to be anyone who takes responsibility for their own actions and situation, and does what ever they can to make their life better. The most important value my version of a liberal has to have is anything he/she does must not limit the freedoms of another person.". The people limited the freedoms of other people, and thus are not a liberal as I define it.

Hum, so a liberal defends the freedom of people, except if they don't want to work hard and defend the capitalist society? That is the free think and freedom you mention?

You want a world where the people have no rights and always follow the status quo?

That's what YOU are saying, ironically [or not].

Which is why I believe that it doesn't matter how much "force" the state/government/collective has, it will also be the people who have the final say. It is very practical. If you want something, no one will ever just give it to you. You need to work long hours, sacrifice a lot if you really want it. And each revolution that the Left has created famine, unemployment, and a lazy population. This is the way it should be. It breads a society that isn't lazy and that can innovate, and advance. You want a world where the people have no rights and always follow the status quo?

Let me correct it for you, then.

Which is why I believe that it doesn't matters how much strength the proletariat has, it will be the bourgeoisie who have the final say. It is very practical, the bourgeois need surplus-value, so you must work hard if you actually want anything yours. Each revolution of the Left created a lazy population, but working hard and making surplus-value for the bourgeoisie is the way it must be. You want a different world, where the bourgeois have no rights and the proletariat don't want to go back to capitalism? It will breed a horrible nightmare, with a Satan and the fires of Hell!

You hide your intentions, but any critical reading of your constant contradictions and definition war reveal that you ARE indeed a liberal.

My definition has been around for a lot longer.

Yes, because it is the definition liberals use to define themselves. However, as with almost everything in liberalism, it is self-lying. That is why that definition was dropped a long time ago. There is no free thinker that is locked onto the defense of capitalism through ideological means, attempting to make reality mold to it's ideas, myths and dogmas instead of the contrary.

You are a liberal, you defend capitalism, you attack Marxism because it goes against your myth and religion.

You should have shame in such idiotic stance, believing you can descend to our unholy pagan site and convert us to the only true ideology, the ideology of liberalism, the cult of your exploiter, the most expressive example of Stockholm syndrome. Fuck you.

[Antiochus]

I ttink you will find that the beginning of time has been around for a lot longer then 1810 (during Spanish War of independence, to be more specific, liberalism started the city of Cadiz in 1810 ).

Besides how fucking stupid you are, you should know that the vast majority of Spanish troops/guerrillas during the Peninsular war were NOT "liberals". Most were royalists and deeply entrenched against the French (who on the other hand, were "liberals").

[ziggyfish]

Besides how fucking stupid you are, you should know that the vast majority of Spanish troops/guerrillas during the Peninsular war were NOT "liberals". Most were royalists and deeply entrenched against the French (who on the other hand, were "liberals").

The modern definition of Liberalism came out of the city Cadiz in 1810.

By 1810, Spain had largely been conquered by Napoleonic forces, but pockets of resistance remain. Importantly for the history of liberalism one of those pockerts was around Cadiz, which is where a meeting of the Spanish Cottes (parliament) began in 1810.

Because representatives from other parts of Spain found it difficult to attend given the war, the Cottes was skewed heavily towards locals. They 'were far from typical Spaniards', as the city of Cadiz 'boasted Spain's most bourgeois, liberal society, in which business acumen and commercial wealth counted more than aristocratic privilege.' There were a group of delegates who became known as serviles, due to their ongoing servility to royalty, but they were outnumbered by an opposing party of reformers who became the first group in history to be called liberales, or liberals, and it was these men 'who introducted into the political vocabulary of England, indeed of the whole of Europe, a new word.' The word was use 'to characterize a program seeking to end feudal privileges and to establish a more modern government'.

Richard Allsop, Liberalism: A Short History (Institute of Public Affairs, 2014) p. 2.

[Comrade Jacob]

Not that it couldn't but it will not happen ever.

[ziggyfish]

England in the 17th century, and France and America in the 18th predated the Spanish revolution. The ideas of liberalism, individual liberty, equality, and the freedom and protection of contract rights, all began to coalesce between the 16th-19th century. Now what was going on in Europe during that time? Capitalism had mostly destroyed the power of feudalism. And most important to the capitalist is the individual right of contract, the protection of property rights, equality before the law, in other words, no more special privileges for the nobility.

Liberalism is the direct product of the bourgeois capitalist mode of production.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that liberalism began in Cadiz, Spain, in 1810?

See post above.

Most liberals think it sprang full grown from the head of John Locke.

Its good to have different opinions and evidence for your arguments isn't it?

[Rafiq]

My definition of Freedom is different to yours and my definition of freedom has always existed. I never said that one will not take into account how their choices effect others. Thats your conclusion, not mine.

Your definition of freedom is a worthless abstraction, and no, it has never "always existed". Are you literally stupid? How in any meaningful sense has this notion of 'freedom', which has not even predated post-war contemporary western society, some kind of eternal definition? At any rate, as it is being employed by you, freedom is literally meaningless. Where does freedom start, and slavery end? Freedom for the master is slavery for the slave. Freedom for the slave, is death for the master. Freedom for the working people is unfreedom for the bourgeoisie. It is a worthless abstraction which is totally an ideological contingency. The freedom to do what? Equipped by whom? And how? None of these questions are implicit in your 'definition'.

instead, you abuse the word as any other idiot, as a cheap buzzword to package what is practically and essentially reactionary politics (i.e. "political correctness is takin away my freedom to say nigger"). that is IT. Insofar as there is an essential basis to your "freedom", it is THIS, the notion that 'freedom' is some idea external from actual men and women that is floating around (apparently since the big bang, at that) which "assumes" people to express it is literally the high-point of actual stupidity. Reactionaries, bourgeois ideologues and other such scum will make this notion implicit in their arguments, but to actually consciously believe it is quite a new precedent indeed: Any sane person would recognize the utter ridiculousness of this notion. What you say is pure superstition, because it assumes that the notion of "freedom" has a place in the universe outside the heads of men and women, in very specific social contexts at that. Like no, humans actually DO have history, history actually DOES change in a qualitative way. You will not find your filth present in previous epochs, because any pretense to 'freedom' or 'liberty' were in entirely different contexts. Let's take the conflicts of the late republic, just as one example of how words can be misused opportunistically.

During the late roman republic, the patrician class and the senatorial aristocracy extolled 'liberty' as a great virtue, despised 'tyranny' and it goes on. Why? Because 'demagogues' like the Gracchi, Marius and Caesar catered to the interests of the plebeian masses, and the realization of their interests would have led to a decline in the power of the senatorial aristocracy as well as the land-holding patrician class. Caesar was a "tyrant" for the simple reason that he exercized power outside of the sacred, official institutions of the divine republic, that is, outside of the interests of the bloodsucking aristocrats. No matter the abstract 'similarities' between this, and the reality that ruling classes today (or during the middle ages, i.e. nobles in Wallachia vs. Vlad Tepes, magna carta, ETC.) prattle of 'freedom' in an apparently similar opportunistic fashion DOES NOT establish a causal, cumulative, or quantitative 'link' between these two entirely different epochs. Only at the level of abstraction are they comparable, but insofar as we compare the essential basis of the two ruling classes (The landowning aristocrats, senatorial aristocrats, vs. the bourgeoisie) and their adversaries (the Populares, slave-holding populists, vs. modern populists attempting to represent the enslaved) THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

So you do believe in religion?

What a profoundly stupid conclusion to draw from the post in question. How exactly has it been insinuated that I "believe in religion"? YOU are the one making pretenses to superstitious, abstract notions of "freedom", going as far as to claim that fucking particles and fish are "free", I am telling you they are not - fish cannot make 'choices' because for a fish there is no such thing as knowledge, and subsequently for fish, there is not even a social dimension to begin with for such words to even have an iota of meaning. What are the fish "free" from, exactly? Government? Why in ANY meaningful sense would their be "government" among fish? You're literally, purely a stupid person who is incapable of basic reasoning. Knowledge is purely a human category, and therefore, so is choice.

Computers can only do what you tell them to do.

And alas, you miss the point entirely: The point is not the ultimate reason behind how they function, i.e. that is, the causal basis of their functioning, but hte underlying SUBSTANCE of both fish and computers: Fish are no more "free" than some fucking autonomous robot. But then again, because you claim that "particles" are free, which is by far the dumbest fucking thing I have read in long, long time, we might also assume you believe the rocks, trees and shit on the ground to be 'free', in the same sense that you are a liberal who believes in da 'freedom'. You are so stupid, so clownish, that you are actually trying to tell us that the 'freedom' to resist 'politically correct totalitarianism' is one and the same with the freedom for a fish to swim wherever it likes. What? Do you even hear yourself? The simple reason as to why this is beyond stupid is the fact that the "fish" do not have the consciousness to articulate this "freedom", and furthermore, because you are a reactionary, your "Freedom" is juxtaposed to a definite social controversy, "political correctness". What is the 'freedom' of a fish juxtaposed to? How is this "freedom" you fool? Freedom to do WHAT, WHY and HOW?

Do you actually know what reactionary means. How can someone be reactionary when the world they want hasn't ever existed according to you.

Listen, dear child, no one takes you so seriously to the point where we respect your pretentious to "freedom". I claim that you are amply a reactionary, and that you use meaningless words like 'freedom' to express this reality. The essential basis, substance of your being does not lie in your pretensions to freedom but your position in a very real, concrete controversy which pervades present day society. You do not have the ideas you do because you like the notion of "freedom", you have the ideas you do because you are taking a position in a very real struggle which relates to your consciousness in a very concrete way: You ARTICULATE this relation in terms of pretensions to abstract ideas. That is how ideology works. The social totality, and social relations PRE-EXIST any conscious or ideological articulation of them. THEY stand as the substance of human life, not abstract, word-mongering controversies like "what is da true freedom". To say otherwise is PURE superstition, it assumes ideas have an extra-social, extra-historic and finally extra-physical basis, i.e. as ontological "forces" like saying "da freedom of the big bang is what gave birth to da freedom of libertarian reactionaries in 2015". This is pure, pseudo-metaphysical stupidity and nothing more.

I didn't say rich, I said wealth, i.e:

Wealth: “The ability to survive a certain number of days forward”.

Your argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but even so, your notion of wealth is completely and totally fucking unjustified. how is WEALTH defined as the ability to survive a "certain number of days forward". According to you, a billionaire who will knowingly die in 30 days is not wealthy, but a homeless person who can survive decades is wealthy. Your "definition" is totally fucking arbitrarily conceived and it is unjustified, but nevermind this - the reason you say it is to dodge the attacks being thrown at you. Your notion of "wealth" is totally fucking misleading, but nevermind that - to play the devil's advocate, even if we accepted this definition of wealth, it would not change for a second the substance of the ideas being presented - namely, the reality that while apparently 80% of people can "survive" (what qualifies as survival, you dolt? Homeless people can physically 'survive', what does that FUCKING have to do with anything?), this does not disqualify the reality that hte social antagonsim and class struggle forms the underlying basis of their existence and the expression of that 'survival'. Where do they obtain their means of life, "survivalist" or otherwise? having a life extends beyond physical survival, it means participating as a real subject in modern society. And alas, they will be different.

What do you hope to gain with such an obscurantist, deliberately confusing argument? Does the fact that the purportedly 80% of people are able to 'survive' without an income for 'a few months' have ANYTHING to do with the fucking fact that your notion of 'freedom' in practical terms exists for no other reason than to attack them, their benefits, their social services and sense of job security, communities and lives in favor of the some not even 5% of people who have the privilege of owning some kind of business (and the number, apparently, might even be much lower)? Because "freedom"? Freedom for WHO, do do WHAT? "anyone can be a capitalist like me, you just gotta work hard" is their argument. "An attack on me, a cutthroat bloodsucking scum of scum, is an attack on the freedom of ALL people, who can 'potentially' become great capitalist like me, hehe". The shit is borderline fucking CYNICAL is what it is, he talks of "freedom".

For fuck's sake.

Thus 80% of people are wealthy. Not everything is about money.

Not everything is about "money"? No one said it was, but even then, your argument does not give us any reason to think that it isn't about moeny, considering the fact that you insinaute that people have enough stored income to "survive" a few months without having a job. Listen, do you know how fucking stupid you sound? If someone making 60k per year can 'survive' a year or two without having a stable income, how FUCKING long do you think your average millionaire can survive without a stable income, given the fact that, oh, I don't know, THEY ARE MILLIONAIRES independnetly of what money they may make or lose in the future - that they HAVE the money they do now and most of them can pretty much retire and live decent lives at ANY given moment? Do you know how plainly, unambiguously STUPID you sound?

There is no definion of Liberal and there will never be one. If there were a definition of Liberal, then we would not be able to think freely right

My god, do you all hear him? There is no "definition" of al iberal you fucking idiot? To EVEN USE THE WORD designates a DEFINITE nad REAL meaning, that's IT. I just love how these philistines think, you ACTUALLY think you can make up your own fucking definition of the word 'liberal'? "People would not be able to think freely" - child, the idea that people can 'think freely' at all is the dumbest fucking think I have heard yet. Freedom derives from necessity. Choice and will are matters of necessity, not arbitrary choice of preference. If you call a BANANA a fucking orange, and I am telling you there is a DEFINITE meaning behind the word 'banana' and 'ornage' which you are misusing, am I infringing on your ability to "think freely"? Well no, you can think whatever you want, I merely ifnringe on your right to have the satisifcation of thinking that what you are saying is justified and correct. You do not have that fucking "freedom" anymore than you have the "freedom" to think that computers do not exist. They do. You don't get to fucking CHOOSE what you believe.

But anyway, let's use a little analogy. Ziggy wants to call oranges bananas, and bananas oranges. Well fine, even though calling them that is completely fucking unjustified, his usage of the word designates a real meaning: When Ziggy sais banana, he purportedly means an orange. When does the problem arise? For the very same reason that designating oranges as bananas is completely and totally unjustified: Let's say Honduras exports a total of 400 million bananas. Ziggy comes along and sais "In fact, Honduras is actually exporting oranges, because of my twisted flip-flopping abstraction-based word-mongering". You would be objectively fucking wrong.

Likewise, nobody really cares that you "choose" to call this or that oriental philosopher a "liberal", for the simple reason that your "definition" or more pertinently your USAGE of the fucking word is totally unjustified for the following reason: Calling an ancient philosopher a "liberal" assumes an essential identity shared between this ancient philosopher and the liberals of 2015, and the qualifications for this identity is NOT grounded in concrete realities, but in the usage of abstractions. Your notion of liberalism is a-historical, anti-scientific and totally fucking arbitrary for that reason - thinking that two people can be identified as "librals" across thousands of years because of some abstract notion of "Freedom" assumes that the abstraction has a mind and living spirit itself, it assumes the CAUSAL, and ESSENTIAL basis of the two people across historic epochs is exactly the same, i..e that they fight for the exact same reason by merit of some eternal 'idea'. This ignores the particularirites of the specific historical and social context the people are immersed in, and furthermore, it attributes ideas characteristics which purportedly can transcend real material contexts. For that reason it is pure fucking superstition. I have gone over this SO MANY fucking times it's not even funny.

Liberalism has always existed, just in different forms or another,

And alas, we come to the crux of the superstitious stupidity: the notion that ideas can maintain an identity of existence but simply assume "different forms" assumes that they are transcendent metaphysical forces that express themselves in different ways. This begs the question: WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL BASIS of this "idea", for it to be so transcendent as to exist independent of the particular 'form' it takes? You cannot answer this question. "Liberalism has always existed, just in different forms". No, chlld, "ideas" do not take different "forms", IF AN IDEA takes a different FORM than it is a QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT idea all together. A "thing" can ONLY take "multiple forms" if there is an established essential basis of qualifying it across the different "forms" it takes as the same. No one is going to equate Ice H20 with Liquid H20, but they will be equivalent as H20 insofar as they are juxtaposed to Hydroperoxyl. And why? Because words designate a specific meanign: The notion that an IDEA, a WORD can take different forms is PURE superstition. It is not the "IDEA" of h2o that takes different forms, but an extrapolation of the concrete reality that the chemical takes different physical forms. Conversely, you examine TOTALLY DIFFERENT concrete realities, and project an underlying essential CAUSAL identity straight from your ass.

Your definition of trade unionism started in the textiles industry, in 1774.

This is not "my" definition of trade unionism, it is the ONLY MEANINGFUL, REAL definition of trade unionism possible. The idea that trade unions existed "well before" the 14 century and that these were meaningfully estabilsiehd precedents to the trade unions of the modern capitalist era is so painfully stupid it warrants a headache. But then again, in Ziggy's mind, one can literally opportunistically use words however they want and, on individual terms, DEFINE the meaning of terms - and subsequently make pretenses to real, concrete phenomena through opportunistically used abstractions (JUST LIKE the notion of "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism").

Lets not mention Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pop, Nicolae Ceausescu, Mengistu Haile Mariam, or Jyoti Basu.

Why the fuck would we mention them? Were these individuals "the first communists" YOU DEFINED being a "liberal' as someone outside the control of the state. There were Communists and socialists who were not in state power long before the existence of the Soviet Union. Are they, in your mind, "liberals"? Was Hitler a "liberal"? No, actually, let's go even fucking further. You linked that STUPID fucking, juvenile video about political correctness in "ten years" to come. Are those kids in state power? Do they HAVE to be in order to exist? Are "SJW's" on tumblr wielding executive power? No, so in your mind, they are "liberals" just like anyone else. Amply shut the fuck up and stop talking, like my god, literally, a "liberal" is someone who acts against or outside the state? Really? You fucking idiot?

Don't forget Hitler was a National Socialist.

That's so cute. "HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST!"

Do you want to know why NOBODY would fucking actually attempt to portray Hitler as being in the same camp as actual socialists in the 1930's? becuase Hitler's "socialism" was PURELY used opportunistically, just like right wingers use the word "libertarianism', "reverse racism', ETC., and just like YOU opportunistically call yourself a "liberal". In the 1930's, you could not get anywhere, you could not gain the support of the masses if you did not identify as a socialist. The SPD and the KPD were so deeply ingrained into the working class culture that predominated major cities, and the political climate of the country that to be ANYTHING BUt identifying as a socailist would not get you ANYWHERE. This is true for ALL fascism: Mussolini's Fascism had to inherit the ideas of synicalism aesthetically because syndicalism was the favored socialist current among the workign class. The same went for Spain. if what you claim had an IOTA of truth in it, then you would be able to explain why Mussolini did not identify as a "national socialist". You can't, because the only meaningful explanation is the fact that the political climates were so different between Italy and Germany, that opportunism had to be expressed in different ways.

That is why Islamists had to adopt pseudo-anticapitlaist, pseudo-socialist rhetoric to gain favor among the masses, and that is why today in Russia you have phenomena like the "National Bolsheviks": The failed, previous Communist movements are appropriated by Fascists in order to garner support among the broad masses while employing a language which is "fashionable". DISGUSTING fucking right wing SCUM like yourself have no creative power, ebcasue teh real truth behind all of your words - is pure darkness, filth and reaction. You ahve to appropriate the langgaue of society in general to have your say, which is why, reactionaries in 1800 will never be the same as reactionaries in 1900 or subsequently 2000, the Left ALWAYS leads the way, and reactionaries are forced to opportunistcally adjsut.

This is why, even when labour or the democratic party had to "adjust" to neoliberalism and thatcherism, at the level of 'culture' the 'politically correct' post counterculture "left" emerged victorious: The rhetoric of the counter-culture was irreversible. Right wingers are incapable of fostering HISTORIC change, they are only capable of opportunistic reaction.

"I also consider a liberal to be anyone who takes responsibility for their own actions and situation, and does what ever they can to make their life better. The most important value my version of a liberal has to have is anything he/she does must not limit the freedoms of another person.".

Which means that literally NO ONE who has EVER existed was a liberal, and that liberalism is in fact a non-existent phenomena. Why? Because by the qualifications for 'freedom' set forth EVEN by the reactionaries themselves, it is NOT POSSIBLE to avoid 'limiting the freedoms of other people'. What qualifies as peoples 'freedom'? What qualifies as limiting it? Such vague, imprecise, wholly ideological cheap buzzwords are literally so hilariously stupid it's almost saddening to see you go on arguing.

The people limited the freedoms of other people, and thus are not a liberal as I define it.

And yet you JUST FUCKING SAID that "this is not about how the free choices of some might impact others". In fact, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to NOT limit the 'freedom of others' for ANY medium of freedom. In order to have the "freedom" to own a business, you have to limit the freedom for me to enter and do as I please with your private property. In order to have the 'freedom' to say the word 'nigger', you have to perpetuate real relationships of power which subjugate black Americans to impoverishment, institutional racism and indignity. The notion of freedom as you employ it is not only MEANINGLESS, it is amply inconsistent - that's literally just the icing on top of the pseudo-intellectual abomination that is the cake.

Maybe you can tell me your definition of science. I define it as "Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe.". Maybe your definition is different?

Again with this "definition" mongering. It is not any FORMAL DEFINITION which makes words relevant, but how those words are used in relation to REAL EXISTING things. A formal definition just as easily becomes a fucking abstraction, which is why bourgeois ideologues are incapable of critical thinking. At any rate, no, your definition of "science" is purely positivistic, which is the predominate "definition" of "science" in bourgeois society. But even then, the BEST argument you could muster up is "Well, my argument is not scientific, but neither is yours". But again, that is only if we pressupose the same positivist philistinism which you take for granted, which we Marxists do not. If you want, I will be amply happy to tear this to pieces for you, in a different thread that is. I have done it multiple, multiple fucking times.

[[ another tourettes episode that makes no sense ]]

It makes no sense, kiddo, becuase you're not equipped to engage in this discussion. That's okay, because I'll keep tearing you to fucking pieces. I won't stop, I promise, you will not get your last word in this thread, Ziggyfish, it doesn't matter how long it takes.

I fail to see how the Soviet revolution helped man kind at all. After the millions of deaths that occured during the revolution, Its a economy still based on capital and are privatizing their industries.

Nobody, amply NOBODY here gives a FUCK about how you qualify what constitutes "helping mankind (a non-existent entity) at all". Mankind for you will only mean mankind insofar as it concerns the ideological designation at the behest of capital and the bloodsuckers. "Mankind" he sais, what a big other that is. We never made pretentious to "helping mankind", we seek a war between mankind, between the exploiters and the exploited, between the parasites and the dispossessed, between the excluded and the "successful". But at any rate, what is so fucking hilarious is the fact that the "millions of deaths" that occured in the Soviet Union were NOWHERE NEAR even CLOSE to the proportion of deaths that were necessary to facilitate capitlaist modernization in other countries, deaths which are not even counted, deaths which are deemed "natural" and "inevitable", indeed, what you fail to undersatnd is that the fact that teh Soviet revolution failed to destroy global capitalism is literally meaningless - no one claims it was successful, but the fact that it failed begs the question: WHY Did it fail? did it fail because global capitalism is some inevitability, or did it very for very sceintifically decipherable, real, and concrete reasons which ahve been discussed and debated numerous fukcing times over not only on this forum but in any meaningful intellectual space which has even gone as far as to MENTION the matter? And yet Ziggyfish comes to us and sais:

"I fail to see how it has benefited mankind".

Well, FUCK mankind! People were brave enough to fight, to take power and destroy the class enemy. Nobody fucking sais there is a magical garuntee of victory or success on UNCONDITIONAL terms. The point is - that there is no garutnee is NOT AN EXCUSE to not fight. But alas, nobody wants to fucking convince you, you disgusting piece of shit. "Millions died"? More than 6 million have died in the Congo since the 90's for the SOLE PURPOSE of extracting the necessary precious metals that go into your fucking computer, and you want to speak of "mankind"? Well fuck you, and your opportunism, you disgusting hypocrite, you shriveling coward. You really want to play this game of "benefiting mankind"? And yes, Russia is still based on "capital" and the Soviet Union collapsed. And yet, peoples in either Russia and Ukraine are no longer living in the backwardness and destitution that they were before the Soviet revolution, they are actually living in a modern society. The notion that we oppose capitalism as some abstract "idea", that 'capitalism' is a thing you can just step outside of and "oppose" in its entirety is fucking stupid: No, we recognize there are achievements of capitalism, very real ones, but we never pretended to want to reduce society to a zero-level - we seek to SUPERSEDE capitalism, which is why EVERY MARXIST acknowledged that the embryo of Communism is present within capitalist society.

Which is why it baffles me as to why you guys defend islam.

Tell me, WHO DEFENDS Islam? Who defends "Islam" in the context of Communist anti-religious campaigns, WHO? We have nothing to do with them. In fact no one defends Islam, we defend the Muslim working people, we defend the poor, dispossessed and downtrotten Muslims and seek to empower them so that they can cast aside their superstitions and wage a holy war of the exploited against the bloodsuckers, royal families, mullahs, despots and sheikhs. This is what would truly scare you, and, AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE, in my ORIGINAL post which you have YET to actually fucking respond to, THIS is what you reactionaries truly fear, this is what would leave you dumbfounded, because the truth behind your "opposition" to Islam is in fact a post-modern racism and a pathological fear of swarming brown masses on a warpath to destroy this rotten order. Your "opposition" to Islam is NOTHING MORE than the conscious articulation of what is subconsciously designated: A fear of the oriental other.

A new word should be added to the discourse of Leftists: Occidentalism. Occidentalism is the orientalization of the legacy of the west, it is the REDUCTION of universalist European values into being just another particular "culture" among many. Occidentalism is the barbarism of our era: Occidentalism is "white nationalism" and western racism, occidentlaism is the REDUCTION of western society to into 'just another' society in the spirit of globalized, multi-cultural capitalism. Thus "white nationalists" do not claim they want to impose anything on anyone else, they say: "Why not Europe for Europeans"? Ocidentalism is anti-Communism, occidentalism is the true cultural enemy, not "eurocentricism". It is the victimization of western society to the oreintalizing eye of the chauvinist - it is the conversion of Europe and North America into just another 'cultural' battlefield in our multi-cultural, globalized world, a 'competitor' with 'other cultures'. IT is barbarism.

YOU are an occidentalist, and your opposition to "Islam" is not grounded in universalist European values, but in European chauvisnim and occidentalism.

Why shouldn't you? You guys always say communism is scientific, shouldn't you be analysing whether your hypothesis is correct?

Our qualifications for science are not reduced or limited by your positivist philistinism. To speak of "hypothesis's" here is an ABUSE of scientific terminology at its finest - WHAT "hypothesis" do we have? Truth is nothing more than practice, we don't need to "prove" that we CAN in fact fight for communism, and exist as Communists with a "hypothesis". What "hypothesis" did Kepler have that sustained the liberation of astronomy from astrology and superstition? NONE! As far as the bourgeois qualification for truth is concerned, NONE! It was only PRACTICE. Likewise, we seek to be practical insofar as it relates to the social dimension of human life. At the ONSET of approaching this dimension scientifically, at the ONSET of merely acknowledging it can be known in thought, this presupposes the partisanship of being a Communist.

I'll reply to the rest of your ramblings tomorrow (as well as your original post).

Go ahead, can't wait. I'll literally reply the same fucking day, child. Be sure of it.

The modern definition of Liberalism came out of the city Cadiz in 1810.

No, idiot, that's not where the "modern definition of liberalism" came from, that's where (according to you) the WORD came from. Are you literally stupid? Can you not fathom the idea that a WORD can be wrought for entirely different reasons than how it would later be used? But nevermind that. what the FUCK is your point? The "definition" of the word 'liberal' was conceived in 1810, in Spain. That is wrong, it is purported that the DESIGNATION of a political GROUP as 'liberal' had its origins in this particular Spanish city. But what the fuck is your point? "definitions" do not make history, "definitions" are meaningless. and what is hilarious is the irony of the fact that: These liberals, these Spanish liberals fighting feudal privileges, were LITERALLY limiting the "freedom" of the Feudal aristocrats to freely do as they please with their god-given privileges.

You want to know what's actually hilarious though? You THAT IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD. It is the origin of , purportedly, identifying a political group, or party as "liberal", which is meaningless: If the ideas were not already well in place in other western countries, then the wrod wouldn't have fucking appealed to them. Do you HONESTLY funding think a "definition' led to the popularity of the word you child? Are you 12 years old? The "definition" of liberalism existed only AFTER the ideas were well in place ,the 'word' was merely used to juxtapose those ideas to the reaction. The first POLITICAL usage of the word liberal was DECADES before whatever the Spanish identified as in the early 19th century, the first POLITICAL usage of the word 'liberal' had its origins in enlightenment thinkers, in the late 18th century. Historians point to the first usage in 1769, not in the early 19th century you dolt. Why do you talk out of your ass? Are you incapable of THINKING? In fact, your argument ends up doing a disservice to the point you're trying to make: That the word had an appeal outside of Spain, suggests hat he word "liberal" designated and related to a specific set of fucking ideas. The word "liberal" related to the progressive bourgeoisie of western Europe, not the aristocracy. Why did it? because they were fighting the same struggles as those in Spain were fighting - because the ESSENTIAL foundations of most societies in western Europe, were not different than those in Spain - the social and political composition was identifiable as in common. If it was something so vague and abstract as "da freedom", well, every bumfuck idiot would have identified with the word. Your usage of the term, and your identification with it is 100% unjustified for that very same reason.

Nevermind any of that. This DOLT claims that the particles released by the big bang were liberals, and that fish are liberals. This is literally why it's so easy to destroy you.

[ziggyfish]

State = Government = Collective? So State = Administration = People?



So people, that are not in the collective, will have a final say?
Or the collective will have the final say? But that is a contradiction, Mr Free Thinker!



So, the people/collective, decided what to do, had the final say, and created a new society, yet, they are wrong. There is no freedom of choice in this position of yours.


The only solution to this contradiction is to say that the people not in the "collective" (The bourgeoisie) are the ones deciding everything in the last instance, and that your freedom of choice is the freedom to choose between two things of the same type and essence. Or, exactly the system we have today, bourgeois democracy, where we are given the choice to elect an idiot, or another idiot. Which is what you claim to be "socialism".



Oh, the bourgeois do that too? And even with our new technology, the new machinery, that practically works alone, with no need for human labour? Do you base this "fact" on the reality or in the ideology? Let me answer.



So, while the people/collective should have the final say, they cannot choose a socialist society because it breeds "Lazyness" and "Can't innovate"? Why this "need" for hard work and innovation? Is it a material need or a ideological need? Let me answer.



Oh, Mr Free Thinker, so Left-Right is equality index!? Liberal is "another thing"?!

"Freedom"? But didn't you just said that "Don't matter how much power the people have, only the people will have the final say", while at the same time saying "They can't choose a different society because that leads to a bad society where they don't work hard"...?



Hum, so a liberal defends the freedom of people, except if they don't want to work hard and defend the capitalist society? That is the free think and freedom you mention?



That's what YOU are saying, ironically [or not].



Let me correct it for you, then.



You hide your intentions, but any critical reading of your constant contradictions and definition war reveal that you ARE indeed a liberal.



Yes, because it is the definition liberals use to define themselves. However, as with almost everything in liberalism, it is self-lying. That is why that definition was dropped a long time ago. There is no free thinker that is locked onto the defense of capitalism through ideological means, attempting to make reality mold to it's ideas, myths and dogmas instead of the contrary.

You are a liberal, you defend capitalism, you attack Marxism because it goes against your myth and religion.

You should have shame in such idiotic stance, believing you can descend to our unholy pagan site and convert us to the only true ideology, the ideology of liberalism, the cult of your exploiter, the most expressive example of Stockholm syndrome. Fuck you.

I was expecting to be converted over to your stance of these things, however it seems you equate any hard work to be only for bourgeois. You seem to be frightened by doing any work. Communist will fail if society is full of these type of people.

Its amazing how you guys think, and how sheltered a life you guys live in. When you guys get up and go live in the real world (actually earn your place in society), you will say maybe that ZiggyFish was right.

The world will always work on basic supply & demand principals as it has always done.

[Rafiq]

The world will always work on basic supply & demand principals as it has always done.

Ziggyfish, who has made a fascinating olympic leap over all the actual theoretical controversies that pertain political economy over the past 200 years, enlightens Revleft with a simple, succinent, 10th grade High school wisdom: "The world will always work on basic supply and demand principles"!

WHAT! Here I was thinking the world was INFINITELY more fucking complex than that, and that "supply and demand" is a meaningless concept unless extrapolated from a real social context irreducible to it! Fuck, guys, Ziggyfish is right. He's right, the real world has set in.

And I'm going to wait here tonight for your reply, Ziggy. I'm not going anywhere. So let's go.

[RedMaterialist]

The modern definition of Liberalism came out of the city Cadiz in 1810.


Richard Allsop, Liberalism: A Short History (Institute of Public Affairs, 2014) p. 2.

Richard Allsop of the Institute of Public Affairs is your source? First, he's not an academic. He's a hack for a right-wing, free-market think tank funded by BP, Exxon, Philip Morris, etc. He also believes Margaret Thatcher was one of Britain's "great leaders." Just do a brief google of his name and the Institute.

Your own quote from Allsop proves Marx's explanation of how politics, culture, etc. develop out of the underlying economic system: Cadiz (in 1810)

"'boasted Spain's most bourgeois, liberal society, in which business acumen and commercial wealth counted more than aristocratic privilege."

Bourgeois business and commerce, i.e. capitalism, did not simply appear in Cadiz in 1810. It had been developing out of the aristocratic privileges of feudalism for over 400 yrs.

Feudalism in Western Europe was finally overthrown by the English and French Revolutions but only after four centuries of bourgeois destruction of the feudal economy.

Capitalism, the fetish of the free market, the worship of business and commerce, is not the product of liberalism. Liberalism is the product of capitalism.

And, more importantly, as capitalism begins to self-destruct...

"The glorious robes of liberalism have fallen away and the most repulsive despotism stands revealed for all the world to see." By, you guessed it, Karl Marx.

The free market and the freedom of the individual, which you worship, have now brought the planet to the brink of destruction. You may prefer to allow BP and ExxonMobil to continue their individualistic pursuit of free market profit, but don't be surprised if a lot of other people begin to see the free market for what it is, a gigantic sociopathic enterprise.

And if you stand in the way of a moving train and yell, "Stop," well, you're going to get run over.

[Antiochus]

Ziggyfish might just be prohibitively stupid to argue with. The notion that the world operates according to "supply and demand" is so simplistic that it would beg the question, 'how is demand made'. Why do junkies "demand" drugs; why do rich people "demand" Ferraris.

[RedMaterialist]

The world will always work on basic supply & demand principals as it has always done.

First liberalism and now "supply and demand" have always been and always will be the way the world works.

Marx described that kind of thinking perfectly:

[The processes of capitalism] appear to the bourgeois intellect to be...a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature...

What liberal and enlightened principles of supply and demand worked in a slave market or on a feudal estate from which serfs were forbidden to leave? Humans lived for over a hundred thousand years without even thinking about supply and demand. No hunter ever dreamed that he would corner the market in antelope so that he could drive up the "price" he could charge his clan.

Capitalism, the free market, individualism, private property, enforcement of contracts, all are extremely recent developments in human history.

And the next stage, which develops directly out of the contradictions and material conditions of capitalism, will be socialism.

[Comrade #138672]

Not at all. There are a lot of people who have succeeded even when physical and mentality disabled. I know quite a few who have refused to use their disability as an excuse in life. Me being one of them.

Your insults are ableist, regardless of whether disabled people "make it" or not. It has nothing to do with using disability as an "excuse". Are you intentionally being dishonest? It sure seems like it.

[ziggyfish]

Ziggyfish, who has made a fascinating olympic leap over all the actual theoretical controversies that pertain political economy over the past 200 years, enlightens Revleft with a simple, succinent, 10th grade High school wisdom: "The world will always work on basic supply and demand principles"!

WHAT! Here I was thinking the world was INFINITELY more fucking complex than that, and that "supply and demand" is a meaningless concept unless extrapolated from a real social context irreducible to it! Fuck, guys, Ziggyfish is right. He's right, the real world has set in.

And I'm going to wait here tonight for your reply, Ziggy. I'm not going anywhere. So let's go.

Can you tell me how a communist society would look, function and run? How would economics work in your ideal world? What mechnaisms would stop people from gaining power. Walk me through a day in the life of a person living under a communist society. What mechanisms would keep the world perfect as you want it. What would prevent people from going outside of the norm? How would you deal with Reactionaries (remember the status quo would be communism)? How would you deal with Revolutionaries (people who don't want communism)? What benefits would I get that I won't get in a capitalist world? What would I loose?

I don't really understand how communism would function, so please educate me how it would work. I honestly would like to know. To me, a Liberal society is a perfect world, however I would love to be convinced otherwise?

Others can answer if they want.