|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 8:41 pm
Lady Merewyn loli boots Steven Hawkings Comrade Robson Lady Merewyn Even the police and military are paid employees. Cops make a lot of money, so do members of the military. I highly doubt they would fall for such ideas. maybe the military but not the police Varies what branch of service, and what region of the United States for cops. Polices budget's are dependent upon town funding, or city or federal. Most don't earn enough, they are payed average prices like normal people. Also military members aren't payed a lot either unless your in the navy, air force or coat guard. Cost Guard is payed the highest by ratio of rank, then air force and navy. Most aren't in the service expect for a good looking thing on there resume, as most jobs have polices to help x-military people. Same with getting to college cheaper. even coast guard pay is pretty shitty compared to civilian jobs requiring the same education skills and a knowledge. law enforcement is definitely underpaid. to be honest being a cop in the U.S. has to be one of the worst jobs in the world By the way, not related to anything, you have an awesome sig. yours is bitchin too. jack K warms my heart.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:01 pm
Please keep talking about nukes, guys! I have to write an essay on them. :3
As for violence, I wouldn't worry about having to strike first. The cops are more than willing to throw the first stone.
Hey, during the Iraq war protests here, the cops were ripping off their name badges (so they couldn't be identified) and going into the crowd to beat them. Of course, the media said the crowd started it and mentioned nothing about police violence... but I think I'm going to trust my mother and my boyfriend over the mainstream media.
My point is that the ruling class are quite liberal with their use of violence on peaceful people and you have to decide how you're going to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:22 pm
Comrade Kotka Please keep talking about nukes, guys! I have to write an essay on them. :3 As for violence, I wouldn't worry about having to strike first. The cops are more than willing to throw the first stone. Hey, during the Iraq war protests here, the cops were ripping off their name badges (so they couldn't be identified) and going into the crowd to beat them. Of course, the media said the crowd started it and mentioned nothing about police violence... but I think I'm going to trust my mother and my boyfriend over the mainstream media. My point is that the ruling class are quite liberal with their use of violence on peaceful people and you have to decide how you're going to respond. They were a bit more restrained up north... But when you have crowds of 250 000 people... Yeah. Um, nukes? Damn... Come into chat/vent and hear some ranting... Might be able to get Bukharin to argue against me...What is the paper?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:26 pm
Actually, I have a couple more things to write before I get to this... (I still haven't settled on a topic, but hey, this talk of nukes inspires me.)
I won't come on Vent or chat just yet 'cause I'm going to work without distraction for a while first!
Anyhow, the topic is: 'Nuclear deterrence is the best way the achieve security.' Discuss.
I look forward to your ranting. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:29 pm
Comrade Kotka Actually, I have a couple more things to write before I get to this... (I still haven't settled on a topic, but hey, this talk of nukes inspires me.) I won't come on Vent or chat just yet 'cause I'm going to work without distraction for a while first! Anyhow, the topic is: 'Nuclear deterrence is the best way the achieve security.' Discuss. I look forward to your ranting. xD You are made of fail and suck and no-talkyness and no-fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:30 pm
So is the stupid libertarian I have to write (even more!) about.
*ceases OT spamming*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 12:16 am
But wouldn't ripping the arguments of stupid libertarians to shreds be fun?
(and this thread is pretty much dead, M won't argue properly, which just leaves me and Tank and Rob in agreement, and arguing over what you agree on is silly...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:46 pm
Jean-Paul Marat I need to win arguments to validate my existence and hate people as well. I tried to argue Mann but he wouldn't agree or argue the way I want so I'm butthurt and gonna cry about it. Not my fault your views and Trotskiyism suck and so I had to figure out something else. Also my views are actually strangely close to Curt's, so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say you and Tank are in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:33 pm
Comrade Mann Jean-Paul Marat I need to win arguments to validate my existence and hate people as well. I tried to argue Mann but he wouldn't agree or argue the way I want so I'm butthurt and gonna cry about it. I have no politics and only come here to troll I was actually thinking about the nukes question when I was talking about the agreement. Otherwise, yeah, I stand in the Bolshevik-Leninist tradition, and am very different from his Jucheist-Stalinoid version of Council Communism. But carrying over from our discussion yesterday: You have no faith in the working class. That is what it comes down to. You see the working class as it is now, backward, weak and usually spineless. It wasn't always this s**t, and this isn't the first time it has been this s**t. What communists need to to is to maintain an orientation toward the working class. Because without them, we have no support. Also, yeah, would you be able to re-post, or bump, the post you made before? I would like to read it, and see exactly what your differences are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:02 pm
Lady Merewyn Louis-Auguste Robespierre Quote: Violence:Nowadays, a violent revolution is a shaky option. The United Nations will not like it when it's only great contributor gets knocked out all of a sudden and replaced just as quickly. A sudden revolution requires intense adjustment for the rest of the world, and some will not want to cope with the change. However, a violent revolution does give military and organizational credibility to the new government, and in the ensuing onslaught it will eradicate any doubts or dissent from both the proletariat and the capitalists... but thinking along those lines may as well be a reversion to the b*****d Castro's and Mao's tyrannical Communist falsehood. Non-violent legislative take-over is the only plausible way. The UN? "The den of imperialists and their victims"? The UN is a collective organisation of world imperialism. Witness Korea. We do not care what the UN says, because in the end, it is just a soap box for the imperialists t let their victims stand on and voice grievences from. As for violence. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Do you think the rich will give up their factories and mansions and everything else? Not at all. Even if communists did gain power democratically, there would still be a 'slaveholders rebellion' as Engels called it in one of the prefaces to the Manifesto. If we gain power and legislate expropriatin, they will resort to fascism. They will get the army against us and they will try to kill us. We will have to resot to violence. And do you think the international community will be on our side? Again, NOT AT ALL. The capitalists in other countries will see us as a threat, and in order to protect their own riches, will seek to kill us before their own working class gets any ideas. [there are other things,, but I will keep them for later] Quote: Legislative take-over A legislative take-over is absolutely possible in a country with respectable civil rights and political freedoms. However, if the people are being oppressed, or the government trying to eradicate or silence the voice of the worker's, then a revolution is best. The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Quote: Preparation and the PartisansCommunist leaders should be wary of the desires of the people at that point in time. Of course, Communist doctrine is a good set of guidelines. However, Marx and Engels saw the doctrine and their beliefs as more reformationary theory. Marxism is a revolutionary method of thought and worldview, not a set of guidlines for parliamentary reform. Quote: The Big One and the partisans:Partisans should not be allowed in the government. I think the revolutions of the past should teach this to all: politicians are easily corruptible, particularly those in power. I really don't believe in a federal government, but I feel that in countries as big as there are in the world, it is probably the only way to control the needs of the population. Government during and after the revolution will be through soviets. Councils of workers. These councils will elect representatives to go to higher level soviets, so the factory soviets would elect reps to the local soviets, and they would elect reps to the state soviet and they would elect reps to the all-[whatever country] soviet. These representatives can be recalled and replaced at any time, and owuld recieve no more money than an average worker. That, and the fact that they entire working class will be armed will be a good start in heading off corruption. Quote: Gun control:Well... I'm not going to say guns are absolutely unnecessary and should be outlawed. I am going to say this: murder rates in countries with stringent gun control are lower than countries with lax gun control, apparently. In comparison with the U.S., Europe and Japan, who have air-tight gun bans, have a 500% smaller rate of murders and violent crimes involving a firearm. However, notice that Europe and Japan have a significantly smaller population than the U.S., which I think would be a factor in the number of murders. And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Quote: Nuclear weapons:Global disarmament. Nothing more need be said. And how are countries going to defend themselves against the Imperialist nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the last two being suck and really local imperialists, but still...) Quote: Tibetan Genocides: I find it absolutely horrendous that the Chinese government is allowing this to continue, and I would be even more shocked if they are actually encouraging it. I spit at the feet of the Buddhist oppressors. Wait... What exactly are you saying? Quote: Class struggle:I find this whole "my money, my things" mentality of America really ridiculous. What is the true measure of a man: the greatness of his contributions, his kindness, his devotion, his help to society... or the make, model, and price of his car, of his house, of his shoes? I see these girls on the street and I feel disgust. Buying a thousand pairs of shoes and texting on a $500 phone. My own parents criticize me for not being materialistic, because I don't want a Ferrari when I grow up. The capitalists need only be reformed and they will accept Socialist ideals. Greed is disgusting. um... Yeah... Ok. Not the question, but ok? For the record, I am all for women getting buy however they can. If that means being a 'gold digger' then go for it. Okay, so on the whole UN thing, first of all... the UN is pretty much powerless at this point. In general, a revolution needn't worry about the UN. It would, however, have to fear the imperialist powers of the world, so expect any organized bodies with economic power to try to stamp it out. Any country aside from the US that would have a revolution would have to worry about US invasion. Otherwise, maybe the EU? G-8? Etc. And I'd see a more Sun-Tsu approach anyway, in not seeking victory until the battle has already been won. Spread influence first, and gain social acceptance of your movement. If you have enough people behind you, you could have strikes shutting down important sectors, and cut off bourgeois power at it's roots. But you have to have a transition, things don't just happen overnight. Again, the key is to have an educated and class-conscious populace, and that will take time. Internationally, most of the world isn't on the same economic level as the West, and most people of the world don't gain any real benefit for their labors. Nukes... disarmament in general is probably unrealistic. It's 1940s technology. We could all disarm right now, and that wouldn't stop anyone from building more nukes. It would merely shift the dynamic from governments to NGOs. And I don't feel like typing anything else, because I'm tired. Once I'm semi-coherent again, maybe I'll write more. Grace, please don't get involved in anything with science....we need less politicians in our way. Thermal nuclear weapons, of today is not 1940's technology as you claim. Most world launch systems are from the 1980's-1990's. Not 1940. The launch systems from the United States have decommissioned all of there 1960's system as did Russia. All other known countries are either in the late 1980's or late 1990's. M.I.R.V.E is far from 1940's and is for multiple payloads of warheads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:09 pm
Comrade Mann Steven Hawkings I have to ask you all...Even if Communism takes hold, it does not prove much in the end. It will be replaced, though the goal is to have a anarchic type in the end...blah blah blah. Progression is the point kHawkings, goddamn as a man of science you should be behind progression. Says the one who is in my way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:13 pm
Steven Hawkings Comrade Mann Steven Hawkings I have to ask you all...Even if Communism takes hold, it does not prove much in the end. It will be replaced, though the goal is to have a anarchic type in the end...blah blah blah. Progression is the point kHawkings, goddamn as a man of science you should be behind progression. Says the one who is in my way. No you're going the wrong way. If I'm in the way you've gone to far and should have made that left divergence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:21 pm
Comrade Mann Steven Hawkings Comrade Mann Steven Hawkings I have to ask you all...Even if Communism takes hold, it does not prove much in the end. It will be replaced, though the goal is to have a anarchic type in the end...blah blah blah. Progression is the point kHawkings, goddamn as a man of science you should be behind progression. Says the one who is in my way. No you're going the wrong way. If I'm in the way you've gone to far and should have made that left divergence. I saw dead end in my rear- view mirror. It lead to a cliff, with a sign that points off a cliff and says, "Promised Land". Don't worry I'll be sure to feed all working, and cooperatits in my wood chipper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:59 am
Quote: The state is capitalist (I am assuming you are in the US?) It will not let us pass any decent legislation. If we pass certain laws, then the court system will over-rule them or make a precedent which will nullify our laws. To enforce those laws, we would have to purge the state apparatus, but then that is against those same laws, and those same judges would deny us. In the end, it will come down to a civil war. IT ALWAYS DOES. Not true. If you have a president & congress on the same side with the majority of the same goals, then you can really make things happen. In American history: FDR passed hundreds of new programs and passed dozens of laws, which led to enhanced worker's rights, and a dramatic decrease in unemployment (Even Stalin couldn't have gotten more people employed). LBJ did the same for the Great Society. Now (Hopefully) Obama can do the same. We do not need to murder anyone or revolt against anything. Just like MLK, all you have to do is show how bad things really are for the everyday Joe and people (including congress) will listen. Quote: And with no weapons, how is the working class meant to defend itself from the capitalist state? When workers are on strike and the cops threaten then, if the workers have guns, the cops are less likely to be belligerent. Not true. Weapons only complicate the situation. I became a junior cops, did the paramilitary training and law training. I know how they work. Being calm and non-submissive is the best tactic. State your rights if you strike. They can't bust Union strikes. Quote: Okay, so on the whole UN thing, first of all... the UN is pretty much powerless at this point. In general, a revolution needn't worry about the UN. It would, however, have to fear the imperialist powers of the world, so expect any organized bodies with economic power to try to stamp it out. Any country aside from the US that would have a revolution would have to worry about US invasion. Otherwise, maybe the EU? G-8? Etc. And I'd see a more Sun-Tsu approach anyway, in not seeking victory until the battle has already been won. Spread influence first, and gain social acceptance of your movement. If you have enough people behind you, you could have strikes shutting down important sectors, and cut off bourgeois power at it's roots. But you have to have a transition, things don't just happen overnight. Exactly. Once you have everyone in a particular place on the same team, all working together for the good of the state, then NOBODY can take away a revolution of the masses. It not only shows the discontent the people are going through, but also the ineffectiveness of the old government. In Democratic societies, this works flawlessly; however, in Totalitarian states, the Communists might get outside intervention. i.e. UN peacekeepers, USA marines, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:06 am
Raziel, I disagree. I'm not going to repeat the staple arguments against reform because it's probably been said here a thousand times... Instead I'll speak it terms of my own experience.
Parliament answers to big business and the wealthy and choice in representative democracy is often very limited. On top of that, there is only so much socialism the liberal democratic system will allow (it'd be stretching the 'liberal' part of the balance). ALL I have seen in my voting career has been a whole lot of annoyed people, disappointed that the government has gone against the will of the people in order to further the aims of a few. It's no wonder that, in Australia at least, party identification has fallen a WHOLE lot and non-party political organisations (such as Get Up!) have a larger membership base than either of the major parties. This is an indicator of how utterly disconnected they are from the people who vote for them and merely pick what they think of as the lesser of two evils (and voting is compulsory).
That's not to say that a new party that more people could identify with couldn't emerge... But ultimately they would be restricted in their ability to serve the interests of the working class due to the demands of business and their stupid threats. (Observe, in Australia, the emissions trading scheme.)
Edit: As for police leaving you alone if you're calm... that contradicts a lot of what I've seen and heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
