Gnet templates

[dead_dreams]

The elitist.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

the n00b/the annoying shit.

O, by the by,

Originally Posted by $haDe

You're loved-by-everyone, Geo!!

Not. Fucking. True.

[TheBloodEternity]

Elitist. tenfuckingletters

[PortraitOfSanity]

Elitist, justified.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The savant thingy. You're one of the best ones to talk with/against/about

[dead_dreams]

The elitist - justified.

[TheBloodEternity]

Annoying asdkjasgarg

[TurquoiseXx]

Harsh but you have your good moments (from what I used to see on the boards).

[TheBloodEternity]

Now and then cool guy/nice to everyone

[Geoluhread]

Loved by everyone

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Like I said, Social Democrats just need the balls for revolution, and then it's all good.

Maybe I have a shitty understanding of Social Democracy but it's a centre-left system, and anything close to the centre doesn't change a thing. Can you explain what you think Social Democracy is and why it would help?

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by JCC

Maybe I have a shitty understanding of Social Democracy but it's a centre-left system, and anything close to the centre doesn't change a thing. Can you explain what you think Social Democracy is and why it would help?

Social Democracy is a little hard to label so concretely. The term is frequently used interchangeably with Democratic Socialism, which technically is towards the left of Social Democracy. However, the two almost always exist together within the same party, like the French Socialist Party.

Really what Social Democracy advocates is the mixed economy, an emphasis on Socialist theory, but with Capitalism not completely wiped out. The most well known modern examples of Social Democrats, include those who fall under the label of "The Third Way", the most obvious examples being Clinton and Blair (before he sold his soul to Bush that is).

"The Third Way" is regarded as the most centrist form of Social Democracy, with the privatization of a limited number of state industries, and slightly relaxed regulation of the market.

[JCC]

Yeah, that really wouldn't make anything better for anyone.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Please explain what you're opposed to. Most of their economic views do line up with pure Socialism, Social Democracy advocates a strong welfare system and universal health care for example. Most of their social ideals match up with modern liberalism; same sex marriage and opposing restriction of abortion and immigration rights. Ironically, they also want to rewrite, or do away with NAFTA, which was Clinton's brainchild after all.

[JCC]

1. Retaining elements of capitalism. It doesn't matter how you redistribute wealth so that nobody's suffering, people are still subjugated, still subject to wage slavery. Social democracy protects superiority and oppression through money.

2. Social democracy is still a dictatorship.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Please, ANY system can be exploited to subjugate a population. It's been done under Imperialism, Democracy, Communism, and yes, even under Anarchy. The only difference is the means of subjugation varies between systems. Under some systems it's the point of a sword, or the barrel of a gun. Under some it's the dollar bill.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

JCC is an anarchocommunist. Anyone that had been here about a week would have probably known this.

Insulting me because I'm not on the board as much as you think a "regular" should be? Weak. Pathetically weak.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

weren't talking about real political anarchism; it's up to you to sync up with the person you're trying to argue with.

Uh... come again? I'm not allowed to disagree with your definition of anarchy? You and gothicusmaximus can't even seem to agree on a specific definition, so what makes you think that I'm going to fall in line?

Here's the definition that you and gothicusmaximus use to define anarchy:

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Here's my response from message #167:

A government without the power to interfere in the lives of its citizens, to coerce by any means, is no government at all. So, does this mean that anarchist's touting the idea of a government without any powers of enforcement is really advocating for no government at all? Seems like it.

That's all that need be said. Don't get uppity about disagreeing over definition. No one ever said that we have to agree to disagree, so you can just blow that fucking sentiment right out the window.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If I were to talk about existentialism, after all, why the fuck would you start speaking about Ayn Rand just because she wanted to name her philosophy existentialism? Am I talking about her? Are you not going off in a tangent?

You blame me for going off on a tangent? Isn't that what you've been doing this whole time? For fuck's sake, this entire argument is a tangent. Need I remind you that I haven't been sitting here arguing with myself? I think that you, GM and JCC are just a little bit culpable.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

for the points of anarchism, there are goals to it: anarchism is a socialist theory, they desire an end to unjustified authority for the sake of liberty which brings egalitarianism. The methods to this vary a little. There's anarchocommunists that feel without an authoritative government the community itself could democratically allocate resources according to their wants and needs. There's anarchosyndicalists who give all the fruits of their labor to the workers, and through union federations, no place in the country goes in want.

See my above definition of anarchist government.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

you say this is Utopian, these two theories were applied to societies with over two million people. Their demise was when they were murdered, not when they failed.

First, I'd never call that "Utopian". Go read Utopia.

Second, two million people, even four million, out of how many? Two, three billion? That's one - two percent. That isn't statistically valid. Also, how do we really know that these societies worked? We're relying on you, and you seem to rely on anarchist polemic. The entire conclusion is suspect, and even if the four million anarchists proved to be working in harmony, you can't apply their means to the world at large.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

stop trying to stretch the definition of government as if that made me a hypocrite. I haven't had that piece of rhetoric applied to me since I was in Christian school. I say I have no religion; they say that I believe in humankind, therefore that is a belief, therefore that is a religion. Did that make me any more religious? No.
Obama says "spread out the wealth". They call him a socialist. Does that make him more of a socialist? Does that change in any way his ideals and their merits? No.
So stop trying to say anarchists are actually statists, because it means nothing. By your stretching of a definition, a family is also a government unit, and what value does that have?

Boy, for someone who blames me for going off on tangents, you certainly do run off at the mouth. Or fingertips in this case. Nobody gives a shit about your personal experience in school, not in this context. Can it.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If we're going to talk about this, then let's set a definition to government that is what anarchists want to abolish: It is an authoritative and centralized power that exists as a priori - fuck the 'social contract', my forefathers signed it so it also applies to me - that has a monopoly on power, violence, justice, and order. Any person that is born in one government, without a choice, is assigned a place in the government, and despite the liberties an individual is 'given' (as if freedom is a gift by the state) these liberties end where the government begins

No. Fuck you. I'm not going to accept that just because you use a definition of anarchist "government", so should I use the same. I accept that your ideas exist, I just don't think they're valid. See above response to question of definition.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

still baffles me that you don't know that Marx talked about a violent revolution, both in action and in ideals:
"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with
traditional property relations; no wonder that its development
involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the
working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling as to win the battle of democracy."
"If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to
organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it
makes itself the ruling class"
(These quotes directly from Proletarians and Communists)
And, of course the whole Epilogue:
" The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, Unite! "

Where do you see a call for exclusively violent revolution? As I said before, Marx wanted a modern, industrial nation like England or Germany to be the test-bed for his theories, NOT Imperial Russia. The mechanics and sophistication of government in a modern nation would have precluded the need for excessive violence.

Also, Lenin was not Marx, nor was the Russian revolution Marxist: it was LENINIST. Marx imagined a revolution of the urban, industrial proletariat. Russia's population was largely peasant, and therefore Russia did not meet the preconditions for a Marxist revolution. Lenin borrowed from Marx, but made up a lot of shit as he went. Is there any wonder his vision turned violent?


The fact that you think immediately of violent overthrow says more about you than it does about Marx.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

finally (for now), I really liked GM's question to you. How do you measure the success of a society?

That question should really have been directed at you. You were the one irresponsibly giving equal weight to historical movements that were most decidedly not equal.

But, to simplify matters, let us say that importance should be gauged by social impact, not novelty, ie the novel nature of a community of even two million (statistically insignificant) anarchocommunists.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

British Empire was the largest empire in the world. It was oppressive, elitist, racist, sexist, colonial, and only the top tier of this empire enjoyed any benefits out of this expansion (which goes on to prove that the State is not for the benefit of all within the State, but to the few that have power in it)
Catalonia had two million people, half of them living in perfect poverty before the revolution. After the collectivization of property, everyone finally had access to basic resources and more. And it didn't end in simply resources.
In Barcelona, in just one year in 1936, the literacy rates went from 7% to 100%!! This because the workers had a reason and a passion to excel personally and socially to be a part of a community that gave them a legitimate voice.

And the industrial conditions were even better. Not only were they safer, but the production improved so much that by the end of the Civil War, the anarchist part of Spain was virtually funding the war by itself against the fascists. They manufactured virtually all of the weapons for the Republic. They cultivated most of the rations. They provided most of the troops! The only reason they lost was because United States not only stopped helping the Republic, but in fact began to supply the Nationalists in exchange for Franco to remove himself from the rest of World War II.
Hell, anarchist Spain was the most important faction of the Spanish Civil War. You still learn about the civil war, don't you? Only the Nationalist and Republican sides. They don't pay any attention either to Marxists or Anarchists. Hell, anarchist Spain did more in WWII than France. Yet France is important in history books.

Safer conditions and literacy rates are good, but you sit there, rattle off random facts, and do not tell me why the FAILED social experiments of a couple million people are of equal or greater significance to something like the British Empire. What impact did these people have on the world?

Also, next time, break up your posts a little more. This is a garbled, runon mess. At least gothicusmaximus had the decency to make his post readable.

[JCC]

Systems can be exploited, sure. Social democracy sets out with subjugation as key, capital is inequality.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Note: I'm not saying that I accept Godslayer Jillian's assertion that two million anarchists lived harmoniously in communities in both Spain and Russia. I just don't know where he gets his information from and therefore cannot refute it. For the purposes of my response, I am accepting those numbers and ideas as fact, though, in all seriousness, I doubt he pulled them from a credible source.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Here's the definition that you and gothicusmaximus use to define anarchy:

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Here's my response from message #167:

A government without the power to interfere in the lives of its citizens, to coerce by any means, is no government at all. So, does this mean that anarchist's touting the idea of a government without any powers of enforcement is really advocating for no government at all? Seems like it.

Yeah. That's it in a nutshell. Anarchy is about consensus, not government.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

First, I'd never call that "Utopian". Go read Utopia.

Utopia was Thomas Moore's own perspective on what his Utopia would be. Utopia is not rigidity, it is subjective. To a Neo-Nazi, a Nazi state is Utopia.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Second, two million people, even four million, out of how many? Two, three billion? That's one - two percent. That isn't statistically valid. Also, how do we really know that these societies worked? We're relying on you, and you seem to rely on anarchist polemic. The entire conclusion is suspect, and even if the four million anarchists proved to be working in harmony, you can't apply their means to the world at large.

There's six billion people in the world. As for saying that a social structure that is evidenced to work with two million people is not validated, that's ridiculous. If you want perspective on two million people, in 1750, that was the entire population of Northern America. We really know that these societies worked because we have testimonies and statistics. That's as much as we can have about any period of history, so don't go saying that it might be manipulated, yeah, it might be. By the same token World War II may never have happened twenty years from now.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Boy, for someone who blames me for going off on tangents, you certainly do run off at the mouth. Or fingertips in this case. Nobody gives a shit about your personal experience in school, not in this context. Can it.

Hahaha! You pick out a tiny part of his post, the prelude to his actual argument and attempt to criticise that? Red herring, fool.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

No. Fuck you. I'm not going to accept that just because you use a definition of anarchist "government", so should I use the same. I accept that your ideas exist, I just don't think they're valid. See above response to question of definition.

It's not HIS definition! It's THE Anarchist definition!
Hey, Pinstripes, you say that definition is what something means? Well fuck you, eh, I say it means 'carrots'. You got that? AS OF NOW, 'DEFINITION' IS A SYNONYM FOR CARROTS! Fuck objective reality in its kosher (that means ass by my definition)

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Where do you see a call for exclusively violent revolution? As I said before, Marx wanted a modern, industrial nation like England or Germany to be the test-bed for his theories, NOT Imperial Russia. The mechanics and sophistication of government in a modern nation would have precluded the need for excessive violence.

There's no such thing as an exclusively violent revolution, it's not exactly hard to win that point.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Also, Lenin was not Marx, nor was the Russian revolution Marxist: it was LENINIST.

Kein scheisse Sherlock.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Marx imagined a revolution of the urban, industrial proletariat. Russia's population was largely peasant, and therefore Russia did not meet the preconditions for a Marxist revolution. Lenin borrowed from Marx, but made up a lot of shit as he went. Is there any wonder his vision turned violent?

Marx advocated a revolution inside Russia.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That question should really have been directed at you. You were the one irresponsibly giving equal weight to historical movements that were most decidedly not equal.

But, to simplify matters, let us say that importance should be gauged by social impact, not novelty, ie the novel nature of a community of even two million (statistically insignificant) anarchocommunists.

How can you have more fucking impact than a region funding a civil war ITSELF?! How can you have more impact than a 93% rise in literacy?! Shit, what do you want, for them to learn how to be born with wings?
Also, they weren't anarchocommunist.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Safer conditions and literacy rates are good, but you sit there, rattle off random facts, and do not tell me why the FAILED social experiments of a couple million people are of equal or greater significance to something like the British Empire. What impact did these people have on the world?

Because they showed that anarchism works on a large scale, don't even try and tell me that two million people is not a large number because it's fucking huge, especially for such an underdog political philosophy that so many disregard as pointless idealism.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

There's six billion people in the world.

Not in the thirties there wasn't, and that's the topic of that particular segment of the dicussion.

Originally Posted by JCC

As for saying that a social structure that is evidenced to work with two million people is not validated, that's ridiculous. If you want perspective on two million people, in 1750, that was the entire population of Northern America. We really know that these societies worked because we have testimonies and statistics. That's as much as we can have about any period of history, so don't go saying that it might be manipulated, yeah, it might be. By the same token World War II may never have happened twenty years from now.

Your entire conclusion is premised by the statement that in 1750 two million people was the entire population of North America, and capped by the statement that twenty years from this point a conflict like WW2 will be an impossibility.

As you so succinctly put it, NO SHIT! You're taking things out of context. We're not talking about 1750, or 2028; we were discussing 1930s Spain. Context, you fucking moron. CONTEXT. STICK WITH IT.

Originally Posted by JCC

Hahaha! You pick out a tiny part of his post, the prelude to his actual argument and attempt to criticise that? Red herring, fool.

I was commenting on him saying that I went off on a tangent, while he himself was doing the same. Is the concept of irony entirely unfamiliar to you?

Originally Posted by JCC

It's not HIS definition! It's THE Anarchist definition!
Hey, Pinstripes, you say that definition is what something means? Well fuck you, eh, I say it means 'carrots'. You got that? AS OF NOW, 'DEFINITION' IS A SYNONYM FOR CARROTS! Fuck objective reality in its kosher (that means ass by my definition)

Is is really the definition? If so, then why did gothicusmaximus say that that very definition was too soft, and that the dictionary was being too generous with its definition of anarchist government? Wouldn't that suggest that there are, perhaps, other definitions out there?

Originally Posted by JCC

There's no such thing as an exclusively violent revolution, it's not exactly hard to win that point.

First, you're cherry picking. You're, again, taking my words out of context.

Second, GJ DID say that Marxism called for a violent revolution, and completely disregarded the quote I pulled from the Communist Manifesto saying otherwise.

Originally Posted by JCC

Marx advocated a revolution inside Russia.

Of course he wanted to see his vision take root across the world. But he didn't expect it to first manifest itself in Russia.

Originally Posted by JCC

How can you have more fucking impact than a region funding a civil war ITSELF?! How can you have more impact than a 93% rise in literacy?! Shit, what do you want, for them to learn how to be born with wings?

No, I want you to stop giving more credit to people than is due. Are you implying that they funded a civil war by themselves? I think you are GROSSLY oversimplifying the issue. Does the term "Soviet Intervention" ring any bells? Or, perhaps, "FRANCO WAS FUNDED AND SUPPLIED BY NAZI GERMANY, AND THE SOCIALISTS WERE SUPPORTED BY SOVIET RUSSIA!", would ring clearer. But, seeing as thought 1920s-1930s Spain is not my strong suit, I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by JCC

Because they showed that anarchism works on a large scale, don't even try and tell me that two million people is not a large number because it's fucking huge, especially for such an underdog political philosophy that so many disregard as pointless idealism.

You unfailingly take things out of CONTEXT. It may be big for an underdog political philosophy, but underdog political philosophies don't exist in a vacuum, now do they?

As I said: This is not statistically valid, even if it is fact, which I tend to doubt, seeing as thought GJ has a weak grip on anything outside of Anarchist polemic.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Your entire conclusion is premised by the statement that in 1750 two million people was the entire population of North America, and capped by the statement that twenty years from this point a conflict like WW2 will be an impossibility.

Actually, that's not what I meant at all. Your reasons for disregarding anarcho-syndicalism in Spain as invalid are bullshit because there's as much evidence for them as there is for any happening in history. If people were to take your view of everything, twenty years from now, people would say "Oh yeah? Can you PROVE World War II happened?"

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

As you so succinctly put it, NO SHIT! You're taking things out of context. We're not talking about 1750, or 2028; we were discussing 1930s Spain. Context, you fucking moron. CONTEXT. STICK WITH IT.

I didn't break context. I was comparing the numbers in that area with another area you can relate to. There was no mention of context because context doesn't colour my comparison, it's one purely of mathematics, not of history nor of society.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I was commenting on him saying that I went off on a tangent, while he himself was doing the same. Is the concept of irony entirely unfamiliar to you?

Prefacing a point isn't a tangent. He didn't even reference his school after that, how the fuck is that a tangent?

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Is is really the definition?

Yes.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

If so, then why did gothicusmaximus say that that very definition was too soft, and that the dictionary was being too generous with its definition of anarchist government?

Two reasons. One; it does not mention anarchist government, it mentions what government anarchists want to eliminate. The second reason is because gothicusmaximus is not anarchism.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Wouldn't that suggest that there are, perhaps, other definitions out there?

There's other definitions. The definition in Anarchism is rigid.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

First, you're cherry picking. You're, again, taking my words out of context.

You made a comment and I replied to it. Unless your entire idea is a cherry, I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Second, GJ DID say that Marxism called for a violent revolution, and completely disregarded the quote I pulled from the Communist Manifesto saying otherwise.

A violent revolution is not a purely violent revolution! The same way as strawberry cake is not just one big fucking strawberry!

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Of course he wanted to see his vision take root across the world. But he didn't expect it to first manifest itself in Russia.

Really? I didn't know you'd met and asked him beforehand, or I wouldn't have endeavoured to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

No, I want you to stop giving more credit to people than is due. Are you implying that they funded a civil war by themselves? I think you are GROSSLY oversimplifying the issue. Does the term "Soviet Intervention" ring any bells? Or, perhaps, "FRANCO WAS FUNDED AND SUPPLIED BY NAZI GERMANY, AND THE SOCIALISTS WERE SUPPORTED BY SOVIET RUSSIA!", would ring clearer. But, seeing as thought 1920s-1930s Spain is not my strong suit, I'll leave it at that.

Have you ever heard of "They paid the Soviets for their support with Spanish gold reserves and it took more than two thirds of their gold, stop talking about shit you don't get like the economic factors of the Spanish civil war"?

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You unfailingly take things out of CONTEXT. It may be big for an underdog political philosophy, but underdog political philosophies don't exist in a vacuum, now do they?

Yes, they do. Capitalism and democracy doesn't work for anyone, two million is a pretty fucking big head start.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmet

As I said: This is not statistically valid, even if it is fact, which I tend to doubt, seeing as thought GJ has a weak grip on anything outside of Anarchist polemic.

As I said: we've got as much evidence of this as any other occurence throughout history.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Your mention of 1750s North America in a discussion about 1930s Spain isnt breaking context?

You blame me for not meeting Marx, as though you have. Are you serious?

Neither Capitalism or Democracy work for anyone, and two million people out of three billion is a significant amount?


You have evidence to back up your statements? Who is this "we" that you refer to yourself as part of, and what evidence have you got?

I especially like your "strawberry cake" bit. Is that supposed to be an effective similie?

Though I've here listed some of what you said, I'm not going to bother responding to you point-by-point. How can I, when what you offer up is such utter tripe?

Honestly, how the fuck am I supposed to take you seriously when you make completely bonkers statements like these?

Just wait for GJ or GM to make a post. You did better just staying off on the sidelines.

[MollyMac]

Yeah! Wait until mommy and daddy get online, they'll show you!

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Your mention of 1750s North America in a discussion about 1930s Spain isnt breaking context?

Not if, ironically, you're aware of the context of my mentioning it.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You blame me for not meeting Marx, as though you have. Are you serious?

No, as in, he alluded to a Russian revolution and not to a German one like you would claim. Do you have any sort of source that would back up a belief that he didn't want a Russian revolution, but a revolution in other countries instead? There's less evidence for it than Anarchist Catalonia.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Capitalism and Democracy don't work for anyone, and two million people out of three billion is a significant amount?

Yes.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You have evidence to back up your statements? Who is this "we" that you refer to yourself as part of, and what evidence are you refering to?

"We" as in, human beings, people with a vague interest in history, people who know their shit and don't go on to internet forums claiming that the Soviets gave weapons to the Spanish free of charge.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I especially like your "strawberry cake" bit. Is that supposed to be an effective similie?

Yes.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Thought I've listed some of what you said, I'm not going to bother responding to you point-by-point. How can I, when what you offer up is such utter tripe?

Seriously, how the fuck am I supposed to take you seriously when you make completely bonkers statements like these?

Read as: Shit, son, you just demolished me. Time to act like a tough guy.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Just wait for GJ or GM to make a post. You did better just staying off on the sidelines.

GJ will agree with me and GM isn't an Anarchist.