|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:49 pm
Quote: The slaves were literally OWNED by their masters- They were property. Workers are not property. Does the retail store who hires you own you through a legal contract forcing you to work there? No- Our labor is consensual. We are, however, forced to work for SOMEONE as wage slaves- The difference is that wage slavery is not actual ownership over us, it simply means that we need to work under someone to survive. Get it through your thick skull that this isn't a combination of 1835 and 1950. Who says they can't just literally own us if you go through with this plan? If the capitalists are threatened seriously do you think they'd sweat setting up labor camps or allowing fascists to break up working class institutions? I don't think it would matter if their economy would slump, they would break their own rules to ensure their own power. Quote: What are you talking about? I would laugh at the sheer absurdity of the words you were saying if I felt that you put them in any coherent order for any reason. If you're not fighting for freedom, what are you fighting for? Is power not just another bourgeoisie concept of control over us? Or do you just want to fight for the ******** of it? Come on, militarism in children is kind of cute because they want to fit in and be all warlike and manly. But grow up. Seriously. It's not cute anymore, you're nobody's little soldier boy. Saying you fight for freedom is such a blanket statement, it's so general it can be applied to basically anything? What freedoms are you talking about, the freedom to exploit your workers, the freedom to own private property? See what I mean, saying you fight for freedom is too general. Quote: International loans to buy what? The produce that isn't being made anymore? Or to hire the workers who are no longer working for them? Right. And what will they do with their bullets? Kill the very workers they hope to hire back? If they do, it will be all out war, and I will support violence to the fullest degree. However, you are yet to explain the means the rich have to "hire" the army- I know the rich have lobbyists and dirty fingers in the pie of the military, but they do not puppet it literally and instantly. Secondly, how would they hire the military without workers to keep gaining them revenue? Thirdly, what would the military have to attack? Anyone who is unemployed? Bullshit. Fourth, again, the military may have rations, but they will have little to no pay and the economic system will be deep in the shitter by that point. The military will crumble without it's funding. Like I said above I doubt the capitalists would abide by their own rules, and it's not the capitalists themselves who would "hire" the armies, the armies are already employed by the State which is a bourgeois institution if you remember correctly(well at least our current ones). The military has fired on the poor before, and I bet you they could do it again. After that you just have to round up workers to camps for forced labor. If it is in the capitalist classes interest to set aside profits for a few so that in the future they can still profit from our surplus value no doubt they would do it. Do you think they would care if the economy fails as long as private property, their right to wage labor, etc, their basis of power still intact it wouldn't matter. Quote: Because the violence is to support America and apple pie and bald eagles. It is acceptable only when spun and sold by the media- That's why terrorist attacks by America are justified, and terrorist attacks by Iraq or Afghanistan are evil. Any violent attack on anything the rich like will be destroyed by the media. And before you say that they will likewise attack my position- I know they will. However, it is harder to attack a non-violent ideology than one that will blow up major buildings and kill "respected" members of society. You really think it's hard for the media to attack hippies? You must have missed the latter half of the 1900's, the media constantly attacked them. And then when hippies had to fight, even in self defense, they were portrayed as violent radical left wingers. It's not hard for the media to attack things, just look at the healthcare debate in America a few months back. How many times did you hear about how they're going to kill grandma and commit baby genocide?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:36 am
Zed Millar divineseraph That's due to the economic system- Those who start poor tend to stay poor. You think there's some sort of conspiracy keep black people down? No, the conspiracy is to keep poor people down- black people just generally started out poor. You just completely ignored the entire paragraph poitning at how nothing MLK did accomplished anything. Further, blacks were never given ANYTHING, anything, to take them from where they were. In fact, i see no difference for them today than there was 50 years ago, they may have been more financially better of then than now. Most of it has little to do with the economy as much as it has to do with bigotry and oppression of people, not based on their social class, but on the colour of their skin and the area they live in. About fifty years ago blacks were better off, compared to now. This denial of instituional racism by Seraph is a bald-faced advocation of racism. He is saying that blackes are ******** over because of past racism, and yet today we see that blacks are the last hired in times of economic up-swing, and the first fired in down-turns. With the black unemployment rate hovering around 50 per cent, and about half of all prison inmates being black (with 90% of all drug-related inmates being black or latino), with crack (cheaper and used mainly by blacks) having a greater sentence than powder cocaine (more expensive and used mainly by whites), with the average sentencing for drug crimes going up 62% between 1994 and 2003, compared to just 17% for whites... Hell, just looking at that it is easy enough to see, and that is without the police brutality and general racist violence against blacks in the US... Seraph, I'm gonna stoop to your level for a moment: You are a complete and utter ******** wit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:45 am
Gracchia Saint-Justine Zed Millar divineseraph That's due to the economic system- Those who start poor tend to stay poor. You think there's some sort of conspiracy keep black people down? No, the conspiracy is to keep poor people down- black people just generally started out poor. You just completely ignored the entire paragraph poitning at how nothing MLK did accomplished anything. Further, blacks were never given ANYTHING, anything, to take them from where they were. In fact, i see no difference for them today than there was 50 years ago, they may have been more financially better of then than now. Most of it has little to do with the economy as much as it has to do with bigotry and oppression of people, not based on their social class, but on the colour of their skin and the area they live in. About fifty years ago blacks were better off, compared to now. This denial of instituional racism by Seraph is a bald-faced advocation of racism. He is saying that blackes are ******** over because of past racism, and yet today we see that blacks are the last hired in times of economic up-swing, and the first fired in down-turns. With the black unemployment rate hovering around 50 per cent, and about half of all prison inmates being black (with 90% of all drug-related inmates being black or latino), with crack (cheaper and used mainly by blacks) having a greater sentence than powder cocaine (more expensive and used mainly by whites), with the average sentencing for drug crimes going up 62% between 1994 and 2003, compared to just 17% for whites... Hell, just looking at that it is easy enough to see, and that is without the police brutality and general racist violence against blacks in the US... Seraph, I'm gonna stoop to your level for a moment: You are a complete and utter ******** wit. so much for principles...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:02 am
Syndicat Rob Gracchia Saint-Justine Zed Millar divineseraph That's due to the economic system- Those who start poor tend to stay poor. You think there's some sort of conspiracy keep black people down? No, the conspiracy is to keep poor people down- black people just generally started out poor. You just completely ignored the entire paragraph poitning at how nothing MLK did accomplished anything. Further, blacks were never given ANYTHING, anything, to take them from where they were. In fact, i see no difference for them today than there was 50 years ago, they may have been more financially better of then than now. Most of it has little to do with the economy as much as it has to do with bigotry and oppression of people, not based on their social class, but on the colour of their skin and the area they live in. About fifty years ago blacks were better off, compared to now. This denial of instituional racism by Seraph is a bald-faced advocation of racism. He is saying that blackes are ******** over because of past racism, and yet today we see that blacks are the last hired in times of economic up-swing, and the first fired in down-turns. With the black unemployment rate hovering around 50 per cent, and about half of all prison inmates being black (with 90% of all drug-related inmates being black or latino), with crack (cheaper and used mainly by blacks) having a greater sentence than powder cocaine (more expensive and used mainly by whites), with the average sentencing for drug crimes going up 62% between 1994 and 2003, compared to just 17% for whites... Hell, just looking at that it is easy enough to see, and that is without the police brutality and general racist violence against blacks in the US... Seraph, I'm gonna stoop to your level for a moment: You are a complete and utter ******** wit. so much for principles... You mean those things you lack? Like with no on-the-spot banning of a ******** racist? *points to tobacco thread* [edit] Just another little something on the question of racism and capitalism: The War on Crime, started by Nixon was formulated like this, by the head honcho himself! "[Y]ou have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognises this without appearing to" (quoted in Christian Parenti, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis [2000]). So yeah, you fail Seraph, and you are ******** covering up for these scumbags.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:18 am
I believe Nixon would say that. I bet Obama would, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:39 pm
divineseraph The slaves were literally OWNED by their masters- They were property. Workers are not property. Does the retail store who hires you own you through a legal contract forcing you to work there? No- Our labor is consensual. We are, however, forced to work for SOMEONE as wage slaves- The difference is that wage slavery is not actual ownership over us, it simply means that we need to work under someone to survive. Get it through your thick skull that this isn't a combination of 1835 and 1950. And why can't you get it trough you're head the point I'm trying to make. If you push the capitalist class far enough they will just like any other animnal lash at violently at any threat real or percieved. How hard is this to get? History has shown that if human are given the right stimuli they will perform any and every action we deem "inhuman". Do you think Fascism or Bonpartism is something unique to the time periods in which they first took root? No they can easily rise from their so called graves if the conditions are ripe. divineseraph What are you talking about? I would laugh at the sheer absurdity of the words you were saying if I felt that you put them in any coherent order for any reason. If you're not fighting for freedom, what are you fighting for? Is power not just another bourgeoisie concept of control over us? Or do you just want to fight for the ******** of it? Come on, militarism in children is kind of cute because they want to fit in and be all warlike and manly. But grow up. Seriously. It's not cute anymore, you're nobody's little soldier boy. This coming from the guy who stands for unprincipled peace. I'm not the msot militant of people, I personaly know that if a revolution were to occur I'ld end up in box six ffet under within the first five minutes. No glory, no mdeal, proably not even a grave marker. But here's the thing I'm not really that important, at least no in an idealogical sense. Now why do I say frredom is simply another social opiate, because rights themselves are abstract. They exist only as the prefered social interactions of a certain ideaology. Thus the so called justice and equality they protect is also abstract, permitting extreme inequalities in reality. Rights and freedoms are simply a means for the ruling class to collectively constrain the working class. They are simply the secular cousins of religion. Now why am I a Communist. Because it is the ideaology that is most reflective of reality. Also the anarchy of production that plagues are society can only be solved by the rational centralization of the economy that will occur under a proletarian dictatorship. The capitalist class fights for freedom, the right to exploit, the right to own property, the right to be coke sniffing nudist robber barons. Okay well maybe the last one is unique to the American libertarians, but the point still stands. divineseraph International loans to buy what? The produce that isn't being made anymore? Or to hire the workers who are no longer working for them? Right. And what will they do with their bullets? Kill the very workers they hope to hire back? If they do, it will be all out war, and I will support violence to the fullest degree. But the class war has already started, they'll already shooting at the working class. They've been doing it for centuries. But because of petty moralists the working class is under the influence of bourgeoisie ideaology. divineseraph However, you are yet to explain the means the rich have to "hire" the army- I know the rich have lobbyists and dirty fingers in the pie of the military, but they do not puppet it literally and instantly. Secondly, how would they hire the military without workers to keep gaining them revenue? The capitalsit class isn't very picky, as long a sthe revolution is stopped it's a victory. Why do you think so many buisnesses went along with the corpratist system of Fascist Ital or nazi germent. To kill the pinko Commies of course, everything else even profoti was secondary. If the governemnt is having problems controlling the local polualce it will declare martial law. For them the temporary suspencion of their liberty is acceptable if it protects their class intrests. divineseraph Thirdly, what would the military have to attack? Anyone who is unemployed? In case you didn't notice the government will arrest people for even stupider reasons than being unemployed. Loitering laws such as in Chicago or Portland for example are fairly easily abused and used against the homeless quite often. That and certain Jim Crow laws actually made it illegal for blacks to be unemployed. This is why after reconstruction and the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule many black families were still working under the same planatation owners who once held them as property. divineseraph Bullshit. Fourth, again, the military may have rations, but they will have little to no pay and the economic system will be deep in the shitter by that point. The military will crumble without it's funding. In case you haven't noticed in times of war and hardship people tend to be subject to rations and war planning in order to fight off the oppossing force. You think the British Bourgeoisie liked all the war rations during WW2? No, but they hated the hitlerites even more. Just like you're followers they'll put up with the rations because it will preserve their power for the long term. divineseraph Because the violence is to support America and apple pie and bald eagles. It is acceptable only when spun and sold by the media- That's why terrorist attacks by America are justified, and terrorist attacks by Iraq or Afghanistan are evil. Any violent attack on anything the rich like will be destroyed by the media. And before you say that they will likewise attack my position- I know they will. However, it is harder to attack a non-violent ideology than one that will blow up major buildings and kill "respected" members of society. You're joking right? Please they'll kill you faster than they would an armed group because they no you won't fight back. It's incredibly easy to demonize a violent group as it is a non-violent group. Or maybe they'll keep you around, use you as an example of how they tolerate dissent and how civil disobedience "works". divineseraph No- That's my point. The problem is the class conflict. There are many ways to solve it. If we educate them on WHY they are oppressed, does it not make sense to work together to end that oppression in the path of least resistance? If we focus on what the problem is- namely, the economic system, then we can remove it much more simply and easily than starting a war with the guys who represent the system- and with much less difficulty. More than just education is required. For example I could easily learns how to pilot a space shuttle, but unless I have a body to operate and manipulate the controls I won't be able to fly it. I also doubt you or your idealogy to properly educate the working class given the fact that you're always arguing from a revisionist or reformist standpoint. But maybe I'm just being biased because you deny the ethnocentrism that plagues the US. divineseraph No, that's their thing. They want to produce grapes. Let's have grapes. Or, the people who love grapes so much can move to where grapes are a specialty. I doubt there would be a whole mining town so into the idea of grapes, however. I'd suggest they find what they have to work with- Places with trees should have logging establishments, places with mines should have mining facilities, so forth. If they like their friends and such there, they can find work in what's available. If not, they can move to where their job of choice is available. Essentially, the same thing that happens here, without the economic rulers and class system. Maybe I should put it another way how are tyou going to react to a geographic region that doesn't want to comply with your national planning? How do you stop the various regionalists and ethnic nationalists from reimplemting another anarchy of production based on their own desire for local autonomy? divineseraph The council is ALL the people of the town- They all have an equal vote. Workplaces are also collectively owned by all of the workers, who all have an equal vote in hiring, firing and general decisions. "All in favor of opening a corn mill with space for 50 workers, say aye- All opposed say nay" Direct democracy? Are you kidding me? Will you not have some measure to combat the ochlocratic problem in democractic systems? Do you even realize how innefficent that is? Having every member of the town vote on every single thing? Surely you would just have a number of councils ever choosen by the town or randomly selected from the educated populace to run Soviets that would each have their respective duties and powers? divineseraph "All in favor of hiring Johnny Doe with credentials of X to work here, say aye- All opposed say nay" And what happens when the vote for "all in favor of killing all ethnic minoirties in the town say aye- All opposed say nay"? if the Ayes outnumber the nays do you herald that as part of your democractic freedom? Not all tryanny is maintained by the upper echelons of power. The antisemitisim of Europe druing the seconld world war wasn't just the mad delusions of Hitler. It was the mad delusions of Europe, which was certainly manipulated by hitler but still the mad delusions were not held only by a small power hungry few. I also doubt that the civil rights act would have gotten passed if it was voted upon by the masses. Also Seraph maybe it's because you live in a different reality or soemthing but we have racial problems in tyhis country. Some of them are the same exact problems, othere are different problems but we still have them. Only unlike a couple decades ago we don't talk about them. We just like to think that we dealth with all that back in the sixties and that anyone claiming about racism is just an uppity minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:26 am
Do you think Bob Avakian would say Mao Tsedong celebrated Christmas just to further his own morally grey and politically unclear goals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:01 pm
Gracchia Saint-Justine Zed Millar divineseraph That's due to the economic system- Those who start poor tend to stay poor. You think there's some sort of conspiracy keep black people down? No, the conspiracy is to keep poor people down- black people just generally started out poor. You just completely ignored the entire paragraph poitning at how nothing MLK did accomplished anything. Further, blacks were never given ANYTHING, anything, to take them from where they were. In fact, i see no difference for them today than there was 50 years ago, they may have been more financially better of then than now. Most of it has little to do with the economy as much as it has to do with bigotry and oppression of people, not based on their social class, but on the colour of their skin and the area they live in. About fifty years ago blacks were better off, compared to now. This denial of instituional racism by Seraph is a bald-faced advocation of racism. He is saying that blackes are ******** over because of past racism, and yet today we see that blacks are the last hired in times of economic up-swing, and the first fired in down-turns. With the black unemployment rate hovering around 50 per cent, and about half of all prison inmates being black (with 90% of all drug-related inmates being black or latino), with crack (cheaper and used mainly by blacks) having a greater sentence than powder cocaine (more expensive and used mainly by whites), with the average sentencing for drug crimes going up 62% between 1994 and 2003, compared to just 17% for whites... Hell, just looking at that it is easy enough to see, and that is without the police brutality and general racist violence against blacks in the US... Seraph, I'm gonna stoop to your level for a moment: You are a complete and utter ******** wit. And you think this is because of pure and simple racism? I really don't think racism exists SO MUCH as it used to- Oh, I know it exists. I don't deny that. But black people being statistically lower class is an unfortunate perfect storm of circumstances- Namely, drugs are charged by weight, and crack is cheaper but weighs more than cocaine per dose, particularly in your drug argument. The economic system which is designed to keep the lower class the lower class certainly isn't helping. But the reason is also not because every corporation and the police is run by a klansman. Calling me a racist simply for stating that our economic system leaves the poor at a disadvantage is really quite stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself, truly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:30 pm
Lord Comrade-X divineseraph The slaves were literally OWNED by their masters- They were property. Workers are not property. Does the retail store who hires you own you through a legal contract forcing you to work there? No- Our labor is consensual. We are, however, forced to work for SOMEONE as wage slaves- The difference is that wage slavery is not actual ownership over us, it simply means that we need to work under someone to survive. Get it through your thick skull that this isn't a combination of 1835 and 1950. And why can't you get it trough you're head the point I'm trying to make. If you push the capitalist class far enough they will just like any other animnal lash at violently at any threat real or percieved. How hard is this to get? History has shown that if human are given the right stimuli they will perform any and every action we deem "inhuman". Do you think Fascism or Bonpartism is something unique to the time periods in which they first took root? No they can easily rise from their so called graves if the conditions are ripe. divineseraph What are you talking about? I would laugh at the sheer absurdity of the words you were saying if I felt that you put them in any coherent order for any reason. If you're not fighting for freedom, what are you fighting for? Is power not just another bourgeoisie concept of control over us? Or do you just want to fight for the ******** of it? Come on, militarism in children is kind of cute because they want to fit in and be all warlike and manly. But grow up. Seriously. It's not cute anymore, you're nobody's little soldier boy. This coming from the guy who stands for unprincipled peace. I'm not the msot militant of people, I personaly know that if a revolution were to occur I'ld end up in box six ffet under within the first five minutes. No glory, no mdeal, proably not even a grave marker. But here's the thing I'm not really that important, at least no in an idealogical sense. Now why do I say frredom is simply another social opiate, because rights themselves are abstract. They exist only as the prefered social interactions of a certain ideaology. Thus the so called justice and equality they protect is also abstract, permitting extreme inequalities in reality. Rights and freedoms are simply a means for the ruling class to collectively constrain the working class. They are simply the secular cousins of religion. Now why am I a Communist. Because it is the ideaology that is most reflective of reality. Also the anarchy of production that plagues are society can only be solved by the rational centralization of the economy that will occur under a proletarian dictatorship. The capitalist class fights for freedom, the right to exploit, the right to own property, the right to be coke sniffing nudist robber barons. Okay well maybe the last one is unique to the American libertarians, but the point still stands. divineseraph International loans to buy what? The produce that isn't being made anymore? Or to hire the workers who are no longer working for them? Right. And what will they do with their bullets? Kill the very workers they hope to hire back? If they do, it will be all out war, and I will support violence to the fullest degree. But the class war has already started, they'll already shooting at the working class. They've been doing it for centuries. But because of petty moralists the working class is under the influence of bourgeoisie ideaology. divineseraph However, you are yet to explain the means the rich have to "hire" the army- I know the rich have lobbyists and dirty fingers in the pie of the military, but they do not puppet it literally and instantly. Secondly, how would they hire the military without workers to keep gaining them revenue? The capitalsit class isn't very picky, as long a sthe revolution is stopped it's a victory. Why do you think so many buisnesses went along with the corpratist system of Fascist Ital or nazi germent. To kill the pinko Commies of course, everything else even profoti was secondary. If the governemnt is having problems controlling the local polualce it will declare martial law. For them the temporary suspencion of their liberty is acceptable if it protects their class intrests. divineseraph Thirdly, what would the military have to attack? Anyone who is unemployed? In case you didn't notice the government will arrest people for even stupider reasons than being unemployed. Loitering laws such as in Chicago or Portland for example are fairly easily abused and used against the homeless quite often. That and certain Jim Crow laws actually made it illegal for blacks to be unemployed. This is why after reconstruction and the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule many black families were still working under the same planatation owners who once held them as property. divineseraph Bullshit. Fourth, again, the military may have rations, but they will have little to no pay and the economic system will be deep in the shitter by that point. The military will crumble without it's funding. In case you haven't noticed in times of war and hardship people tend to be subject to rations and war planning in order to fight off the oppossing force. You think the British Bourgeoisie liked all the war rations during WW2? No, but they hated the hitlerites even more. Just like you're followers they'll put up with the rations because it will preserve their power for the long term. divineseraph Because the violence is to support America and apple pie and bald eagles. It is acceptable only when spun and sold by the media- That's why terrorist attacks by America are justified, and terrorist attacks by Iraq or Afghanistan are evil. Any violent attack on anything the rich like will be destroyed by the media. And before you say that they will likewise attack my position- I know they will. However, it is harder to attack a non-violent ideology than one that will blow up major buildings and kill "respected" members of society. You're joking right? Please they'll kill you faster than they would an armed group because they no you won't fight back. It's incredibly easy to demonize a violent group as it is a non-violent group. Or maybe they'll keep you around, use you as an example of how they tolerate dissent and how civil disobedience "works". divineseraph No- That's my point. The problem is the class conflict. There are many ways to solve it. If we educate them on WHY they are oppressed, does it not make sense to work together to end that oppression in the path of least resistance? If we focus on what the problem is- namely, the economic system, then we can remove it much more simply and easily than starting a war with the guys who represent the system- and with much less difficulty. More than just education is required. For example I could easily learns how to pilot a space shuttle, but unless I have a body to operate and manipulate the controls I won't be able to fly it. I also doubt you or your idealogy to properly educate the working class given the fact that you're always arguing from a revisionist or reformist standpoint. But maybe I'm just being biased because you deny the ethnocentrism that plagues the US. divineseraph No, that's their thing. They want to produce grapes. Let's have grapes. Or, the people who love grapes so much can move to where grapes are a specialty. I doubt there would be a whole mining town so into the idea of grapes, however. I'd suggest they find what they have to work with- Places with trees should have logging establishments, places with mines should have mining facilities, so forth. If they like their friends and such there, they can find work in what's available. If not, they can move to where their job of choice is available. Essentially, the same thing that happens here, without the economic rulers and class system. Maybe I should put it another way how are tyou going to react to a geographic region that doesn't want to comply with your national planning? How do you stop the various regionalists and ethnic nationalists from reimplemting another anarchy of production based on their own desire for local autonomy? divineseraph The council is ALL the people of the town- They all have an equal vote. Workplaces are also collectively owned by all of the workers, who all have an equal vote in hiring, firing and general decisions. "All in favor of opening a corn mill with space for 50 workers, say aye- All opposed say nay" Direct democracy? Are you kidding me? Will you not have some measure to combat the ochlocratic problem in democractic systems? Do you even realize how innefficent that is? Having every member of the town vote on every single thing? Surely you would just have a number of councils ever choosen by the town or randomly selected from the educated populace to run Soviets that would each have their respective duties and powers? divineseraph "All in favor of hiring Johnny Doe with credentials of X to work here, say aye- All opposed say nay" And what happens when the vote for "all in favor of killing all ethnic minoirties in the town say aye- All opposed say nay"? if the Ayes outnumber the nays do you herald that as part of your democractic freedom? Not all tryanny is maintained by the upper echelons of power. The antisemitisim of Europe druing the seconld world war wasn't just the mad delusions of Hitler. It was the mad delusions of Europe, which was certainly manipulated by hitler but still the mad delusions were not held only by a small power hungry few. I also doubt that the civil rights act would have gotten passed if it was voted upon by the masses. Also Seraph maybe it's because you live in a different reality or soemthing but we have racial problems in tyhis country. Some of them are the same exact problems, othere are different problems but we still have them. Only unlike a couple decades ago we don't talk about them. We just like to think that we dealth with all that back in the sixties and that anyone claiming about racism is just an uppity minority. And still- Attack WHAT? WITH what? They will have no options but to flail and curse. You're making zero sense whatsoever. I get that you like to hear yourself coming up with pseudo philosophical bullshit, but this is not the time for that. Freedom is not slavery, it's freedom. Oh noes, some things you just can't do, like murder people! So you're not free! Freedom is a lie! Fair enough. Call it what you will, but you're just splitting hairs. Use your human reason, if you haven't yet reverted to an ape. But then, you'd be "free" of human ideas of "freedom" and truly be "free", you see? No, the working class is kept under the rich by the very institution we are part of- We are born into it and raised in it so that it is all we know- It feels natural to us, and inherent, even though it is a trap designed to look like a benefit. But there's no revolution. Come on, man. Stay with me. Are you drunk? Stay the ******** awake please. And then what? Fill up the prisons with misdemeanor charges? That would get them nowhere, for obvious reason. I don't even need to continue talking about this. I think I'll just stop typing mid sente How long term? And for what goals? If the entire economy of the United States of America falls, there's nothing left- No gasoline coming in, no electricity, no food, no production, no telecasts- The whole thing is done. They will have nothing to fight for and no real reason to fight anyway, since there's no more pay and the system they were trying to protect is now lost. And even then- The military STILL would need something to fight. If we do not present them an enemy, they have no target. Education is about a quarter of the battle- People need to realize that they are getting ******** over by the economic system before they will be willing to fight back. And fighting back does not necessarily entail killing the leaders- there are faster, cleaner ways to do it. What about my plan now? Again, I highly doubt that any town with, say, a salt mine is going to up and decide that they would all rather make pasta sauce. Again, a whole ******** town? If you and a group of, say, herbologists want to get together in your own group and make organic herbs, by all means start such a company. But I doubt that anywhere, an entire town's worth of citizens would deny the opportunities naturally granted them by their geographic location in favor of something else. Yes, because the soviet union worked so well. Seriously though- No. Town meeting exist for a reason. Let's say once every two weeks or once a month, if you care enough to go. And it's not every week that a new business would want to open up- Actually, it may be many a week in cities, so let's have them by district. So really, the voting wouldn't be that intense. Absolutely not. There are groundrules- Namely, you shall kill no person for any reason, be it age, location, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, except for a direct threat to ones life by threat of violence, in this case. Essentially, law that can not be overwritten, which boil down to "Don't hurt anyone else, don't steal their s**t, don't break their stuff."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:33 pm
divineseraph And still- Attack WHAT? WITH what? They will have no options but to flail and curse. You keep repeating that but you haven't shown any historical evidence. I'm telling you that no collective with power in history has ever behaved in the manner you suggest when faced with the possibility that they will lose said power. Seriously you have to have some reason why you think this works, so show me an example. divineseraph You're making zero sense whatsoever. I get that you like to hear yourself coming up with pseudo philosophical bullshit, but this is not the time for that. v I'm sorry if I consider the implications that my thoughts would have if they became material. How am I not making sense? I'm pointing out that fighting for freedom is stupid because the idea of freedom is bourgeoise. But hey I'm a post-humanist so maybe that's me hating ideas that should have been discarded two or three centuries ago. divineseraph Freedom is not slavery, it's freedom. And what is Freedom? Please explain this to me, because the way I see it freedoms is just an excuse for the capitalists to kill their workers. divineseraph Oh noes, some things you just can't do, like murder people! So you're not free! Freedom is a lie! Fair enough. Call it what you will, but you're just splitting hairs. Use your human reason, if you haven't yet reverted to an ape. But then, you'd be "free" of human ideas of "freedom" and truly be "free", you see? I'm not sure I understand. I'm saying any notin of freedom is tied to the idea of property and thus counter-revolutionary. divineseraph No, the working class is kept under the rich by the very institution we are part of- We are born into it and raised in it so that it is all we know- It feels natural to us, and inherent, even though it is a trap designed to look like a benefit. How is this different from what I said? Simply because I noticed that it is matieral in nature, determined by who owns the means of production. The cultural hegemony does not limit itself to non-coercive means. divineseraph But there's no revolution. Come on, man. Stay with me. Are you drunk? Stay the ******** awake please. divineseraph And then what? Fill up the prisons with misdemeanor charges? That would get them nowhere, for obvious reason. I don't even need to continue talking about this. I think I'll just stop typing mid sente America has 1 out of 100 people in prision, our penitentiary system knows no ounds. As for misdemeanor charges have you looked at how many people are held because of non-violent drug charges? divineseraph How long term? And for what goals? Decades at the least and the goals of capitalist class is the maintenance of private property and profit. divineseraph If the entire economy of the United States of America falls, there's nothing left- No gasoline coming in, no electricity, no food, no production, no telecasts- The whole thing is done. They will have nothing to fight for and no real reason to fight anyway, since there's no more pay and the system they were trying to protect is now lost. And even then- The military STILL would need something to fight. If we do not present them an enemy, they have no target. Really? Are you a moron? No really are you? When has there ever been complete destruction of all economic activity that would necesitate that nothing is being produced or consumed. Also in times of war and peril people will often go withoput comforts. Let's look at Nazi Germany the allied bombing campaign devistated their infastructure. Yet they didn't surrender until after the Soviets smashed into their capital. Even then if a few circumstances had been changed they might have been able to continue the fight with gureilla warfare. divineseraph Education is about a quarter of the battle- People need to realize that they are getting ******** over by the economic system before they will be willing to fight back. And fighting back does not necessarily entail killing the leaders- there are faster, cleaner ways to do it. Such as a general strike? I suppose if your goal is to simply change the political system then you may be correct. But as Communists we don't just want to change the political system we also want to change the existing property forms. For example the civil war was incredibly violent war because it had to be. For the property-owning capitalists in the North to end the the old slave-owning class, including its legal property rights to own slaves, it took a violent struggle. divineseraph What about my plan now? Again, I highly doubt that any town with, say, a salt mine is going to up and decide that they would all rather make pasta sauce. Again, a whole ******** town? Well seeing as salt mining has historically been done by slave or prision labor as a form of punishment I could see why some people might consider themselves above salt. Then there's the fact that pasta making is even in this modern area still less dangerous than salt mining. divineseraph If you and a group of, say, herbologists want to get together in your own group and make organic herbs, by all means start such a company. But I doubt that anywhere, an entire town's worth of citizens would deny the opportunities naturally granted them by their geographic location in favor of something else. Hmm you don't get out much do you? I can think of at least two examples of people ignoring enviormental considerations. The first is the hundreds of golf courses that dot my state. They use up lots of water and serve very little practical purpose but they're everywhere I look. The second example I thought of is sacred areas. If the local community considers say a moutain sacred you're not going to bec able to mine coal out of it now are you? How you resolve these conflicts when they come up? What is the system that will be used to resolve these problems and how will it function. divineseraph Yes, because the soviet union worked so well. Seriously though- No. What are you smoking and will it be legalized in your system? The socialism of the Bolshelviks turned a nation of plows and peasants into an atomic superpower within two decades. Yeah total failure. rolleyes divineseraph Town meeting exist for a reason. Let's say once every two weeks or once a month, if you care enough to go. And it's not every week that a new business would want to open up- Actually, it may be many a week in cities, so let's have them by district. So really, the voting wouldn't be that intense. And how do you handle things when two towns conflict with eachother? How do you determine whether the town hall is operating within it's proper bounds? How do you handle a situation when the majority of a town is ignorant of medical practices and decide to make vaccines illegal with the punishment for distripution being death? Do you overide deomacracy? Or do you let the town die due to a easily contagious but also easily curable disease? divineseraph Absolutely not. There are groundrules- Namely, you shall kill no person for any reason, be it age, location, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity, except for a direct threat to ones life by threat of violence, in this case. And what if the town doesn't give a ******** about these rules because according to their thinking they're right and you're wrong? How do you enforce the rules when it's not popular to enforce these rules? We know that the patriot act is not constituional but that doesn't matter because people went right ahead and passed it. Also one of the towns or more liekly an entire geographic area decides these rules are retared and they're not going to obey them? Do you invade them and occupy them until their idealogical inferiority or do they have a right to self determination? divineseraph Essentially, law that can not be overwritten, which boil down to "Don't hurt anyone else, don't steal their s**t, don't break their stuff." Every society has this, people will just not be constrained by it because it's idealistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:08 pm
Quote: You keep repeating that but you haven't shown any historical evidence. I'm telling you that no collective with power in history has ever behaved in the manner you suggest when faced with the possibility that they will lose said power. Seriously you have to have some reason why you think this works, so show me an example. This. Where is your evidence that s**t will go down as expected, seraph? We can point to slave rebellions, peasant wars, bourgeois-democratic revolutions, and proletarian revolutions. And whenever we see a new class taking hold of power, the old class always fights against it. Sometimes they are s**t-scared, like the Russian bourgeoisie was. Three years of losing a war against Germany, followed by a year of continuously losing political ground to the Bolsheviks made them lose hope for salvation. They did just give up hope as you expect would happen. But what then? Then the English offered military assistance and invaded Murmansk, the Czhechoslovak legion rampaged around the countryside, the Germans took Ukraine and the Caucasus, the Japanese took the east. This gave heart to the bourgeoisie, and they fought back, stubbornly, for 4 long years. So while it looks like it initially conformed to our divine Seraphim's expectations, we see it does nothing of the sort. The Russian bourgeoisie collapsed, but the international bourgeoisie rallied, and gave it hope, arms, money. Quote: I'm saying any notin of freedom is tied to the idea of property and thus counter-revolutionary. I think you're going a bit far with that one. Freedom will always be used to justify the worst excesses of class society, yes. And the 'freedom' of each age will have to conform to the property relations of that age, but this in no way implies that all freedom is inherently attached to property. So saying "I'm pointing out that fighting for freedom is stupid because the idea of freedom is bourgeoise." is rather silly. Quote: America has 1 out of 100 people in prision, Three million people is... a lot of people. Quote: What are you smoking and will it be legalized in your system? The socialism of the Bolshelviks turned a nation of plows and peasants into an atomic superpower within two decades. Yeah total failure. Let's look at this further. At the end of the civil war, that is, after 7 years of imperialist, and then civil war, the russian economy was in shambles. Industry had ground to a halt, grain had to be forced from the peasantry in order to feed the towns, and the most educated sections of the proletariat (in both a political and technical sense) had been all but wiped out in the fighting in the civil war. Thirty years later, after another, even greater war, the Soviet Union was the secon power of the world, directly competing with the world's largest and strongest imperialist power. Unemployment had been erradicated and literacy raised to almost 100%. Women were in positions of power in political, economic and military life. And this is despite the Stalinist purges, mismanagement of the economy, and betrayal of revolutionary situations abroad. The planned economy, restricted to the national terrain of merely 1/6th of the world, betrayed by Stalinism within, constantly threatened--and sometimes more--by imperialist competition and intervention from without... Despite this, we saw the SU become the only counterweight to the imperial ambitions of the US (existing today only in the form of the US' own rapidly imploding economy). Despite all this, the Soviet Union became a state of first-rate importance and strength and stayed there for 70 years. And moving on to the poster who'se ideas are just as imaginary as the divine: Quote: And you think this is because of pure and simple racism? I really don't think racism exists SO MUCH as it used to- Oh, I know it exists. I don't deny that. But black people being statistically lower class is an unfortunate perfect storm of circumstances- Namely, drugs are charged by weight, and crack is cheaper but weighs more than cocaine per dose, particularly in your drug argument. The economic system which is designed to keep the lower class the lower class certainly isn't helping. But the reason is also not because every corporation and the police is run by a klansman. Calling me a racist simply for stating that our economic system leaves the poor at a disadvantage is really quite stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself, truly. I call you a racist because of your denial of racism (or more correctly, your acknowledgement of racism merely in order to sweep it under the rug). Racism is inherent in capitalism, and in fact, capitalism was build on the slave-trade, the very genesis of racism. Your denial of racism puts you in the camp of the apologists. Blacks are not kept down because they are poor, they are poor because they are kept down. Compare the fates of ghetto blacks with Bill Cosby's son, Michael Jackson, Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and black sports stars? Can they be accused of being victims of their poor conditions, or victims of a racist society that condemns millions of blacks to death every year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:30 pm
Gracchia Saint-Justine I think you're going a bit far with that one. Freedom will always be used to justify the worst excesses of class society, yes. And the 'freedom' of each age will have to conform to the property relations of that age, but this in no way implies that all freedom is inherently attached to property. I suppose not but the modern idea of freedom does have its roots in classic liberalism and the enlightenment. Freedom can be used to mean freedom of the workers from the capitalists but it rarely is. I guess my beef with it is that it is incredibly subjective and not exactly a materialist posistion in most cases. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Gracchia Saint-Justine So saying "I'm pointing out that fighting for freedom is stupid because the idea of freedom is bourgeoise." is rather silly. Possibly. To tell you the truth when I typed up the post I was really pissed at Devine because of his revisionism of class conflict, as well as general history, and his naive ideas on race in the USA Gracchia Saint-Justine Quote: America has 1 out of 100 people in prision, Three million people is... a lot of people. /sarcastic nationalism Gracchia Saint-Justine Let's look at this further. At the end of the civil war, that is, after 7 years of imperialist, and then civil war, the russian economy was in shambles. Industry had ground to a halt, grain had to be forced from the peasantry in order to feed the towns, and the most educated sections of the proletariat (in both a political and technical sense) had been all but wiped out in the fighting in the civil war. Thirty years later, after another, even greater war, the Soviet Union was the secon power of the world, directly competing with the world's largest and strongest imperialist power. Unemployment had been erradicated and literacy raised to almost 100%. Women were in positions of power in political, economic and military life. And this is despite the Stalinist purges, mismanagement of the economy, and betrayal of revolutionary situations abroad. The planned economy, restricted to the national terrain of merely 1/6th of the world, betrayed by Stalinism within, constantly threatened--and sometimes more--by imperialist competition and intervention from without... Despite this, we saw the SU become the only counterweight to the imperial ambitions of the US (existing today only in the form of the US' own rapidly imploding economy). Despite all this, the Soviet Union became a state of first-rate importance and strength and stayed there for 70 years. I didn't feel like typing out a better description because it seems to me Seraph wouldn't even read it. He'll proably say something about the ends not justifying the means or another thing similar to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:25 am
Good articles, guys. Americas legal system is down right barbaric.
You could say our crime rate is falling proportionately to the tougher crimes enforced, but more and more things are becoming illegal by the day, as if America is trying to lock up even more of the population.
The simple statement that 5% of the world has 25% of it's prisoners is enough to give one pause before congratulating our justice administration, I mean christ's sakes, thats just ... a down right crime in and of itself. These people aren't being reformed, they're being tormented and ******** with, thrown in boxes of solitude for noth a day, but for like a month, and some even up to 2 years of solitary confinement. It is truly barbaric, and if it wasn't barbaric enough for how criminals are treated in prison, the actual profiling of potential inmates by the police are cruel and unneccesarry as well.
Divine is clearly ignoring these stats if he deems us not that bad racially. 1% of our population is in prison, I mean, think about it. We have more people in prison in the U.S. than we have serving in the active duty military. Yeah.
In our society, while I was at court, i saw a guy put in prison for 3 months over stealing a 25 dolalr pair of jeans. 25 dollars and he was fined 2 grand, and locked up for 3 months without parole. I was there defending myself from a hit and run charge drafted up by soem good ol boy police officers and an old man wanting to scam another 300 bucks from a poor salesman with no wage to speak of. Oppression, especially criminal oppression, is ******** outrageous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:45 am
Actually, this reminds me of another point. Considering the over-representation of blacks in the US prison system (about 60%, iirc, of all living black males have been in gaol at one time or another, and about half of all current inmates being black) and the disenfrachisement of convicted fellons, we see a very startling result: A huge chunk of the black population is barred its political rights. And then I can just point to Katrina and the bourgeoisie's response to show the utter racism inherent in that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
