If you decide to read it @Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier @Logiko @Uncle Van please let me know what you think
Not gonna lie I think I laid it out really well
Not gonna lie I think I laid it out really well
Last edited:
Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I'll be honest, I can't reply to you with the knowledge I currently have. I have reason to argue some of the point :
- The fact that there is a case to be made regarding marxism which is more of a frameworkabout the forces of production under capitalism than really "authoritarian communism" (which is why I consider myself - at least partly - marxist in materialist terms)
&
- The notion of dialectism that is inherently the understanding that the capital will never let organization just "appear" and will systematically take them down, which means that pure anarchy still feels a bit idealistic to me (in the dialectical sense)
Other than that, I can't really argue without more knowledge. I'm still upholding my judgment on both communism and anarchy until I get a better understanding. I simply know that we will have to find a better solution than both of these system as they have appeared and been thought out until now.
- The fact that there is a case to be made regarding marxism which is more of a frameworkabout the forces of production under capitalism than really "authoritarian communism" (which is why I consider myself - at least partly - marxist in materialist terms)
&
- The notion of dialectism that is inherently the understanding that the capital will never let organization just "appear" and will systematically take them down, which means that pure anarchy still feels a bit idealistic to me (in the dialectical sense)
Other than that, I can't really argue without more knowledge. I'm still upholding my judgment on both communism and anarchy until I get a better understanding. I simply know that we will have to find a better solution than both of these system as they have appeared and been thought out until now.
Also @Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier this quote from Kropotkin's "Are We Good Enough?" writing is also very good about this topic:
"
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that
because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions,
which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display
the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a
humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly de-
prived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education,
and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroy-
ing the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an
argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of
instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘Nonsense, my friend,’ they were
told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full."
"
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that
because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions,
which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display
the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a
humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly de-
prived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education,
and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroy-
ing the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an
argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of
instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and
you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society
of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when
we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely
wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only
means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time,
is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and
ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do
not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes
to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled
by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to
admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily
enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than
they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but
we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because
we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.
And old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called
Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat
of those who name themselves practical people.
Many of us must remember the quarrel when it raged in America before the abolition of slavery.
When the full emancipation of the Negroes was advocated, the practical people used to say that if the
Negroes were no more compelled to labour by the whips of their owners, they would not work at all,
and soon would become a charge upon the community. Thick whips could be prohibited, they said,
and the thickness of the whips might be progressively reduced by law to half-an-inch first and then
to a mere trifle of a few tenths of an inch; but some kind of whip must be maintained. And when the
abolitionists said – just as we say now – that the enjoyment of the produce of one’s labour would be
a much more powerful inducement to work than the thickest whip. ‘Nonsense, my friend,’ they were
told – just as we are told now. ‘You don’t know human nature! Years of slavery have rendered them
improvident, lazy and slavish, and human nature cannot be changed in one day. You are imbued, of
course, with the best intentions, but you are quite ”unpractical”.’
Well, for sometime the practical men had their own way in elaborating schemes for the gradual
emancipation of Negroes. But, alas!, the schemes proved quite unpractical, and the civil war – the
bloodiest on record – broke out. But the war resulted in the abolition of slavery, without any transition
period; – and see, none of the terrible consequences foreseen by the practical people followed. The
Negroes work, they are industrious and laborious, they are provident – nay, too provident, indeed
– and the only regret that can be expressed is, that the scheme advocated by the left wing of the
unpractical camp – full equality and land allotments – was not realised: it would have saved much
trouble now.
About the same time a like quarrel raged in Russia, and its cause was this. There were in Russia 20
million serfs. For generations past they had been under the rule, or rather the birch-rod, of their own-
ers. They were flogged for tilling their soil badly, flogged for want of cleanliness in their households,
flogged for imperfect weaving of their cloth, flogged for not sooner marrying their boys and girls –
flogged for everything. Slavishness, improvidence, were their reputed characteristics.
Now came the Utopists and asked nothing short of the following: Complete liberation of the serfs;
immediate abolition of any obligation of the serf towards the lord. More than that: immediate abolition
of the lord’s jurisdiction and his abandonment of all the affairs upon which he formerly judged, to
peasants’ tribunals elected by the peasants and judging, not in accordance with law which they do not
know, but with their unwritten customs. Such was the unpractical scheme of the unpractical camp. It
was treated as a mere folly by practical people.
But happily enough there was by that time in Russia a good deal of unpracticalness in the air, and
it was maintained by the unpracticalness of the peasants, who revolted with sticks against guns, and
refused to submit, notwithstanding the massacres, and thus enforced the unpractical state of mind to
such a degree as to permit the unpractical camp to force the Tsar to sign their scheme – still mutilated
to some extent. The most practical people hastened to flee away from Russia, that they might not have
their throats cut a few days after the promulgation of that unpractical scheme.
But everything went on quite smoothly, notwithstanding the many blunders still committed by
practical people. These slaves who were reputed improvident, selfish brutes, and so on, displayed
such good sense, such an organising capacity as to surpass the expectations of even the most unprac-
tical Utopists; and in three years after the Emancipation the general physiognomy of the villages had
completely changed. The slaves were becoming Men!
The Utopists won the battle. They proved that they were the really practical people, and that those
who pretended to be practical were imbeciles. And the only regret expressed now by all who know the
Russian peasantry is, that too many concessions were made to those practical imbeciles and narrow-
minded egotists: that the advice of the left wing of the unpractical camp was not followed in full."
@Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier did you see my summary of socialism?
@Monkey D Theories something interesting too, since we talked before about the nazis being pagan
According to the Bible, I'm not sure how much of this is from just the OT and what part of it is from the NT, so I'll say it from a christian perspective
The earthly government ends with a worldwide authoritarian anti-semitic government run by the beast, that gets destroyed at Jesus' second coming
Revelation 18:11-13
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
According to the Bible, I'm not sure how much of this is from just the OT and what part of it is from the NT, so I'll say it from a christian perspective
The earthly government ends with a worldwide authoritarian anti-semitic government run by the beast, that gets destroyed at Jesus' second coming
Revelation 18:11-13
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
Revelation 19:16-21
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
How is the word goyim anti semetic? Have you read the Talmud and the commentary and the words of Rabbis? Rabbinic Jews and the Rabbis (no I'm not talking about your average Jew) have a system that discriminates against non Jews.
How is it anti semitic if I am calling out what they think about non Jews? This is like saying I am anti German for calling out Nazis for discriminating against non Germans
Are you Zionist?
How is it anti semitic if I am calling out what they think about non Jews? This is like saying I am anti German for calling out Nazis for discriminating against non Germans
Are you Zionist?