Of marxists, socialists, eco-terrorists and other Neo-Coms

reply to post by maria_stardust


Why are you so paranoid Sandanista? Can you feel the ceiling falling in? Truth is out there! Just look!

Originally posted by Culdeeson
Why are you so paranoid Sandanista? Can you feel the ceiling falling in? Truth is out there! Just look!

Paranoia on a conspiracy site, imagine that!

Are you suggesting I'm a paranoid Sandinista, perhaps? Ha, ha! No.

Which ceiling are you referring to? The glass ceiling? A metaphorical ceiling? You're being rather vague.

Yes, the truth is out there. That's why I've become involved in this rather in depth discussion.

Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts?

By this reasoning, the actual make up of Congress shows ethnicities other than Caucasian are indeed minorities. Hence, ethnic minorities do exist.

Do you know how many white males are in the Government of China? Or how many Americans in the Government of Mexico? Or how many white males are in the Government of Zimbabwe? Or how many Swedes are in the Government of Ireland?



Another question: Do you consider Irish and Japenese immigrants as "ethnic minorities" as well? Or is it that because they are fairly well-off, they are not mentioned by leftist-literature?

Are White Americans oppressed because there are not many of them in Argentinian Government?

Originally posted by maria_stardust
one of the most misogynistic things I have read in a long while.

For nothing other than saying women are treated more fairly nowadays I am being called a woman-hater.

When you were younger did you think that someday you`d become so radicalized that you would call a normal guy who has never looked down on a women, a "woman-hater"?

This is what the OP talks about...the fierce irrationality of ultra-radicals.

A previous leftist poster suggested that evidence of poverty is if 15 people die in a cold winter. Another example of ultra-radical misproportion. The method is always the same: Take 0.001% of what is happening and genrealize it to look like thats what is happening all over.

The cause-effect relationship of these philosophies and the real-life results of socialism are undeniable.

Evil may be derived from across the entire political spectrum including those conservative in nature.

Thats true. But the focus of this particular thread happens to be the very specific and specialialized brainwashing of the far-left.

As mentioned elsewhere, far-right hate is different than far-left hate. The far-right is more of the sadist, bigot, fascist. The evil is more open and recognizable, whereas in the radical left it is hidden under pretenses of "social justice" and "peace on earth". And that makes it even more dangerous.

women are portrayed more often times than not as both gold-diggers and whores, and this is a predominately male perspective.

In your ultra-radical world it may be. Ive met and spoken to thousands of men throughout my lifetime. And of those thousands of men Ive only met one or two with views like that.

Why would women be viewed as whores? This sounds so 18th Century. Or certain other cultures. Certainly not ours.

Put your ultra-radical literature aside and go out and meet some real men. We are mostly normal, nice, civilized guys.

an extremely narrow view of a small contingent of feminists

Small contingent?


Wikipedia on Gender

While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, the natural sciences, regard biological and behavioral differences in males and females as influencing the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence gender identity formation.

gender as a role; before his work, it was uncommon to use gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents such as The World Health Organization (WHO),

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Tell that to the French protestors who are standing up to their government at the moment (waving Che Flags). This is a demonstration of the left and has worked in the past. That's why the do it.

I think you're a few decades too late, if you believe that protesting can still achieve something in the Western world.

These protesters waving their Che Guevara flags will achieve absolutely nothing, due to Western people's ever-increasing dependence on the State.

The French Senate has already ratified these measures, and the protesters will just eventually slink away and take it, because they need the safety net that the State provides.

Originally posted by tiger5
Er China is my biggest fear. The are hell bent on destroying the west and have absolutely nothing to do with socialism

Structurally, China is still very much Maoist-socialist, despite having begun to embrace Capitalism for sheer need of survival.

Originally posted by Maslo
Directly manipulating and setting the price of a commodity is the most socialist thing I can think of.

Yes it is. Which makes even the U.S. still too socialist. Having to regulate everything comes from fear (as opposed to trust). A psychological rule of the thumb is that comes from fear cannot lead to good results.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
non of the self declared communist countrys of the 20th century atualy followed marxist ideology

:shk: Marxists keep using this one. They stage a marxist revolution, implement marxist principles, openly call it marxists...and then decades later, when it has failed declare it "not really marxist. Instead, lets try it again in another country".

How many more countries do you want to try it with?

Next thing they say is: "Well, it looks good on paper. So it must somehow work".

But it doesnt look good on paper. It does not make any sense. Whatsoever.

You can use the analogy of a small village community to check which systems make sense and which dont.

Imagine a small Community. Now take the idea

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Thats one of the villagers working like mad to pick pineapples. He eats some for himself. He gives out some more to his immediate family. Well fed, he has energy to go picking for more. He also re-invests some of the seeds to grow more.

In a Communist/Socialist society he works like crazy to pick pineapples. When he comes home he finds Government officials taking the pineapples away from him and giving them to someone who has not picked them because the Government feels sorry for that person.

So our villager no longer feels motivated to go pick pineapples. And now, neither the needy one, nor the family nor the pineapple-picker have anything.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Before critisizeing me please read my earlier posts properly, I acknolage marxism is not perfect and only used it in that example since that is what those countrys claimed to be. Marx did not inevent communism and in no way defines it, again I have earlier acknolaged the isues you rose and provided my take on dealing with them - the parcon derived currancy system.

Under my system the farmer works hard and produces his fruit from which he takes his share and the rest is pased on to the comunal store and he is rembursed with acsess to the goods there from other producers in line with how much he contributed, hence providing incentive and divercifying the acsess the farmer has to diffrent resources. Everyone would have basic acsess to the store as in bread and water etc but the more you work the more luxuary/unecesery items you can acsess like xbox games or the like.

reply to post by Skyfloating


There is no need for you to become testy, Skyfloating. I am attempting to have a civil discussion with you and have been nothing short of sincere in the process.

Did you no start this thread with the intent of fostering civil discourse, or did you only mean to rant?

I only ask because it seems that you are taking this rather personally. My intent has been to strive for a mutual understanding of each of our stances and bring about a sense of clarity upon many of the issues raised along the way.

If, by any chance, I am wrong about something and I realize it – I will readily own up to it. Case in point, you corrected me that it was Contras that the Reagan administration backed up. You called me on my error and I accepted it with grace.

As I have stated early on, I consider myself a moderate – or, more succinctly, left of center. It is my honest belief that most people’s political views fall along the moderate line and will lean towards one side or the other, as opposed to grasping onto an extreme end of the political spectrum.

I point this out because at the very beginning of your opening post you specifically target leftists – not far-left or extreme-left. As we all know, the term leftism is synonymous with liberalism. Again, that’s not my personal take on leftism or what constitutes leftism – that’s the interchangeable term. Furthermore, you lump leftists in the same group as “socialists, marxists, communists” and claim that they are “all different degrees of the same mentality” whose ideologies are “totalitarian and collectivist garbage.”

As I am a moderate with left-leaning views, of course, I’ve viewed this stance as both misleading and insulting. This is why I chose to discuss this issue with you.That said, I am not an “ultra-radical” as you have referred to me. There is no need to resort to that kind of cheap shot, as I’d really like to think you’re better than that.

Do you know how many white males are in the Government of China? Or how many Americans in the Government of Mexico? Or how many white males are in the Government of Zimbabwe? Or how many Swedes are in the Government of Ireland?

A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society.

source

In America – which, by the way, I was using as my example – an ethnic minority would be any racial group that is not Caucasian, as that is the race that is predominately in political power here. The same standard would apply to any other nation in the world.

It would suffice to say that in Mexico, for instance, that people of Hispanic descent would not be considered a minority group, but in America they would be considered as such.

Another question: Do you consider Irish and Japenese immigrants as "ethnic minorities" as well? Or is it that because they are fairly well-off, they are not mentioned by leftist-literature?

Yes, I would consider both of these groups to be ethnic minorities, albeit with certain distinctions that I will touch upon only briefly.

Caucasians, as a designated race (think Census Bureau) can cover a wide range of people that is not necessarily limited to national origin. Hence many Italians, Irish, and French, for example, could be considered under this heading. However, many Italians and Irish also identify themselves as ethnic groups in their own right and have suffered from oppression in America.

These distinctions, while raising interesting side issues, are probably best saved for a dedicated thread.

As far as whether or not they are mentioned in “leftist-literature” – I wouldn’t know, as that is a rather broad term (remember, leftist is synonymous with liberal) and would cover anything from the current Democratic platform to the extreme-left ideology. Although, I will admit that I’m not in the habit of reading extremist literature of any kind.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
one of the most misogynistic things I have read in a long while.

For nothing other than saying women are treated more fairly nowadays I am being called a woman-hater.

When you were younger did you think that someday you`d become so radicalized that you would call a normal guy who has never looked down on a women, a "woman-hater"?

Your remark:
“In most cultures women have just as much say on things as men....just in different areas.”

I did not call YOU any name, much less a “woman-hater” – that is something you pulled out of thin air. However, the above statement is misogynistic in nature. You have carried on ad nauseam that Feminism, as a whole, is an extreme-left ideology that is detrimental to society – nay, detrimental to the survival of mankind – and that such beliefs are not needed because women are equal to men (at least that’s what has been inferred.)

If what you have inferred was truly the case, then there would have been no need to make the distinction “…just in different areas.” That is what makes it a misogynistic statement.

women are portrayed more often times than not as both gold-diggers and whores, and this is a predominately male perspective.

In your ultra-radical world it may be. Ive met and spoken to thousands of men throughout my lifetime. And of those thousands of men Ive only met one or two with views like that.

Why would women be viewed as whores? This sounds so 18th Century. Or certain other cultures. Certainly not ours.

Put your ultra-radical literature aside and go out and meet some real men. We are mostly normal, nice, civilized guys.

As I’m not an ultra-radical by any stretch of the imagination, I have no ultra-radical literature to set aside.

In a perfect world, everything would be butterflies and rainbows and cute, fuzzy kittens – and there would be no need for philosophies such as Feminism. Unfortunately, we don’t reside in a Utopian society and harsh mindsets against women do exist.

Just about any time a discussion revolving around controversial issues that center along gender lines, such as divorce, abortion or male reproductive rights – mostly normal, nice, civilized guys (who may or may not be speaking from personal experience) can delve into the harsh realm of female-bashing in its most ugly terms.

Is that to say these same mostly normal, nice, civilized guys are all “woman-haters”?

No, it is not. Chances are most of these men have women they value in their lives. However, the fact remains that even the nicest guys can be prejudiced against women to a certain degree. Take for example that first wife, who was cherished enough to marry in the beginning. As the marriage soured, so did her husband’s perception of her – she is now a two-timing whore (especially if they engaged in pre-marital sex), a gold-digger, etc.

These kinds of mindsets do exist – even within mostly normal, nice, civilized guys.

an extremely narrow view of a small contingent of feminists

Small contingent?

Yes, a small contingent. The belief that gender is a social construct, as opposed to a biological one, is held by a single subset of the Feminist movement referred to as Postmodern Feminism. It is not a view of Feminism as a whole as you have alluded to in your opening post.

Had you stated that one theory of the ultra-radical Postmodern Feminism group believes that gender is a social construct, as opposed to a biological one – and left it at that, then this wouldn’t have become an issue.

Did you stop there? NO, you then placed this particular social construct on par with pedophilia, and by default, Feminism.

In short:
Feminism=social construct
Social construct=gender not biologically-based

Pedophilia is a social construct, therefore, Feminism=pedophilia.

That is a horridly misleading analogy that serves no other purpose than to malign the entire Feminist movement.

This is what the OP talks about...the fierce irrationality of ultra-radicals.

Unfortunately, ultra-radicals are not the only group listed in your opening post. You have listed ALL Leftists and ALL Feminists within your opening post WITHOUT distinction, and therein lies the problem.

The impression that is given within your opening post is that ANYONE with left-leaning (liberal) views is only under the “guise of being warm-hearted and idealistic” while in truth is hell-bent on destroying the world through “their manipulation of reality.” In addition, it is necessary to expose such philosophies as a “matter of necessity - for the sake of mankinds survival.”

Again, you have lumped ANYONE with liberal-leaning views along with the ultra-radicals, and in turn widened the polarizing divide, as no moderate stance is granted exception in your opening post.

As mentioned elsewhere, far-right hate is different than far-left hate. The far-right is more of the sadist, bigot, fascist.

THANK YOU! Finally, we are getting somewhere. This is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Evil exists on both extremes of the political spectrum, not just the ultra-radical left.

General note: Im not testy or offended. I like you as an ATS-member, Moderator and Debator. I like that you participate in controversial debate and question the concepts presented. Thats fantastic. Thats what this whole site is supposed to be about, right? This Debate is a little harsher because I truly believe that these are real issues as opposed to the many make-believe issues one reads about here and there. If it gets to be no longer enjoyable, just jump out of the thread. In no way am I angry - Im enthusiastic that Debate like this would even occur and have you to thank for it.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
In America – which, by the way, I was using as my example – an ethnic minority would be any racial group that is not Caucasian, as that is the race that is predominately in political power here. The same standard would apply to any other nation in the world.

The whole point was:

If there are more Mexicans in Mexican Government than Americans and more Americans than Mexicans in American Government this has nothing at all to do with "Oppression" or "Inequality" but with the location various peoples are.

A second factor in receiving Government positions are votes and qualifications.

Thirdly, a small degree of inequality is good for aspiration and competition.

many Italians and Irish also identify themselves as ethnic groups in their own right and have suffered from oppression in America.

And have the Irish and Italians also caused Oppression? Have Mexicans ever caused Oppression? Just curious.

Your remark: “In most cultures women have just as much say on things as men....just in different areas.”

This has nothing to do with me "hating women" but recognizing present day reality in which many men still play a major role at work but a secondary role at home. This has slowly been changing, but the way it currently is is no sign of "oppression", its just what humans have become habituated to over time.

I did not call YOU any name, much less a “woman-hater” – that is something you pulled out of thin air.

Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of women. Misogyny comes from Greek misogunia (μισογυνία) from misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman).

*

No, you didnt call me a woman-hater, so "only" said that what I say is woman-hating. It doesnt matter - I am not offended by it, I do not feel oppressed by it. I only pointed it out so that readers can see feminist mentality for what it is.

These kinds of mindsets do exist – even within mostly normal, nice, civilized guys.

All kinds of mindsets exist. Thats the nature of the world. Men-bashing exists too. White-American bashing exists. America bashing exists.

If a woman-bashing is happening, there are at least four options that come to mind:

a) Talking back / Fighting back
c) Leaving the scene to get together with nicer people
d) Practicing Forgiveness (for they know not what they do)
c) Positioning oneself as an oppressed victim, powerless and resentful

This whole thread is about Option c not getting things done.

Unfortunately, ultra-radicals are not the only group listed in your opening post. You have listed ALL Leftists and ALL Feminists within your opening post WITHOUT distinction, and therein lies the problem.

The impression that is given within your opening post is that ANYONE with left-leaning (liberal) views is only under the “guise of being warm-hearted and idealistic” while in truth is hell-bent on destroying the world through “their manipulation of reality.”

Im OK with many things that the right-wing would call "leftist". As you may have noticed in the OP, my definition of what is "leftist" is somewhat different.Im fairly OK with healthcare-reform, Im 100% OK with gay-marriage, 100% OK with abortion up to a certain time and in certain cases, Im OK with muslims building a mosque near ground-zero. All these things considered "leftist" by many Americans are merely liberal/moderate, not really "leftist". Anyway...thats a difference in Definition, nothing more. This difference in definition comes from the fact that I have been living in Europe since 10 years.

THANK YOU! Finally, we are getting somewhere. This is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Evil exists on both extremes of the political spectrum, not just the ultra-radical left

This thread is not for exposing the wrongs of the right-wing or for finding how "right and left are equally wrong" (ever notice how leftists forever want stuff to be "equally wrong"). Those wrongs have already been exposed elsewhere. Pointing out right-wing wrongs does nothing to make leftist wrongs good or justified.

We are not "getting somewhere" by pretending that all is now well because "both sides are equally guilty". These attempts, which you can see in every thread on this subject, only serve for writers and readers to loose interest in exposing the core of the subject.

If someone says "Mc Donalds is not good for your health and here is why" and someone comes in to say "Well, eating vegetables only is not good for your health, and here is why" - this diverts attention from examining McDonalds at a much deeper level. I'd love to explore the exact ingredients of leftism. Right-wing-ism is another topic for another thread.

Also - Im not speaking from a right-wing perspective. Im speaking from a human perspective that sees how philosophy leads to attitude and attitude leads to behavior and violent action - which is the root of human suffering. A look at history reveals how socialist philosophy, even before the word socialism came about, has caused the most suffering of all philosophies out there. Why that is so I have already shown in my previous post, from which I will copy/paste here:

You can use the analogy of a small village community to check which systems make sense and which dont.

Imagine a small Community. Now take the idea

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Thats one of the villagers working like mad to pick pineapples. He eats some for himself. He gives out some more to his immediate family. Well fed, he has energy to go picking for more. He also re-invests some of the seeds to grow more.

In a Communist/Socialist society he works like crazy to pick pineapples. When he comes home he finds Government officials taking the pineapples away from him and giving them to someone who has not picked them because the Government feels sorry for that person.

So our villager no longer feels motivated to go pick pineapples. And now, neither the needy one, nor the family nor the pineapple-picker have anything.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
Under my system the farmer works hard and produces his fruit from which he takes his share and the rest is pased on to the comunal store and he is rembursed with acsess to the goods there from other producers in line with how much he contributed, hence providing incentive and divercifying the acsess the farmer has to diffrent resources. Everyone would have basic acsess to the store as in bread and water etc but the more you work the more luxuary/unecesery items you can acsess like xbox games or the like.

"The rest is passed on to the communal store" - meaning he brings what he deems to be the rest, to the communal store, or the Government comes and takes it to the communal store?

Most humans take an inferiour position as a motivation to either strive upward or be happy the way they are. The mentally-ill take an inferiour position as a cause to complain about inequality and demand hand-outs from the world.

reply to post by Skyfloating


This depends, I was using a greatly simplifyed metephor here; the idea is closer to said farmer is being 'employed' as a worker on the farm and hence he and the other workers have first pick at the crops before it is sent off to the store instead of requiering currency to be used to claim your own produce. this is typicaly more relevent for higher end items though not pineapples. Since he is simply a worker at the public farm he does not directly decide how much each side takes but this is done so democraticly by all the workers when required but genraly I see no reason to presume problems will arise, who would take a 1000 pineaples for themselfs.

Alteritively on a small scale he and his family may oporate the farm themselfs and form the entire worker base hence making the decisions. Also it is usefull to bare in mind the future I envision would be very diffrent industraly with verticle farms etc.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ

Since he is simply a worker at the public farm he does not directly decide

Read: Government Farm.

You can use new words, new-sounding ideas, but its still the very same socialism that has failed so many times.

In taking away the individuals right to decide and replacing it with Government regulations you create a totalitarian superstate as shown in countless science-fiction movies and history books.

No, public not goverment - there is no real goverment either at the ultimate stages of marxism or my personal advocation of anarchocommunism. Anarcho as in anarchy, or no goverment, laws are set and decisions made by direct democracy and comunity/workers councils at a local level. Authouritarian regimes are exactly what I oppose both political and economical in nature. My goal is to maximise freedoms not restrict them and while I am an advocate of communism I am so because of my belif in choise and hence democracy - people should have the right to make thier own decisions no matter how stupid I think they are (decisions not people). This is why I do not consider the 20th century dictatorships to be communist the very existance of a goverment, at most they were corupt socilisms.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
No, public not goverment

But in your vision farmers are employed by "the public" as you say. Who is "the public"?

laws are set

By who?

comunity/workers councils at a local level.

By the community council? There you have it - thats government. And some Government is necessary, as you see. Government is nothing evil. It just means that the Community manages things.

And if you also want localized "community councils" you are adding Libertarianism and also Nationalism into it.

I am an advocate of communism I am so because of my belif in choise and hence democracy

In Communism the collective chooses. In Libertarianism, the Individual chooses.

The reason Communism never gets things done is because everyone is responsible for everything. Its not that Tony is responsible for Pineapples and Jim is responsible for building rafts and Jenna is responsible for nursing...its that each person is responsible for everything - hence for nothing.

Why are pedophile advocacy groups leftist?

Why arent there ever conservative, libertarian or moderate pedophile advocacy groups? Why do groups such as NAMBLA or the Pedo-Party in Holland all use leftist terminology and reasoning? The answer is: Moral Relativism.

Seeing everything as a "social construct" rather than either a) natural / biological or b) spiritual is a form of Relativism. This works neither in science, where something is either provable or not provable nor in Religion where something is either good or evil.

So even from a strictly scientific point of view, one should not practice pedophilia because it actually causes damage to the undeveloped child...physical and psychological damage (and we havent even begun mentioning the spiritual implications).

The leftist however, says that "nothing is good or bad" and "gender is only a social constuct. Sex-Relations are only a social construct. Ethnicity is only a social construct"

Clearly, race is not only a social construct. One person is biologically different. He is black, whereas I am white. This is in and of itself no problem. Normal people are not afraid of differences, they embrace them. Differences are fun.

The leftist, in a sort of repressed form of racism, is terrified of differences. If one person is black and the other white he is afraid that this amounts to "inequality": But again, for normal folks it doesnt amount to anything. Its merely a fact of nature that one looks this way and the other that way.

One ball is blue, the other is red. So what? There is nothing to it.

"Yes, but blue and red are only social constructs" says the leftist.

Everything being "socially constructed" he then begins calling for being more "liberal" toward things. Eventually no borders are drawn at all and "anything goes".

"Anything goes" eventually leads to the reversal of whats good and bad. People dont understand why "liberals", "democrats" and "liberal celebrities" like Whoopie Goldberg, fiercly and passionately petitioned for freeing the repeat child-rapist Polanski as seen here. But its because you eventually - over time - loose your sense of whats right and wrong if you start viewing everything as "socially constructed".

In an odd reversal of their original intentions, violence - even against chldren - is part of the "liberation" from supposed "Oppressors".

reply to post by Skyfloating


To begin with the public is everybody, and via direct democracy everybody has a say. laws are set mainly by direct democracy, I invision a sort of nested system with seperate networks for specific areas (ie world,continent,country,town) an internet style network allows this to be practicle on such a large scale and discussion boards like this one would be instrumental in facilitating debate. but on a smaller scale theres no need for technological instruments and can be done face to face; hence comunity councils. Its not that I consider goverment evil I just advocate a lot more public involvment than in current "representitive democracys". again thats not to say elected officials dont have their place, a number of elected commities would probobly be necisery to handell the nitty gritty admin of implementing the direct democracy determined policys. Of cource they would be subject to oversite and recall if necissery, all meeting minutes would have to be posted online and the final draft would have a period (100 days?) to be vetoed before becoming law.

Finaly there are 2 things to clarify, firstly youre right in some respects anarchocommunism is also known as Libertariancommunism, secondly people are not obliged by law to partake in all decision making they can if they wish though. But I would expect a persons participataion would be dependent on what they consider important and what they have expertees in; the sameway I spend most of my time at ATS on political forms not UFO forums shows how the people with the apropriate expertees/intrests gravitate towards taking responcibity of those areas. You simply dont reach the extremes of the farmer deciding the color of the scientists labcoat etc

reply to post by AnonymousJ


By this time in the thread you've finally come around to embrace Liberatarianism. Localized voting? Direct voting by Internet? Small Government? You got it.

(You can no longer call this Communism though...welcome to Liberty )

reply to post by AnonymousJ


So why is not your version of anarchocommunism simply called libertarianism with direct democracy? How can libertarianism (which puts private property above all) coexist with communism (which puts collective property above all). How can anarchocommunism emerge or sustain itself without governmental authority ensuring it, since almost all means of production are born in private hands, and they tend to stay private unless someone forcibly takes them and makes them public? Anarchocommunism is an oxymoron to me. Communism simply needs strong government.