|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:23 pm
Gracchia Saint-Justine SoViEtTaNkT-72 1st rule of the interwebs.... Everyone is male until proven otherwise..... I'm glad you have joined us. Domnu: When I said 'lazy' I was referring to your dismissal of theory. Rob: Bloke's name was Proudhon. He was an anti-woman and anti-semetic bigot, who was actually more of an equalitarian libertarian that an anarchist. I can no longer be...
DAMN IT, TANK. Slowly, one by one, they're changing everyone... damned commies, I won't give in to peer pressure...even... if I dress like a chick most the time anyways... NOO... Must not give in!
A cog in the American death machine....
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:42 pm
Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Gracchia Saint-Justine Sri Iskander Gracchvs Robespierre Comrade Kotka is definitely the member with the best head for politics I'll argue this one with you. I happen to do pretty well politically. wink You're pretty good despite your 'anarchism.' 'Tis a shame you have to drape yourself in it though, and can't just come out as a lazy, impatient commie... And Curse... You be quiet. You don't count in any discussions like this. Pssh. There's no room for laziness in my system (granted, I, personally, enjoy my leisure time greatly...). It's just as labour intensive as any other system out there. The difference between you commie types, and me, is that economics aren't overly important to me. I focus on change and equality through democracy at the ballot box, with the idea that democracy and equality will spread from there. Y'all focus on democracy and equality in production/economics, and change spreading from there. For you, this is a class struggle. For me, classes don't matter a single bit. Yeah appeal to anyone who want's to hop on the socialist bandwagon. There was a guy like that. Founding father of Anarchism, name began with a 'P', oh darn, the name escapes me.... Well anyway that sort of mentality probably explains for the level of failure in the Anarchist movement. Classes matter. Workers generate wealth, without the sale of their labour capitalism can't happen, likewise, they are exploited and have to sell that labour because if they don't they will die. Its all about the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Everyone else falls in between, their historical roles play little to know importance. Why bother? Ah, so sorry. I totally forgot that Communism has been such a rousing success that the world is already saved. Don't gimme that s**t Rob. You're smarter than that. Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. Damn it Domnu, I'm sick, I haven't the energy to get caught up in semantics. The working class needs to be in a class for itself. All others are welcome to join the cause. I'm just laying out the characteristic of who makes a member of the working class. Of course there are going to be exceptions. That's dialectics. I'm not saying we spit on them, I'm more or less saying there is a proper course of action and wrong one. We can't just sit here and philosophize without taking action and we can't fight the petty struggles without serving the greater struggle at large. That's where I think modern anarchy lacks. Too much of the small stuff not enough of the actual struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:19 pm
Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Gracchia Saint-Justine You're pretty good despite your 'anarchism.' 'Tis a shame you have to drape yourself in it though, and can't just come out as a lazy, impatient commie... And Curse... You be quiet. You don't count in any discussions like this. Pssh. There's no room for laziness in my system (granted, I, personally, enjoy my leisure time greatly...). It's just as labour intensive as any other system out there. The difference between you commie types, and me, is that economics aren't overly important to me. I focus on change and equality through democracy at the ballot box, with the idea that democracy and equality will spread from there. Y'all focus on democracy and equality in production/economics, and change spreading from there. For you, this is a class struggle. For me, classes don't matter a single bit. Yeah appeal to anyone who want's to hop on the socialist bandwagon. There was a guy like that. Founding father of Anarchism, name began with a 'P', oh darn, the name escapes me.... Well anyway that sort of mentality probably explains for the level of failure in the Anarchist movement. Classes matter. Workers generate wealth, without the sale of their labour capitalism can't happen, likewise, they are exploited and have to sell that labour because if they don't they will die. Its all about the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Everyone else falls in between, their historical roles play little to know importance. Why bother? Ah, so sorry. I totally forgot that Communism has been such a rousing success that the world is already saved. Don't gimme that s**t Rob. You're smarter than that. Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. Damn it Domnu, I'm sick, I haven't the energy to get caught up in semantics. The working class needs to be in a class for itself. All others are welcome to join the cause. I'm just laying out the characteristic of who makes a member of the working class. Of course there are going to be exceptions. That's dialectics. I'm not saying we spit on them, I'm more or less saying there is a proper course of action and wrong one. We can't just sit here and philosophize without taking action and we can't fight the petty struggles without serving the greater struggle at large. That's where I think modern anarchy lacks. Too much of the small stuff not enough of the actual struggle. And I feel that modern commies like to talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, they're not willing to fight. They worship dead men who wrote things in a different time, and become stagnant, or make compromises, and find themselves living just like anyone else. There's not enough fight in y'all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Gracchia Saint-Justine You're pretty good despite your 'anarchism.' 'Tis a shame you have to drape yourself in it though, and can't just come out as a lazy, impatient commie... And Curse... You be quiet. You don't count in any discussions like this. Pssh. There's no room for laziness in my system (granted, I, personally, enjoy my leisure time greatly...). It's just as labour intensive as any other system out there. The difference between you commie types, and me, is that economics aren't overly important to me. I focus on change and equality through democracy at the ballot box, with the idea that democracy and equality will spread from there. Y'all focus on democracy and equality in production/economics, and change spreading from there. For you, this is a class struggle. For me, classes don't matter a single bit. Yeah appeal to anyone who want's to hop on the socialist bandwagon. There was a guy like that. Founding father of Anarchism, name began with a 'P', oh darn, the name escapes me.... Well anyway that sort of mentality probably explains for the level of failure in the Anarchist movement. Classes matter. Workers generate wealth, without the sale of their labour capitalism can't happen, likewise, they are exploited and have to sell that labour because if they don't they will die. Its all about the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Everyone else falls in between, their historical roles play little to know importance. Why bother? Ah, so sorry. I totally forgot that Communism has been such a rousing success that the world is already saved. Don't gimme that s**t Rob. You're smarter than that. Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. Damn it Domnu, I'm sick, I haven't the energy to get caught up in semantics. The working class needs to be in a class for itself. All others are welcome to join the cause. I'm just laying out the characteristic of who makes a member of the working class. Of course there are going to be exceptions. That's dialectics. I'm not saying we spit on them, I'm more or less saying there is a proper course of action and wrong one. We can't just sit here and philosophize without taking action and we can't fight the petty struggles without serving the greater struggle at large. That's where I think modern anarchy lacks. Too much of the small stuff not enough of the actual struggle. And I feel that modern commies like to talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, they're not willing to fight. They worship dead men who wrote things in a different time, and become stagnant, or make compromises, and find themselves living just like anyone else. There's not enough fight in y'all. We "worship" these men because they have brilliant ideas. Why is it such a crime to think something is true now a day. ffs..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:56 pm
Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Yeah appeal to anyone who want's to hop on the socialist bandwagon. There was a guy like that. Founding father of Anarchism, name began with a 'P', oh darn, the name escapes me.... Well anyway that sort of mentality probably explains for the level of failure in the Anarchist movement. Classes matter. Workers generate wealth, without the sale of their labour capitalism can't happen, likewise, they are exploited and have to sell that labour because if they don't they will die. Its all about the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Everyone else falls in between, their historical roles play little to know importance. Why bother? Ah, so sorry. I totally forgot that Communism has been such a rousing success that the world is already saved. Don't gimme that s**t Rob. You're smarter than that. Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. Damn it Domnu, I'm sick, I haven't the energy to get caught up in semantics. The working class needs to be in a class for itself. All others are welcome to join the cause. I'm just laying out the characteristic of who makes a member of the working class. Of course there are going to be exceptions. That's dialectics. I'm not saying we spit on them, I'm more or less saying there is a proper course of action and wrong one. We can't just sit here and philosophize without taking action and we can't fight the petty struggles without serving the greater struggle at large. That's where I think modern anarchy lacks. Too much of the small stuff not enough of the actual struggle. And I feel that modern commies like to talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, they're not willing to fight. They worship dead men who wrote things in a different time, and become stagnant, or make compromises, and find themselves living just like anyone else. There's not enough fight in y'all. We "worship" these men because they have brilliant ideas. Why is it such a crime to think something is true now a day. ffs.. Because you stagnate. No one denies that early commie writers were smart, or that their ideals and ideas weren't enviable. Things have changed, though. The world is different than it was. Adapt. Change. Bring in fresh blood. Stop parroting dead men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:21 pm
Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Comrade Rob Sri Iskander Ah, so sorry. I totally forgot that Communism has been such a rousing success that the world is already saved. Don't gimme that s**t Rob. You're smarter than that. Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. Damn it Domnu, I'm sick, I haven't the energy to get caught up in semantics. The working class needs to be in a class for itself. All others are welcome to join the cause. I'm just laying out the characteristic of who makes a member of the working class. Of course there are going to be exceptions. That's dialectics. I'm not saying we spit on them, I'm more or less saying there is a proper course of action and wrong one. We can't just sit here and philosophize without taking action and we can't fight the petty struggles without serving the greater struggle at large. That's where I think modern anarchy lacks. Too much of the small stuff not enough of the actual struggle. And I feel that modern commies like to talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, they're not willing to fight. They worship dead men who wrote things in a different time, and become stagnant, or make compromises, and find themselves living just like anyone else. There's not enough fight in y'all. We "worship" these men because they have brilliant ideas. Why is it such a crime to think something is true now a day. ffs.. Because you stagnate. No one denies that early commie writers were smart, or that their ideals and ideas weren't enviable. Things have changed, though. The world is different than it was. Adapt. Change. Bring in fresh blood. Stop parroting dead men! Reminds me of the New Left of the 60's and 70's... And without a coherent programme, they imploded. Now, Mister Domnu, I ask you this: In what ways is the ideology, world-view, and programme of the 'early commies' not applicable, out of date, or not valid in the 'changed' world we live in? Domnu Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. If a bourgeois sells their business and becomes essentially just an intellectual with a ******** of disposable income to donate to the cause, then sure, they can join up. Such a person will have tonnes of committment in addition to the tonnes of cash they can provide, as well as their 'inside' knowledge of how the bourgeoisie acts and thinks. But if they don't do that, and they continue to exploit labour... then they cannot be a communist in deed. Nor, in fact, can they be an anarchist, because they are not actually getting rid of classes. Such a person would at best be a dilletante..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:52 pm
Gracchia Saint-Justine Sri Iskander Because you stagnate. No one denies that early commie writers were smart, or that their ideals and ideas weren't enviable. Things have changed, though. The world is different than it was. Adapt. Change. Bring in fresh blood. Stop parroting dead men! Reminds me of the New Left of the 60's and 70's... And without a coherent programme, they imploded. Lucky me, I have a coherent programme. wink Quote: Now, Mister Domnu, I ask you this: In what ways is the ideology, world-view, and programme of the 'early commies' not applicable, out of date, or not valid in the 'changed' world we live in? The world isn't nearly as easily segregated into bourgeoisie and proletariat. At least, not by the definitions as I know them. You don't need to be bourgeoisie to ******** over people, after all. There are NGO groups, who don't own a means of production or a business, who are fairly dangerous to the people. This is something huge that needs to be dealt with. And let's not forget that I'm not fond of traditional communism's focus on the industrial and urban. Quote: Domnu Class isn't important to me. That's all there is to it. I'm friends with poor people. I am poor myself. I'm friends with not-poor people, too. I'm friends with people who are between being poor and being rich. I have friends who own business and employ labour. I have friends who own their own businesses and employ no labour what so ever. If the people (rich or poor) are willing to fight to abolish classes (both social and economic) and fight for equality, then I'm willing to fight beside them. I'm not going to piss on my allies just because they happen to have too much money, or own a business. If a bourgeois sells their business and becomes essentially just an intellectual with a ******** of disposable income to donate to the cause, then sure, they can join up. Such a person will have tonnes of committment in addition to the tonnes of cash they can provide, as well as their 'inside' knowledge of how the bourgeoisie acts and thinks. But if they don't do that, and they continue to exploit labour... then they cannot be a communist in deed. Nor, in fact, can they be an anarchist, because they are not actually getting rid of classes. Such a person would at best be a dilletante.. And how are you defining the exploitation of labour? Just so we're on the same page, before I really address this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:06 pm
Sri Iskander The world isn't nearly as easily segregated into bourgeoisie and proletariat. At least, not by the definitions as I know them. You don't need to be bourgeoisie to ******** over people, after all. There are NGO groups, who don't own a means of production or a business, who are fairly dangerous to the people. This is something huge that needs to be dealt with. And let's not forget that I'm not fond of traditional communism's focus on the industrial and urban. And how are you defining the exploitation of labour? Just so we're on the same page, before I really address this. Footnote to the Communist Manifesto By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. This is the same definition that's been used since at least 1848, and know that definition for proletariat was used by Robespierre in the 1790's, so... that's something that hasn't changed. And no, you don't need the bourgeoisie to ******** people over. However, they are the only class in capitalism that is based on the exploitation of another class. And by 'exploitation' is meant, essentially, the hiring of wage labour. Those NGO's are funded by the bourgeoisie and serve their interests, and have no interests distinct from the bourgeoisie, and providing them with a 'democratic' or humanitarian' cover for the capitalist social order. Then there are the NGOs that don't even do that. Now, you can be as fond of communism's industrial and urban focus as you please, but the question is not simply where we focus, but why we focus there. The industrial proletariat, by working at the point of production, has the economy in its hands, and the capitalist system by the balls. No other class is in a similar position. Even more, in the countries of belated capitalist development, where the rural population consists of a few landlords and usurers and a mass of barely subsisting peasants, the proletariat is the only class that can secure a redivision of land on the basis of 'land to the toiler.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
