I'm not infallible, no one is. But this silly claim that I must be infallible to be correct is just stupid. You think I am wrong, are
you the infallible one? If so, please tell us.
OTHERWISE, if you want to claim something is a Marxist position (and you
do claim to be a Marxist, right?) you will have to back it up. I do that, and I get attacked for making those quotes and for 'appealing to authority' and stuff.
See, this is the thing: I back my views up with quotes and by expressing the logic behind my thoughts. I do so to impress upon people that this is indeed Marxist. You want to prove my
wrong then you may not need to appeal to Marxism. You want to prove what I am not
Marxist, then you have to appeal to Marxism, the 'authorities' of Marxism.
You... Well, I can't really say what, because while you do explain the logic behind your conclusions, you don't back it us with much else. All well and good if you are trying to prove yourself to just be correct. But if you think you are right without the use of Marxism, fine. You may indeed be correct, and I may indeed be wrong, but please stop calling yourself a Marxist.
I would like to know what this 'axiom' talk is. My evidence against you was the post you made. You want advocates of alien class ideology in here. What more is there to say? You can
justify it, but to deny it is stupid.
"It's highly relevant if you erroneously want to apparently use the EDP as your own goddamn training ground."
This is an interesting quote, because it stems from a REALLY silly misunderstanding, either accidental or willful. I said that people can go there to argue with people of non-socialist ideologies. I didn't say
I go there for that, and considering the MANY posts I have made saying "I won't try and convince a capitalist of the correctness of Marxism" it should be pretty obvious. And considering the nature of the place, I believe that
IS what it is for: For people of various political persuasions to discuss political topics and issues. So if socialists are there, and capitalists are there, they will argue about things like that.
What I want is for them to not argue about it here. Here should be for the competing tendencies of socialism and communism to argue and discuss s**t.
But then, when "no means yes" it doesn't matter what I say, does it? I am being perfectly reasonable here, not even joking here, because after seeing your "all I need to do is sit back and let communism happen" post in ED-P, I think something with you has changed, and
you are not looking at things rationally. Or you are just trolling, but hey, if I show your trolling to be wrong and can use it as an opportunity to convince others of my views, who am I to complain...
Following that, we have a rather interesting accusation, and then continuin the silly RPG analogy. Why don't we cut the analogy out and just talk about what actually goes on.
Others express views contrary to mine, and so yes, I attack them. Shitty views are shitty. do
you not attack shitty views? But then "when pressed for further debate, I leave" you say. Sure, if by 'pressed for further debate' you mean 'am not given a chance to respond to most of the points raised, get frustrated and leave' yes. On many occasions I have said "make a thread about it" because I know just that will happen. I know that others type faster than me, and so will raise three questions faster than I can finish typing my one response.
When I ask for others to give me a moment and let me type, so that they can respond ot my full argument, and they
do not... Well, I certainly get frustrated. Have you been to a debate where the other person kept interjecting when you were speaking? If you have, you will know it is frustrating. No doubt, in many of the conversations we have had, I have interrupted you or others in that manner. Not being called on it, I do not notice it. But when told, I shut up and let the other/s speak.
You might find it highly unreasonable to be frustrated when three people are disagreeing with you and not giving you a chance to talk back, but surely you find it
understandable?
That out of the way, we can get to the real point I was making with my comment "I get commie experience HERE."
You know my view of what the guild should be: A place where communists and 'socialists' can come to talk about the tasks before them, how to tackle them, and all of that. That much is obvious. You can make more accusations of me running away from fights, but that is ultimately dodging the question. The question being 'what is this guild for?'
Now, assuming someone is interested in politics, they will be active in ED or ED-P, and will argue with people of other persuasions there as a matter of course. They either be confirmed in their views or weakened there. That comes with that sort of discussion. If this is what you class as being 'conceited,' well... I really don't know. Anyway, I suspect you are just trolling there as well.
But the point is that if they are interested in talking to people of other ideologies, they will seek them out. If not, why force them? You will probably make some jab about 'why don't I have a guild all of my own' or whatever, but really, as cute as such a jab would be it really ignores the issue. I see this as a guild for socialists and communists to talk about communist and socialist stuff. If others want a more specialised guild, they will surely make one. But I see this as a guild for socialists and communists (and yes, I know I keep repeating that, but it must be repeated) to discuss and clarify their views on socialism and communism. If they want to discuss a specific tendency, they will probably make a guild for it. If they want to talk 'communism versus capitalism' stuff, they will go to a more broad arena.
I think I have made myself clear enough that you will either agree, tell me why it shouldn't be that, or have other people notice your straw men for what they are.
As part of your claim that I am irrational you include me saying
"We need more members!"
"These people don't belong here, this is a Communist guild only!"
I am not sure if this is a straw man or a real misunderstanding, but I will make myself clear:
I want more people here. But seeing as though I see this as a guild for socialists and communists, it should be obvious I want more communists and socialists here, not just 'people' in general. If you think there are no more socialists or communists to be found on gaia, please say so, as I think that as part of a recruitment campaign some socialist propaganda would be great. That would be a great discussion to have.
I think so far I have been very calm and rational. Do you disagree?
Now the quotes you supplied.
You
And yet you would start a witchhunt for Fascists and kick people for vaguely sounding like they could support Fascism. I suppose you would have kicked Lenin then.
If you weren't saying that Lenin 'vaguely sounded like he could support fascism' I am not sure what to make of that. While it is obvious that you think my conduct regarding the fascists wrong, it is pretty clear that you somehow thought Lenin 'vaguely sounded like he could support fascism.' I was pointing out that it doesn't sound like fascism at all.
I would also like to know what conduct of mine--please, without exageration this time--would cause you to think I would kick someone out for saying the stuff you quoted?
Following this, you quote the extended quote of Lenin, that I said would be a nice basis for a guild policy. Quoting in full, we get this:
Quote:
What is important for the proletarian? For the proletarian it is not only important, it is absolutely essential that he should be assured that the non-Russians place the greatest possible trust in the proletarian class struggle. What is needed to ensure this? Not merely formal equality. In one way or another, by one's attitude or by concessions, it is necessary to compensate the non-Russian for the lack of trust, for the suspicion and the insults to which the government of the "dominant" nation subjected them in the past.
I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades.
As a whole, this is saying that oppressed nationalities should get more than others because they have been oppressed, and that oppression has necessarily had an impact, for instance in economic development, education, employment prospects and other things. To say otherwise, says Lenin, is to deny their greivances and thus cause a rift between the Great Russian proletariat and the proletariats of those nationalities oppressed under Tzarism.
Now, condensed and put in our context this is simply saying that denying oppression, or saying 'you are no longer oppressed to you will be treated equally and not be favoured' is to accept and strengthen oppression in practice. Applied to racism, it means that denying the special oppression of the black population of the US is aiding and abetting racism.
Thus, I think it would indeed be "pretty good in establishing a decent guild policy on nationalism" and would serve nicely as a benchmark for determining who does and who does not belong here. You may disagree with that, but put so plainly, you will have to deal with what I am actually saying, and not some figment of your anti-gracchan imagination.
Now you say that I fling around the term 'nationalist-socialism,' though it is obvious you mean 'fascism.' I will point out two things here:
1: The article was saying that saying oppressed minorities were 'nationalist' because they require more than other regions to develop, or because their conditions are so undeveloped that they need certain legal concessions because they cannot adhere to the standars of the more developed regions was wrong. It is wrong because it denies their oppression, and by holding the oppressed to the same standards you are in fact perpetuating oppression. "There is Equal opportunity now, you can get a job, even if your parents were oppressed and were scared by it, and this was passed on to you because of their poverty, well, we are all equal now." is maintaining oppression. That is what the piece is saying.
2: I do not fling accusations around at all. Who have I labled as fascist? Well, those I have proved to be fascists in the "Pudding: The Proof is in it" thread. It was a
very select group of people. This is a group that we have known about for some time, and in fact were informed of just days before they made themselves known here.
Related to this is the accusation of dogmatism. Not only is the accusation of dogmatism wrong, but you even accuse me of 'admitting' it. I have done no such thing.
"Reformists and centrists readily seize upon every occasion to point a finger at our 'sectarianism.' Most of the time they have in mind not our weak but our strong side: our serious attitude toward theory; our effort to plumb every political situation to the bottom, and to advance clear-cut slogans; our hostility to 'easy' and 'comfortable' decisions, which deliver from cares today, but prepare a catastrophe on the morrow.
Coming from opportunists, the accusation of sectarianism is most often a compliment." my bold.
Replace 'sectarian' with 'dogmatic' and that seems to fit my situation here. I have accepted the accusations of 'dogmatism' in the manner that Trotsky accepts the accusations of 'sectarianism.'
Finally we go back to the other night:
You said that the revolution in the US would be tougher, yes. and despite your protestations to the contrary, I agreed. For all your claims that I 'make it seem easy' I didn't say that it would, nor did I, or do I, think such.
Our disgreement comes from "and so the revolution here may require different tactics."
I said that in preparing the revolution we need the same organisational forms, that is, a bolshevik-type vanguard party. That it was through such that we would win 'the hearts and minds' of the proletariat. I didn't get to elaborate past that because Gallenger interrupted and it was made clear that not only was my position disagreable to you, but that you didn't really want to hear what I had to say. I believe that is all I said, though in harsher language to be sure.
From other conversations I have had with Rob on the subject, and I have no idea if he communicated this to you after I left or not, he knows, and I won't discuss that
in this thread [if you actually want to discuss this question with me I will gladly participate in a thread of yours].
The main thrust of my argument was simply that we should not dismiss soviets because of the
current backwardness of the proletariat, because consciousness changes
heaps during a revolutionary situation. Therefore, we should fight for the best possible outcome[soviets], but if in the final event it is unattainable, we should be willing to go for other things that are inferior but can still do the job.
Finally, despite your protestations, it is clear that you oppose me. Not my 'methods' but
me. I am honest about despising you for your disgusting habit--and the pride you have for it--for emotional and psychological abuse in your form of trolling.But let us look at the situation soberly:
The guild was almost dead. No fault of mine, as it was extremely active when I was last around. Myself and Comrade Rob revived it a little. It went from you, me, Rob and occasionally Merewyn and Gallenger to quite a few more. There wasn't massive activity from everyone, but there were quite a few more people and they did all post.
It got good enough to have an election. My first platform was rather conciliatory to what could be considered the 'right' of the guild (yourself, Gallenger, Merewyn and Kage). Then Hero noticed some fascists had posted and made a thread about it. Instantly I banned them.
That is where the drama started. You know what happened? I edited Hero's OP to include the names of the fascists so we knew who they were if they decided to contest the banning. What happens? I get attacked, non-stop--because this is merely a continuation of that--for unilaterally banning them. Or more honestly, I got attacked, and the drama started because I
openly banned them. I let everyone know why I did it, and I allowed recourse to be made against the decision, and all of a sudden it is an abuse of powers.
That is what started this, and then it was decided to ban them anyway! I did
nothing wrong. Subsequent events proved me perfectly correct. And still I somehow was wrong.This drama? It all came from your clique. Hell, I even thought "you know what, if I am that unwanted I might as well not go back." But seeing the state the guild is in disabused me of that notion. I left the chat to that you and your clique would come back to it, to heal the rift by removing myself entirely.
DIDN'T ******** HAPPEN. You continued to be a p***k to the people in the guild chat proving that the only reason you left was because your clique lost a vote--a vote which could have been easily over turned if you had stayed for an hour and talked to the others. I left to heal the rift. I left, abdicated all responsibility and power in the chat and stayed in contact with people through private chat. all day, neither you, nor the others came back.
You have shown yourself to have no interest in the guild by that action. You left the guild chat, and not only did you refuse to come back, but you periodically ducked in just to abuse those that were there.
There has been a remarkable drop in activity in the chat since then, and all activity in the guild, outside my posts and one of gallengers, has been not merely non-socialist, but
anti-socialist, anti-communist. This all caused by a rift your clique made, with no attempt at discussion. You bear responsibility for this. You and your group. I am perfectly clean.
So I may not be fit to lead this guild, and people will vote for me only as much as they feel I am fit. I can honestly say that. I can honestly say that because people dislike me so much the only reason they would vote for me is because they thinkg I am able. But you? You abandoned the guild chat, you post almost nothing of political value, and you want to invite non-NCSers into the guild. You are certainly unfit to lead the guild, and you will only win through ties of personal loyalty, not due to politics or ability to responsibly moderate a socialist forum.
