# DEFEND & WELCOME OUR PEOPLE INTO EUROPE! OPPOSE RACISM & IMPERIALIST W



## UK subversive (Sep 7, 2015)

*Our people are welcome in Europe!*

*Defend our people, oppose white supremacy racism!*

*Oppose Nato and death squad wars and destabilisation in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc*

Speakers confirmed from the Libyan, Malian, Somali, Syrian, Yemeni, Kurdish, Turkish and Afghan communities.

Protest 1pm Sunday 13th September at Downing Street

Conference to change contextualise and plan further at 6pm on same day, venue tbc.

_Initiative of the Malcolm X Movement and Tricontinental Anti-Imperialist Platform_

Twitter: @mxmovement
Facebook: Malcolm X Movement


----------



## dessiato (Sep 7, 2015)

Is this a new social group for young people to join?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 7, 2015)

I wondered that too ...


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

"Our people"?  Do you mean "all human beings who need it"?  Because if you don't mean that, I doubt I'd be welcome at your protest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

i'm glad our people are welcome in europe cos i'm going there next week


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm glad our people are welcome in europe cos i'm going there next week


duty free run?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> "Our people"?  Do you mean "all human beings who need it"?  Because if you don't mean that, I doubt I'd be welcome at your protest.



I have my suspicions that you're a first world labour aristocrat and parasite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> duty free run?


going to support our gallant greek allies on the beaches and in the bars.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> I have my suspicions that you're a first world labour aristocrat and parasite.


You know better than that.  I have my suspicions that your response and the OP was trolling.

Every human being is out of Africa, if you go back far enough.  IMHO "our people" shouldn't be used as code for "piss off whitey you're not welcome".


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You know better than that.  I have my suspicions that your response and the OP was trolling.
> 
> Every human being is out of Africa, if you go back far enough.  IMHO "our people" shouldn't be used as code for "piss off whitey you're not welcome".


it shouldn't be. but apparently it is.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> going to support our gallant greek allies on the beaches and in the bars.


Following in Dwyer's footsteps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Following in Dwyer's footsteps.


by no means.


----------



## dessiato (Sep 7, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> View attachment 76284
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The paragraph staring "Conference to change..." seems to have some missing punctuation. It doesn't make make much sense as it stands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

dessiato said:


> The paragraph staring "Conference to change..." seems to have some missing punctuation. It doesn't make make much sense as it stands.


i hope that like me you have long wanted to change contextualise.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 7, 2015)

Going on the old rule of thumb that the grander the name the smaller the group, I'm guessing the 'Tricontinental Anti- Imperialist Platform' is a lone fantasist in his mums spare room.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2015)

I can't remember if PD condemn third worldism or support it


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't remember if PD condemn third worldism or support it


they condemn supporting it, at their 14th congress. i haven't seen the papers of the 15th congress yet.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Following in Dwyer's footsteps.



Oh lawks, tracked by Pickers even on me hols....

I assume "our people" means " fellow humans" btw.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't remember if PD condemn third worldism or support it


Enabling developing countries to build their own Workers' Bomb?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Oh lawks, tracked by Pickers even on me hols....
> 
> I assume "our people" means " fellow humans" btw.


what, you in greece next week?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 7, 2015)

Forza Initiative of the Malcolm X Movement and Tricontinental Anti-Imperialist Platform!


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> <snip> I assume "our people" means " fellow humans" btw.


You may assume whatever you damn well please - context (indcuding mentions of Malcolm X) suggests otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Enabling developing countries to build their own Workers' Bomb?


it'll be a very popular car


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Forza Initiative of the Malcolm X Movement and Tricontinental Anti-Imperialist Platform!


i wish you wouldn't try to be funny, it's unbecoming.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i wish you wouldn't try to be funny, it's unbecoming.



You have little wit.

See above.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what, you in greece next week?



3 weeks ago, you just missed me.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You may assume whatever you damn well please - context (indcuding mentions of Malcolm X) suggests otherwise.



How so?  What's wrong with Malcolm?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> 3 weeks ago, you just missed me.


If there's one thing he didn't miss, it was missing you.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> How so?  What's wrong with Malcolm?


Nothing per se, it's more the way his name is taken in vain.  Verbal shorthand used by the Nation of Islam (NOI) etc for "whatever follows will include strong anti-white sentiments".


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Nothing per se, it's more the way his name is taken in vain.  Verbal shorthand used by the Nation of Islam (NOI) etc for "whatever follows will include strong anti-white sentiments".



Don't see any evidence of that here tho.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> If there's one thing he didn't miss, it was missing you.



Actually, two separate people have told me I'd get on with Pickers irl.  Christ knows why.  What do you reckon?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Don't see any evidence of that here tho.


Re-read the OP, not just the poster, but the bit underneath it.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You know better than that.  I have my suspicions that your response and the OP was trolling.
> 
> Every human being is out of Africa, if you go back far enough.  IMHO "our people" shouldn't be used as code for "piss off whitey you're not welcome".



I was taking the piss out of the OP, not you, seen as he's a 'Maoist.'


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Re-read the OP, not just the poster, but the bit underneath it.



Still not seeing anything anti-white.  What do you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You have little wit.
> 
> See above.


yeh yeh, so you say.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Actually, two separate people have told me I'd get on with Pickers irl.  Christ knows why.  What do you reckon?



I reckon we should arm you both with similar weapons and sell tickets for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2015)

live stream it and open a book


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon we should arm you both with similar weapons and sell tickets for it.



A drinking competition I'd do.  Ouzo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> A drinking competition I'd do.  Ouzo.


you like drinking on your own then.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you like drinking on your own then.



Boo.  Chess then.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> I was taking the piss out of the OP, not you, seen as he's a 'Maoist.'


I plead Monday morning.  How did you work out he's a Maoist?


----------



## Geri (Sep 7, 2015)

Is Assad a white supremacist?


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Don't see any evidence of that here tho.



Should have gone to sect-savers, the little known Maoist opticians


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Should have gone to sect-savers, the little known Maoist opticians


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

Geri said:


> Is Assad a white supremacist?


If you take the line that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and extend that to "the enemy of my friend is my enemy" then it stands to reason (by pisspoor logic) that Assad is indeed a self-hating white supremacist.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Actually, two separate people have told me I'd get on with Pickers irl.  Christ knows why.  What do you reckon?


You could probably just about get on, under a truce caused by a mutual emergency.  Otherwise, I'm not calling this one; the  outcome could go either way.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I plead Monday morning.  How did you work out he's a Maoist?



I asked him on another thread if he was M-L-M.  He replied 'Pretty much.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You could probably just about get on, under a truce caused by a mutual emergency.  Otherwise, I'm not calling this one; the  outcome could go either way.


we might do. but why would we want to?


----------



## Geri (Sep 7, 2015)

Assad bombs millions out of the country and his supporters outside demand that they are made welcome. Nice division of labour they've got going on.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we might do. but why would we want to?


Fair point - you have far too much fun winding each other up.


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> I asked him on another thread if he was M-L-M.  He replied 'Pretty much.'



Claims to be M-L-M; drops Malcolm X's name all over the place; has an avatar of the young Stalin.

He's a kaledoscopic infantilist (a new term I've just coined)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Should have gone to sect-savers, the little known Maoist opticians


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You could probably just about get on, under a truce caused by a mutual emergency.  Otherwise, I'm not calling this one; the  outcome could go either way.



What do we have in common?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> What do we have in common?


we're both alive. after that we diverge.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> What do we have in common?


White male human beings of approximately the same age, AFAIK born on the same island, and with more or less the same mother tongue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> White male human beings of approximately the same age, AFAIK born on the same island, and with more or less the same mother tongue.


accidents in other words.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

I never really thought about it but Third Worldists must be dead excited at the moment

Then again there are v few situations where I stop and think "If I were a Third Worldist what would I be feeling right now?"


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> accidents in other words.


We are all accidents of birth etc.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Claims to be M-L-M; drops Malcolm X's name all over the place; has an avatar of the young Stalin.
> 
> He's a kaledoscopic infantilist (a new term I've just coined)



A portrait of Stalin isn't incongruent with being a Maoist (Mao was a Stalinist).  I'm just interested in his adherence to or interpretation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (or Mao Tse-tung Thought).  If it's something imported from the United States and almost exclusively to be found among guilt-ridden upper middle class people at elite universities, then bollocks.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

Mao more than ever


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Claims to be M-L-M; drops Malcolm X's name all over the place; has an avatar of the young Stalin.
> 
> He's a kaledoscopic infantilist (a new term I've just coined)



It's just another manifestation of multitudinous positionism, comrade.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 9, 2015)

hi, i post things which i want to promote, and which dont contradict Urban 75 policy.   i dont/didn't necessarily write it myself, nor necessarily agree with everything or every statement. I would also post class war or stop the war events, but obviously they are already publicised already. 

I'm sympathetic to Maoism, but dont call myself anything, nor claim to  be a spokesman or know much about it. nor do i have much sympathy with Unruhe. i dont know him and dont care either way about him. 

I'm also sympathetic to Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF and their struggle, and supported Gaddafi and the struggle of Socialist jamahariyya. 

sympathetic does not mean i agree with every single little thing of their positions.  

there is a de facto separation, in London and elsewhere anyway, between the 'white left' and the 'black left' and things they are concerned with. Wish it wasn't so, but it is. 

white leftists seem obsessed by things such as 'transgender' issues, lgbt issues etc. all good. no problem from me. But they are not really very important for most people, and there are more important issues. some anarchists i know are all out for polyamory. good for them, but i dont see it as being important politically, and cannot be bothered to hang around with such activists. 

London is now over 50% non white/non English. debatable about the classifications or percentage, but it signifies something. That is, forms of 3rd world left nationalism can get support and organise independently of the 'white left' such as the SWP/Counterfire etc which want to dominate everything and push it all back into the Labour party.


----------



## krink (Sep 9, 2015)

bone them


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 9, 2015)

I doubt we'll agree on much but welcome to the boards and hope you stick around.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> hi, i post things which i want to promote, and which dont contradict Urban 75 policy.   i dont/didn't necessarily write it myself, nor necessarily agree with everything or every statement. I would also post class war or stop the war events, but obviously they are already publicised already.
> 
> I'm sympathetic to Maoism, but dont call myself anything, nor claim to  be a spokesman or know much about it. nor do i have much sympathy with Unruhe. i dont know him and dont care either way about him.
> 
> ...



The emancipation of the working-classes will be the act of the coloured leftists?

Sorry, I'm not white, despise the left wing of capitalism (leftists) irregardless of whether they come in a black, white or brown skin.

Revolutionaries aren't leftist. Leftists can hold positions close to revolutionaries, but revolutionaries themselves are not interested in maintaining capitalism.

And that is your problem. You need to stop thinking in terms of leftism but the working-class. i understand this might be difficult for someone invested in identity politics who might be from a middle-class background (I honestly don't know) but it's not inconceivable. You cite the malaise of the white left, which is a fair point, but why not cite the attempts of accruing subcultural capital by the brown and black lefts? Why, for instance, is the Kurdish left in the UK never involved in struggle unless it directly pertains to Kurdistan? They go on their demos, wave a few banners and ocalan flags, and pick up disillusioned people whilst utterly draining them of any kind of potential, without even trying to relate to their struggles and synthesising the contradictory tendencies of said struggles.

Like, what's the hope here? That we'll all be governed by our own autonomously nationally constituted communities?

Lenin would be rolling in his grave.

My proposal to you is this: if you're going to ditch the white left, why not dismiss its coloured wing which is just as complicit in imperialism, nationalism, strikebreaking, curtailing working-class self-organisation, getting rightest thugs to beat up workers, compromising with bourgeois governments, orienting towards social democracy?

Like, forget theory here for a second, I'm not interested in Zak Cope, Zak Brown, Joshua Moufawad-Paul and all your assorted online icons. What does left nationalism give you as a person? Why not support the right if its all about identity?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> View attachment 76284
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also, imperialism is not synonymous with capitalism. Likewise anti-imperialism is not synonymous with anti-capitalism, as any history student can tell you.



> Imperialism, in its general aspect as the conquest and rule over political and economic entities by a supreme central state power, is not a phenomenon that pertains exclusively to capitalism. Disregarding their social contents, there are numerous types of the same historical phenomenon: an Asian imperialism, a Greco-Roman imperialism, a feudal imperialism and finally a capitalist imperialism. As revolutionary workers, we are most interested in the substantial difference that distinguishes capitalist imperialism from its historical predecessor, that is, feudal imperialism.
> Always keeping in mind that we are abstracting from other basic differences, feudal imperialism and capitalist imperialism are most notably distinguished by that fact that one was manifested in state structures that had a basis in territories and land, while the other emerged on the historical stage above all as world domination founded on naval hegemony and therefore on the domination of the great ocean trade routes. Under feudalism a state power that enjoyed land-based military superiority could play an imperialist role; under capitalism, on the other hand, which is the mode of production that has led to unprecedented levels of commodity production and expanded beyond the limits of credibility the phenomena of mercantilism that had already been stirred up in the preceding modes of production, imperialism is connected with naval supremacy, which today means naval-air supremacy.



Aircraft Carrier Imperialism


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Nothing per se, it's more the way his name is taken in vain.  Verbal shorthand used by the Nation of Islam (NOI) etc for "whatever follows will include strong anti-white sentiments".






phildwyer said:


> Don't see any evidence of that here tho.



He was an idiotic scoundrel that couldn't consistently stick to a position and was more interested in allying with bourgeois forces (both left and right) for racial recognition, including supporting a republican candidate in 1964. A misogynist, homophobe and opportunist who converted to islam to garner the sympathies of North African dictators and only really fell out with the NOI after JFK's assassination and NOI's complicity with white supremacists and the US state.

For all their mistaken positions, I'd have a thousand Frantz Fanon's, CLR James', and WEB Dubois' over that charlatan. Inadvertently perhaps, but He has endowed muslim youth in Europe and the US with some of the most counter-revolutionary ideas this side of that third rate antisemitic crank Mikhail Bakunin - I'm looking at you, PSC!


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 10, 2015)

its not about identity, and its not about ditching the white left. 
its just that the white left dont care about many of the things which the 'black left' care about. not everybody, not every group. sure.
the division already exists. 

anti imperialism is not synonymous with anti capitalism. thats true,but its more complex. but anti imperialism is, for me, more important, and if there ways to tie it up in a better way, that's good too. if not, then i would still support anti imperialists who have some form of national capitalism ie Chavez, Gaddafi etc. 

i dont find Occupy and that kind of thing very convincing i'm afraid. Nor Russell brand. nor the swp,counterfire etc. not against them, don't want to knock them. but these type of groups offer  nothing. 

i do respect those Anarchists that do good projects, such as the anti spy cops stuff, and other similar things. I respect the noborders group, altho they don't understand that the state cannot be abolished. 

but, as i am trying to say clumsily. the existence of a seperate 'black left' is not to do with identity politics, its that many have come not to trust 'white leftists' and to not necessarily need them to link their own struggles. 

what you guys may call 'Stalinist', but which is called 'Marxist Leninist', socialism in one country, is alive and well in many parts of the third world. i think the Marxist Leninists are more serious than Trotskyists and Anarchists. 

I am also a supporter of the Stalin society,

Stalin Society

which is holding this meeting: 

Karl Marx from the Second Reform Act to the Bulgarian Atrocities



Presentation by Lavinia Blossom

Followed by discussion.

All are welcome.

Sunday 20 September 2015 
2pm - 5pm

*Marchmont Community Centre*

62 Marchmont St, London WC1N 1AB 
[2 minute walk from Russell Square Tube Station


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

What sort of a turnout does the Stalin Society get these days?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> I am also a supporter of the Stalin society,
> 
> Stalin Society



Why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

Stalin in his early days pre-revolution was quite fond of wooing non-russian workers who the prissier bolsheviks wouldn't touch (lumpen). IIRC this served him well in baku, at that time a hugely booming oil town with some grim standards of pits/palaces.. So he'd be able to draw votes/show of hands from illiterate workers, muslim workers etc. 

Must have seemed quite the radical in that context but then look at how he acted in power :/ not so good al.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> its not about identity, and its not about ditching the white left.
> its just that the white left dont care about many of the things which the 'black left' care about. not everybody, not every group. sure.
> the division already exists.
> 
> ...



I thought you were worth engaging with but evidently not. And yes, it has everything to do with identity politics.

Let me repeat so that your cretinous numbskull can absorb this fact for once and all, even though you have shown your class allegiance for once and all: most anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists and Stalinists do not hold communistic principles. I will outline those principles below, seen as you're unwilling to acquaint yourself with the struggles of the global working-class.

1) opposition to all anti-imperialisms and and uncompromising revolutionary defeatism on both sides, something Lenin supported in 1914. The transformation of imperialist wars into civil wars. It pays to read the founder of your theory before claiming to descend from him.

2) opposition to allying with social democrats and engaging in united fronts from above, something Lenin didn't support prior to the bureaucratisation of the russian revolution. Something the likes of Gorter et al, if not clumsily, noted was inapplicable to western Europe as the peasantry had been integrated into the proletariat. This is now a worldwide phenomenon.

3) Following on from this opposition to national liberation movements of all kinds and uncompromising defeatism. I'm not as hard on Lenin, Gorter, Trotsky and Bordiga for supporting national liberation during their time as the peasantry had only been formally subsumed into the orbit of capitalist production. But with the globalisation, de-individualisation, statification on a mass level of the bourgeoisie, and the proletarianisation and mechanisation of the peasantry, supporting such an approach today is counter-revolutionary and reactionary. Nothing exists outside of capitalism anymore. Luxemburg was wrong.

4) opposition to electorialism of all kinds as parliaments can no longer be used as tribunes or to agitate for communism.

5) opposition to all forms of bourgeois democracy, and especially opposition to bourgeois democracy as a principle of communist organisations, I.E: transposing bourgeois democracy onto proletarian organisations. Democracy can only ever be an organic mechanism in our organisations.


6) Anti-clericalism, opposition to patriarchal epistemes and norms as prefigurative of communist revolution. Religious people cannot be communists, though, of course, they can fight in their class interests.

7) opposition to anti-fascism and its parliamentary
 form, as it is tantamount to disarming the class, leading them to massacre, co-optation by the bourgeois state and eventually the bourgeois state assuming the role of fascism. A refusal to recognise fascism as a crisis of capital and democracy is counter-revolutionary.

Now, tell me, can you name many anarchists who adhere to these principles? Because I can't. I don't care what they call themselves. For all it's worth they could call themselves dialectician's league of revolutionary circumcised brown cocksuckers. Communism is about programmatic content, not organisational forms. It is a set of programmatic tasks that result from the old society. It is not our job to administer capitalism with a human face. Leave that to the social democrats, the left and the right.

So I ask again and this time I want a coherent answer. Why don't you support the right? Lay it on the line comrade, and don't try and nimbly evade my question. You and I know this is all about identity.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> its not about identity, and its not about ditching the white left.
> its just that the white left dont care about many of the things which the 'black left' care about. not everybody, not every group. sure.
> the division already exists.
> 
> ...



The problem with this line of argument or defence of your position is that you have chosen to make the defining factor of "Occupy, Russell brand, the swp, counterfire etc" their whiteness, rather than their politics (and if you take the trouble to read these boards, you will find many criticisms of them which do focus on their politics, from posters who identify as white, posters who identify as black and posters who don't particularly identify as either).

You're also implicitly suggesting that "Occupy, Russell brand, the swp, counterfire etc" are totally representative of all "white leftists" whereas again, reading many of the threads on these boards will quickly demonstrate that there is a non-black-nat left beyond those narrow political confines.

Maybe it's just that you and your black Nationalist fellows prefer to attempt to define your politics solely by your ethnic identity, particularly convenient as you can cite Malcolm X etc without ever arguing what it is about his politics which you admire, and ignore any of the more unpleasant aspects of him personally and his political legacy.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> I respect the noborders group, altho they don't understand that the state cannot be abolished.



Marx, Lenin and Mao (even if Mao was counter-revolutionary and a Stalinist) all supported the abolition of the state. The French workers thought Proudhon was far too conservative for them. Bakunin was an antisemitic crank who wanted to start a race war in the 1st international - whatever people say this was the principle split, I can quote from his letters. Marx wasn't opposed to anarchy in principle. In fact some would say that the political form of communism is anarchy. There were anarchists who supported Marx, and they still exist. I'm not even opposed to anarchists who hold proletarian and communistic positions. They're my comrades and i have nothing but respect admiration and good feelings towards them, even on a political level sans our differences.

Read your fucking history before spouting nationalist shit please. I'm not even in the habit of defending Mao and Lenin against Maoists and Leninists but you cannot even dare to reach the olympian heights of the russian narodniks and that's really something.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

I vote to get this idiot banned. what say you urban?


----------



## chilango (Sep 10, 2015)

I dunno. How many daft Maoists do we get on here?

We should probably keep 'em cos it may be a while before we see another.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 10, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I vote to get this idiot banned. what say you urban?


Is he (the OP) interesting? No.
Amusing? No.
Could he argue his way out of a wet paper bag? No.
Are some of his views dodgy and verging on racist? Yes.

A collective ignore of him might be more effective unless he's silly enough to get himself repeatedly reported, warned, and banned.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I vote to get this idiot banned. what say you urban?



At least give him a show trial first


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

The wisdom of the Chairman has been sorely lacking in our conversations of late.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> The wisdom of the Chairman has been sorely lacking in our conversations of late.


tag editor then, if you want him in the conversation.


----------



## LDC (Sep 10, 2015)

Every forum should have a comedy Maoist that pops up occasionally to make the rest of us look more normal, this one can be ours.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2015)

What's an "IMPERIALIST W"?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 10, 2015)

(from 'Cat', B Kliban)


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 10, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I vote to get this idiot banned. what say you urban?



I say we either send him up to the mountain or down to the village


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

S☼I said:


> I say we either send him up to the mountain or down to the village


if mao won't come to the mountain the mountain will come to mao


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

RE the bakunin thing, taken from Francis Wheen's Karl Marx. The author is not a marxist, nor has ever claimed to be. If anything he's a social liberal and doesn't fail to criticise marx when necessary.



> And, of course, there was still the menace of Michael Bakunin, who observed the wounded and limping International like a hungry hyena eyeing up its lunch. He was now intriguing more ruthlessly than ever with his new henchman Sergei Nechayev, a deranged Russian anarcho-terrorist who had come to Switzerland in 1869. Bakunin, no mean fantasist himself, was awestruck by Nechayev’s boast of having organised a network of revolutionary cells across Russia, and the dramatic account of his jailbreak from the Peter and Paul Fortress in St Petersburg. Although most of these tales were pure fiction, Nechayev’s appetite for violence was real enough: before fleeing from Russia he had murdered a fellow student in St Petersburg, apparently for no better reason than to prove that he could do it. Having teamed up with Bakunin he published a series of incendiary articles and proclamations, ostensibly from ‘the International’, warning of the wrath to come.
> 
> The antics of the Bakuninists split the Federation Romande, the International’s Swiss section, down the middle and caused endless confusion – not least because both factions continued to issue statements in the name of the Federation. To settle the dispute the London HQ called a special conference in September 1871, held at the Blue Posts pub off Tottenham Court Road. ‘It was hard work,’ Marx wrote to his wife, who wisely took herself off to Ramsgate for the duration. ‘Morning and evening sessions, commission sessions in between, hearing of witnesses, reports to be drawn up and so forth. But more was done than at all the previous Congresses put together, because there was no audience in front of which to stage rhetorical comedies.’
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


>



Those are some nice comrades


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

> Understandably, the General Council felt obliged to distance itself from these genocidal rants, especially at a time when every editor in Europe was looking for mud to throw at the International Working Men’s Association. In June 1872 it issued a pamphlet written by Marx, The Fictitious Splits in the International, whose very first page served only to disprove the title by confirming that there was indeed a split as big as the English Channel: ‘The International is undergoing the most serious crisis since its foundation.’ Bakunin was accused of inciting ‘racial war’ and organising secret societies as part of his anarchistic master plan to wreck the working-class movement.
> 
> He retaliated by demanding that a full congress should be summoned to settle the dispute once and for all. As there had been no congress since 1869 – first because of the Franco-Prussian war and then because of police persecution following the Paris Commune – the General Council could hardly refuse. It duly announced that a plenary assembly would open at the Hague on 2 September 1872. This was the cue for yet more howls of protest from Bakunin, who wanted it held in his own stronghold of Geneva, but the Council pointed out that Switzerland had already been the location for three of the International’s four congresses and one could have too much of a good thing. Bakunin decided to boycott the event altogether, while instructing his followers ‘to send their delegates to the Hague, but with imperative mandates, clearly set forth, ordering them to walk out of the congress in solidarity as soon as the majority has declared itself in the Marxian direction on any question whatever’.
> 
> ...


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

> Back in the winter of 1869, short of money as usual, Bakunin had accepted 300 roubles from a publisher’s agent called Lyubavin to translate Capital into Russian. It would be hard to think of anyone less suited to the task: quite apart from being an incorrigible procrastinator, he was unlikely to do anything that would enhance Marx’s reputation. But Lyubavin apparently knew nothing of this, and after a few months he sent a gentle reminder that the manuscript was now due. By way of reply, in February 1870 he received a terrifying letter from Bakunin’s rabid attack-dog, young Sergei Nechayev, who claimed to be acting on behalf of a secret ‘bureau’ of revolutionary assassins. After denouncing Lyubavin as a parasite and extortioner who sought to prevent Bakunin from ‘working for the supremely important cause of the Russian people’ by forcing him on to the literary treadmill, Nechayev ordered the publisher to tear up the contract and let Bakunin keep the money – or else.
> 
> Recognising with whom you are dealing, you will therefore do everything necessary to avoid the regrettable possibility that we may have to address ourselves to you a second time in a less civilised way … We are always rigorously punctual, and we have calculated the exact day on which you will receive this letter. You, in turn, should be no less punctual in submitting to these demands, so that we shall not be placed under the necessity of having recourse to extreme measures which will prove a trifle more severe … It depends entirely on you whether our relations become more amicable and a firmer understanding is created between us or whether our relationship takes a more unpleasant course.
> 
> ...


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What sort of a turnout does the Stalin Society get these days?



The head of the society is quite into Exploiting South Asian labour for his shawls

Marking them at high prices and then having the gall to call himself a communist.

Engels may have owned a factory but that's no excuse. He didn't support tyrannical dictatorships like NK.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

dialectician said:


> The head of the society is quite into Exploiting South Asian labour for his shawls
> 
> Marking them at high prices and then having the gall to call himself a communist.
> 
> Engels may have owned a factory but that's no excuse. He didn't support tyrannical dictatorships like NK.



I spose that if you are a Stalinist then the ends always justify the means


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I spose that if you are a Stalinist then the ends always justify the means



Well in principle there will be semi-proletarianised petty-bourgeois (lower middle-class) people attracted to communism. That isn't the problem. The problem is lacking independent working-class politics. Your class shouldn't determine your political views, though with most people it often does - social being determines consciousness etc.

There's no contradiction in a single someone from the bourgeois class being a communist, so long as they stick to consistent communistic and working-class positions. Workerism is just as bad as classism in that regard as it stereotypes people and erects an us-vs-them mentality. Like I said, programmatic tasks.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

Incidentally, i was having this discussion with frogwoman yesterday. The problem with the left especially in the UK is that they conflate lower-middle class views with someone's class, so they fail to appeal to people who are semi-proleytarianised. This absolutely does not mean renouncing proletarian principles for petty-bourgeois success (as the electoral left do) but patiently discussing with the semi-proletarianised workers how communism will ultimately be in their interests. Their conceptions are wrong, but that's no excuse for not educating rather than blanket condemnation.

They forget that the working-class is those who are separated from the means of production and live off the wage fund.

Of course this is not to say that the majority of the petty-bourgeoisie will be revolutionary (like the Stalinists and Maoists think!) but just not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 10, 2015)

Nechaev was a third-rate ideologue and bullshitter.  His barracks communism was as appalling as it was crude.  Bakunin the drunken sap.  Dazzled partly because the little shit was lower class, of meschanin background, like he did with the more impressionable 'cool kids' of the nobility who hated themselves.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Stalin in his early days pre-revolution was quite fond of wooing non-russian workers who the prissier bolsheviks wouldn't touch (lumpen). IIRC this served him well in baku, at that time a hugely booming oil town with some grim standards of pits/palaces.. So he'd be able to draw votes/show of hands from illiterate workers, muslim workers etc.
> 
> Must have seemed quite the radical in that context but then look at how he acted in power :/ not so good al.



Bolshevik-Menshevik disagreements at street-level were sorted out with fists, knives and bullets in the Caucasus. Being lower class (by birth) wasn't necessarily a key thing in that. Plenty of ruined nobility.  His old friend Sergo Ordzhonikidze was a doctor in his youth, and a brawler who liked a drink.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 10, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Nechaev was a third-rate ideologue and bullshitter.  His barracks communism was as appalling as it was crude.  Bakunin the drunken sap.  Dazzled partly because the little shit was lower class, of meschanin background, like he did with the more impressionable 'cool kids' of the nobility who hated themselves.



I must be honest with you, even in my semi-half arsed soft trot marxist phase I found nothing of worth in Bakunin's writings. Absolutely nothing. His dialectics were beyond appalling and positivistic, indebted as they were trying to reconcile Hobbes with anarchism.

A natural progression from Proudhon, i should think. Yet people hail him as the master anti-authoritarian, as if philosophical pedigree matters little. Fools!

God and the State is an utterly useless tract. Give me Kautsky with all his hoary old dogmas over that shit any day. At least we can learn from him and the utter failure of social democracy as a project.

Kropotkin - nah. incoherent attempt to marry the libertarian-authoritarian distinction with the anarcho-communistic principle. Emma Goldman and Berkman - not really worth commenting on at all. Spanish anarchists, the Italian left and Bilan did it better - so long Durruti! Bookchin, half-arsed dilettante who never disowned Stalinism.

I like Malatesta for criticising democracy but that should have logically led him to reject antifascism.

Generally though, I like anarchists, i just don't like their theoretical icons and gurus


----------



## Celyn (Sep 10, 2015)

dialectician said:


> ... trying to reconcile Hobbes with anarchism...



Mind boggles.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> The problem with this line of argument or defence of your position is that you have chosen to make the defining factor of "Occupy, Russell brand, the swp, counterfire etc" their whiteness, rather than their politics (and if you take the trouble to read these boards, you will find many criticisms of them which do focus on their politics, from posters who identify as white, posters who identify as black and posters who don't particularly identify as either).
> 
> You're also implicitly suggesting that "Occupy, Russell brand, the swp, counterfire etc" are totally representative of all "white leftists" whereas again, reading many of the threads on these boards will quickly demonstrate that there is a non-black-nat left beyond those narrow political confines.
> 
> Maybe it's just that you and your black Nationalist fellows prefer to attempt to define your politics solely by your ethnic identity, particularly convenient as you can cite Malcolm X etc without ever arguing what it is about his politics which you admire, and ignore any of the more unpleasant aspects of him personally and his political legacy.



You and UK subversive might want to read Black particularity reconsidered - Adolph L. Reed Jr.

and
A proletarian critique of the Nation of Islam - Melancholic Troglodytes


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Reed's Essay on Marx, Race and Neoliberalism


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Vasant Kaiwar - What is Postcolonial Orientalism and How does it matter


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

And Kaiwar's book on the Postcolonial Orient

It entirely deals with subaltern studies but there are insights worth applying.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Samir Amin's book on Eurocentrism

Note, he's an old-school anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist (not M-L-M as they're different) but he's a good counter to identity type third world Maoists in debunking nationalised labour aristocratic rubbish and European particularity. Still many problems with this volume so read with caution.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Orientalism and orientalism in reverse - Sadik Jalal al-’Azm

Probably one of the first critiques of Said, from a coloured muslim arab intellectual. Who'd have thought?


----------



## andysays (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> You and UK subversive might want to read Black particularity reconsidered - Adolph L. Reed Jr.
> 
> and
> A proletarian critique of the Nation of Islam - Melancholic Troglodytes



Thanks for posting all of that. 

I'm not sure I fancy ploughing through the whole lot just to discover something I already know (the dead end of black nationalism) but I'll take a look at some point.

Would still be interested to see if UK subversive has any response to make though.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 11, 2015)

Would still be interested to see if UK subversive has any response to make though.[/QUOTE]

no, i don't. you're all entitled to your opinions and views. I dont know why some want to get me banned, as i've not broken any Urban 75 rules, or tried not too, and if i have, then i apologise and it was an honest mistake. 

I'm not a supporter of NOI and have nothing to say about them. Louis Farrakhan's defence of Libya was commendable however. I don't necessarily agree with his other views.  this is generally the problem, one may post something, and then it is assumed one upholds all kinds of things, even if i do not. 

of course the 'white left' is not all Russell Brand and Occupy, there is also Jeremy Corbyn, who i hope does well. further, the SWP/Counterfire, or Anarchists. None of these are in themselves that convincing. if there was something better, that i could see, then i would take part in it. 

as for anarchists, some are cool. but it is hard to fool yourself that a bunch of pissed up white crusties with dreadlocks with a skinny dog on a string having a drunken bust up with some cops are really a threat to imperialism.


----------



## LDC (Sep 11, 2015)

My finger is hovering over the 'like' button for that last sentence...


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2015)

I am so against IMPERIALIST W.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> as for anarchists, some are cool. but it is hard to fool yourself that a bunch of pissed up white crusties with dreadlocks with a skinny dog on a string having a drunken bust up with some cops are really a threat to imperialism.


1995 called and asked for its stereotypes back.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> Would still be interested to see if UK subversive has any response to make though.
> 
> no, i don't. you're all entitled to your opinions and views. I dont know why some want to get me banned, as i've not broken any Urban 75 rules, or tried not too, and if i have, then i apologise and it was an honest mistake.
> 
> ...



Third fucking time. answer the questions I put to you or piss off. and not everyone posting on this thread is white, you cretin. Frankly you should be infracted for racial stereotyping.

How old are you? 12?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> I am also a supporter of the Stalin society,
> 
> Stalin Society


Now I've heard everything. 


*Tries to stifle laughter.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Now I've heard everything.
> 
> 
> *Tries to stifle laughter.



They used to have some influence in the SLP; now can be found in the CPGB M-L. 

There's not many threads where you'd get mention of the ICC, CWO, Stalin Society, CPGB M-L and all the rest...almost feels as if I've fallen through a hole in time.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 13, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Third fucking time. answer the questions I put to you or piss off. and not everyone posting on this thread is white, you cretin. Frankly you should be infracted for racial stereotyping.
> 
> How old are you? 12?




what questions?  the articles are ok, but i have nothing special to say on them. why the rudeness?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 13, 2015)

editor said:


> 1995 called and asked for its stereotypes back.



stereotypes go both ways. 
also, anarchism is not very convincing for everybody. it is an easy ideology to have, as it allows one to remain pure and  at the same time appear as radical.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> stereotypes go both ways.
> also, anarchism is not very convincing for everybody. *it is an easy ideology* to have, as it allows one to remain pure and  at the same time appear as radical.



What is this singular anarchism you speak of?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Incidentally, i was having this discussion with frogwoman yesterday. The problem with the left especially in the UK is that they conflate lower-middle class views with someone's class, so they fail to appeal to people who are semi-proleytarianised. This absolutely does not mean renouncing proletarian principles for petty-bourgeois success (as the electoral left do) but patiently discussing with the semi-proletarianised workers how communism will ultimately be in their interests. Their conceptions are wrong, but that's no excuse for not educating rather than blanket condemnation.



Historically, so far this hasn't worked too well, as those semi-proletarianised members of the lower middle classes still tend to identify with _bourgeois_ values, even when educated as to their "place" in the class strata.


> They forget that the working-class is those who are separated from the means of production and live off the wage fund.



Or they ignore it.



> Of course this is not to say that the majority of the petty-bourgeoisie will be revolutionary (like the Stalinists and Maoists think!) but just not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Agreed. Some very good ideologues have been fuelled through feeling "middle class guilt". Long may it continue!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What is this singular anarchism you speak of?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Having asked this question of assorted Trots, Tankies, Iron Joe worshippers and Maoists over the last 30 years, I haven't yet received a coherent answer, so I suggest that you don't hold your breath for one from UK Subversive!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Samir Amin's book on Eurocentrism
> 
> Note, he's an old-school anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist (not M-L-M as they're different) but he's a good counter to identity type third world Maoists in debunking nationalised labour aristocratic rubbish and European particularity. Still many problems with this volume so read with caution.



I love his "The Liberal Virus". Polemic, but also well-argued. Not a great fan of his particular brand of politics, but I admire an author who can and will comfortably argue outside of their own ideology.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> as for anarchists, some are cool. but it is hard to fool yourself that a bunch of pissed up white crusties with dreadlocks with a skinny dog on a string having a drunken bust up with some cops are really a threat to imperialism.



Not all (not even a minority of) anarchists are dreadlocked and/or dog-on-a-string merchants and/or pissed up cider-heads. Crap use of a crap trope, frankly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> My finger is hovering over the 'like' button for that last sentence...



Obviously you find crap stereotypes appealing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> stereotypes go both ways.
> also, anarchism is not very convincing for everybody. it is an easy ideology to have, as it allows one to remain pure and  at the same time appear as radical.



Anarchism isn't "an ideology",it's a series of different ideologies or philosophies based (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which anarchism is under discussion) around common principles.
Not that I'd expect a Stalinist to grasp such detail.


----------



## LDC (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Obviously you find crap stereotypes appealing.



Just made me laugh on a grim day. I'm easily pleased when it comes to taking the piss out of anarchists - and I include myself in that gang mostly. If I can't snigger at crude stereotypes of political sub-cultures it's not my revolution.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 14, 2015)

Marxism-Leninism internationally is diverse. They love detail as well.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 14, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Marxism-Leninism internationally is diverse. They love detail as well.



It's practically dead. Even the Nepalese Maoists got denounced as opportunists, capitalist roaders and splitters.

I mean there are still like 20 Trotskyist internationals and they're less relevant than M-L. It's weird.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 14, 2015)

dialectician said:


> It's practically dead. Even the Nepalese Maoists got denounced as opportunists, capitalist roaders and splitters.
> 
> I mean there are still like 20 Trotskyist internationals and they're less relevant than M-L. It's weird.



Sure, you could argue that Chinese-derived PPW was always fanciful in hindsight and doomed to failure (look at India's poorest states, and it pisses me off with the romantic shite courtesy of people like Arundhati Roy), even the creative Vietnamese adaptation of it when such a thing galvanised revolutionaries across the world and its organisational lessons were transferred to places like Peru and later the aforementioned Nepal (and the Vietnamese achieved national liberation, militarily at least).  I was rather making the point on the sheer diversity within it and that 'Stalinism' in power and out was/is no monolith, not talking about its relevance to me, my mum and the sixth bullet now (it means nothing).  A bit like anarchism/s, really.  I don't mean anarchism in the sense of attacking a silly caricature where its reduced to the level of an annoying subculture.  That's not where I'm coming from.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 14, 2015)

Yeah, I hear you.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 17, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Just made me laugh on a grim day. I'm easily pleased when it comes to taking the piss out of anarchists - and I include myself in that gang mostly. If I can't snigger at crude stereotypes of political sub-cultures it's not my revolution.



exactly.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anarchism isn't "an ideology",it's a series of different ideologies or philosophies based (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which anarchism is under discussion) around common principles.
> Not that I'd expect a Stalinist to grasp such detail.



i can grasp such detail, but i've found that forums/facebook etc are not the place where detail can really be discussed, regarding the various flavours of anarchism or Marxism or anything else. Unfortunately. if i were to make it clear that i do grasp the differences between anarchist groups, it would make a very long post. 

basically, i think the social anarchists, class war anarchists and similar types are OK, but the individualist lifestyle types i dont have too much time for.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 17, 2015)

this is pretty good:
“Listen, Anarchist!” by David Harvey


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 17, 2015)

dialectician said:


> It's practically dead. Even the Nepalese Maoists got denounced as opportunists, capitalist roaders and splitters.
> 
> I mean there are still like 20 Trotskyist internationals and they're less relevant than M-L. It's weird.



can you tell me something that is or would be more relevant?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i can grasp such detail, but i've found that forums/facebook etc are not the place where detail can really be discussed, regarding the various flavours of anarchism or Marxism or anything else. Unfortunately. if i were to make it clear that i do grasp the differences between anarchist groups, it would make a very long post.
> 
> basically, i think the social anarchists, class war anarchists and similar types are OK, but the individualist lifestyle types i dont have too much time for.



Lifestylers are about as anarchist as anarcho-capitalists are, i.e. not at all, despite what comes out of their mouths and pens.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 18, 2015)

the other thing is also that altho i am called a 'stalinist', it seems to me that it is anarchists and liberals that are more obsessed about shutting down any view that is not theirs, and coming up with labels to shut down anything which does not agree with the de facto anarchist or liberal  'party line'. 

ie i am not sure why i was called a racist. i do not believe i am, however, i cannot but notice that there are different races and ethnic groups, and thus can be discussed. i would like to  know why i was called a racist, and so if i am mistaken, then i can be shown my mistake and change my mind. shouting me down wont convince me of anything. 

likewise, i am not forced to believe that gender and race is 'socially constructed', i dont believe that at all, not because i am transphobic or racist, but because gender and races is biological, and cannot be changed, and neither can historical memories nor deep links to other parts of the world be forgotten. that is, i dont agree with the theory that everything is 'socially constructed' at all, as it is simply not true. I dont believe Bruce Jenner etc is really a woman, but at the same time, i think that all minorities, sexual, religious, otherwise, should have fundamental and basic rights respected. nothing more than this, however. 

a problem with forums and facebook is that nothing can really be discussed, as one is shouted down and called all sorts of nasty things just for saying something that is not with the dominant anarchist/liberal party line.  

this is interesting, from the Anarchist People of Color group in the US

http://www.coloursofresistance.org/...guilar-of-the-anarchist-people-of-color-apoc/


----------



## Greebo (Sep 18, 2015)

UK subversive If it quacks like a duck, waddles a bit, can swim, and has webbed feet, it probably is a duck.

By advertising an event run by a group which is exclusively for BME people and implies that anyone who isn't BME (even if they too welcome refugees) are not encouraged to attend, you are encouraging racism. 

Don't think the wording of the poster in your first post on this thread was racist?  I'm sure that some men don't mean to be sexist when they say that people should "man up" or "grow a pair" either - it doesn't make the action any less discriminatory.  

Edited to add:  I suppose you haven't noticed that the Nation of Islam refuse to sell their paper to anyone who's white, either.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 18, 2015)

To  a certain extent race and gender can be a bit ish frankly if somebody goes through a lot of painful ops to look like the gender they think they are or decide to identify with a diffrent gender than their genitals they were born with.
 Its a bit churlish and frankly insulting to claim there not really what they say they are.
 Who died and made you the gender/sexuality king/Queen otherwise thin controller whatever?

If you want to identify as a lesbian but sleep with men you may have issues lots of issues actually,  but its not really anybody elses buisness


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 19, 2015)

Greebo said:


> UK subversive If it quacks like a duck, waddles a bit, can swim, and has webbed feet, it probably is a duck.
> 
> By advertising an event run by a group which is exclusively for BME people and implies that anyone who isn't BME (even if they too welcome refugees) are not encouraged to attend, you are encouraging racism.
> 
> ...



The NOI can do what they want, i have nothing to do with them, and have no say on the matter. i dont care whether or not they sell their paper to white people or refuse to. 

i posted the event on Urban for people to come, white or black, and white people did come and take part. 

However, there is a need to organise separately, because the 'white left', such as SWP/Counterfire etc have their own agenda, which is to push everything into Labour and that Jeremy Corbyn is going to save the world. at the saturday refugees demo, there was barely a mention of the destruction of Libya, and of the attempted destruction of Syria, nor that the British government are pretty much responsible for the refugee crisis. 

the crapness of the white left is partly responsible for people trying to organise seperately. don't necessarily want Owen Jones and Chris Nineham and Oxbridge Callinicos etc dominating everything. if there was better white left, then possibly there would be no need to organise seperately. 

curious what peeps think about this; if you remember the big stop the war demos a decade or more ago, it was noticable that the size of the demos was partly due to the STWC working with Muslim organisations such as MAB/MCB, who sent coachloads of people. Galloway and his RESPECT party also only won seats because of support from Muslim organisations, and only won in Muslim majority areas. Not a supporter of Georgeous George or RESPECT, not a fan of Big Brother, but quite noticeable. That suggests that Muslims are more anti war than white people, as a whole, because it is their people that are being bombed, killed, tortured, raped, etc by the British army. On the other hand, many white people tended to believe that their own government is basically trying to do good in the world by getting rid of evil dictators etc. 

dont have a conclusion of this,but it was quite noticeable. i am curious what others think. it suggests to me that most white leftists are not anti imperialist, and they support their army, and feel sadder at the death of a single british invader than a hundred libyans.  the end gurkha recruitment thread i posted on urban was also interesting, as most of the commentators did not see the fact that getting one poor people from one side of south asia to shoot down another poor people from the other side of south asia as much of a problem. i cannot but think that most white people support their army, altho they may not support the wars and intervention. as such, there is a need to organise seperately, but work together on some things.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 19, 2015)

likesfish said:


> To  a certain extent race and gender can be a bit ish frankly if somebody goes through a lot of painful ops to look like the gender they think they are or decide to identify with a diffrent gender than their genitals they were born with.
> Its a bit churlish and frankly insulting to claim there not really what they say they are.
> Who died and made you the gender/sexuality king/Queen otherwise thin controller whatever?
> 
> If you want to identify as a lesbian but sleep with men you may have issues lots of issues actually,  but its not really anybody elses buisness




i dont have a problem with any of this stuff.  but i dont think that surgery can really change someones race or gender. it has  nothing to do with what i decide, but to do with reality, which cannot be changed just by will or surgery. sorry.


----------



## LDC (Sep 19, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> the end gurkha recruitment thread i posted on urban was also interesting, as most of the commentators did not see the fact that getting one poor people from one side of south asia to shoot down another poor people from the other side of south asia as much of a problem.



That's just not true as has been pointed out to you already. It was that people just didn't see it as a winnable or important issue to work on, nothing to do with whether it was a 'good' thing or not that it happened.

As for lots of what else you wrote, I just don't know where to start really...


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That's just not true as has been pointed out to you already. It was that people just didn't see it as a winnable or important issue to work on, nothing to do with whether it was a 'good' thing or not that it happened.
> 
> As for lots of what else you wrote, I just don't know where to start really...



it may nor may  not be winnable. but what is and what is not important depends on where you stand and what you consider important. much of what the white left are concerned with dont seem important to the non white left and vice versa i guess. 

it is also unclear what the white left and anarchists in particular have won at all. Jeremy Corbyn is it.  this is why there is a need to organise seperately, ask the white left is they want to support, if not, then go ahead without them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i dont have a problem with any of this stuff.  but i dont think that surgery can really change someones race or gender. it has  nothing to do with what i decide, but to do with reality, which cannot be changed just by will or surgery. sorry.



you do know that gender is about alot more than what's dangling between your legs (or not as the case may be) right? It's more importantly about a set of social relations, norms and roles assigned as a result. They self evidently _are _socially constructed. 

Race is essentially similar in this regard.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> dont have a conclusion of this,but it was quite noticeable. i am curious what others think. it suggests to me that most white leftists are not anti imperialist, and they support their army, and feel sadder at the death of a single british invader than a hundred libyans.  the end gurkha recruitment thread i posted on urban was also interesting, as most of the commentators did not see the fact that getting one poor people from one side of south asia to shoot down another poor people from the other side of south asia as much of a problem. i cannot but think that most white people support their army, altho they may not support the wars and intervention. as such, there is a need to organise seperately, but work together on some things.



This is just offensive broad brush bollocks.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

Most of the ism of stalinism and maoism was and is bollocks its not some highly thought out plan its a man riding a tiger in a fight to a death with other people on tigers.


 While intresting it has nothing useful to say if your not a tryant in charge of a backward country beset by enemies


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Most of the ism of stalinism and maoism was and is bollocks its not some highly thought out plan its a man riding a tiger in a fight to a death with other people on tigers.
> 
> 
> While intresting it has nothing useful to say if your not a tryant in charge of a backward country beset by enemies



How is it 'bollocks'?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

the fact that there is now a white minority i


SpineyNorman said:


> you do know that gender is about alot more than what's dangling between your legs (or not as the case may be) right? It's more importantly about a set of social relations, norms and roles assigned as a result. They self evidently _are _socially constructed.
> 
> Race is essentially similar in this regard.




that is the postmodern line coming out, and sounds much like you've read a load of Judith Butler and other postmodern BS like Foucault etc. 

i dont believe it, so it cannot be 'self evident'. 
if it was really 'self evident' then there would be no disagreement at all. it obviously is not self evident, and imo, not even true. 
not everything is 'socially constructed' and gender is one of them. 

gender is about whats between your legs or not, and whether or not you have fallopian tubes and produce eggs and have periods and can grow a beard or not. 
but rather than take it up with me, why not take it up with radical feminists who exclude transgender from their meetings? 

but, if the issue is about rights, then  i have no problem with that. everybody should have their basic and fundamental rights respected, and should be treated with respect. if it stays about rights, then there is not much problem. but if one has to agree to some bullshit contradictory postmodern theory coming from France and the US, then many are not going to be convinced by that.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

race likewise. one cannot identify as another race. this is where we get the Rachel Dolezal type stuff, who identifies as black, even though both her parents are white, and she simply has a curly perm,and goes to tanning salons and wears dark make up,and mimics the style of African Americans. She was outed as a fake, rightly.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Most of the ism of stalinism and maoism was and is bollocks its not some highly thought out plan its a man riding a tiger in a fight to a death with other people on tigers.
> 
> 
> While intresting it has nothing useful to say if your not a tryant in charge of a backward country beset by enemies



cliches, and ultimately leftist racism. "we, the white first world left, know the proper theory, and you third world follow our lead".   anarchism or trotskyism has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing. this is why it is popular in the west. it allows one to pretend to be ra ra radical, but in reality do nothing that in any way challenges imperialism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

so transexuals are fakes, men in dresses. Nice


UK subversive said:


> cliches, and ultimately leftist racism. we, the white first world left, know the proper theory to follow, which is either anarchism or trotskyism, which has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing.



likesfish  he's got you nailed, you massive trot.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is just offensive broad brush bollocks.



broad brush maybe, but also broadly true. 
and you know it.


----------



## LDC (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive, how old are you? Are you the Maoist equivalent of Donald Trump?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> the fact that there is now a white minority i
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't have to be a post-modernist to recognise that gender (_not _sex - two different though interrelated things) is socially constructed. And I was talking specifically about the social relations, norms and roles that define gender as being socially constructed - and on that one it's down to you to explain how else they have been constructed if not socially.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> race likewise. one cannot identify as another race. this is where we get the Rachel Dolezal type stuff, who identifies as black, even though both her parents are white, and she simply has a curly perm,and goes to tanning salons and wears dark make up,and mimics the style of African Americans. She was outed as a fake, rightly.



Class is also socially constructed (that's not a post-modernist line by the way - they'd say it was _discursively_ constructed). Yet saying you're of a different social class from the one you belong to doesn't make it so. Just as saying you're a different race from the one you belong to doesn't make it so. You appear to think that socially constructed just means purely subjective and therefore anyone can pick and choose - it in fact means quite the opposite - these social constructs have a very real and inescapable impact on peoples' lives.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> broad brush maybe, but also broadly true.
> and you know it.



No it isn't and no I don't. 

You seem to have a very simplistic black and white (lol) view of the way the world works.


----------



## andysays (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive - before you dig yourself in any deeper maybe have quick look here

difference between sex and gender


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> You don't have to be a post-modernist to recognise that gender (_not _sex - two different though interrelated things) is socially constructed. And I was talking specifically about the social relations, norms and roles that define gender as being socially constructed - and on that one it's down to you to explain how else they have been constructed if not socially.




no its not. sex and gender are not seperate, they are different words for the same thing, except to pomo academics. 
a man wearing a dress and dressing up like a woman, pretending to be a woman is not 'really' a woman because he's got balls, even if he's cut them off.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Class is also socially constructed (that's not a post-modernist line by the way - they'd say it was _discursively_ constructed). Yet saying you're of a different social class from the one you belong to doesn't make it so. Just as saying you're a different race from the one you belong to doesn't make it so. You appear to think that socially constructed just means purely subjective and therefore anyone can pick and choose - it in fact means quite the opposite - these social constructs have a very real and inescapable impact on peoples' lives.



i wouldn't use the world 'socially constucted' at all. it is a weasel word, and easy to use. 

if you have to sell your labour to survive, then you are a worker. 
this is not really the same for gender or race. if i make a lot of money, and then set up a business and hire other people, i would no longer be a worker obviously. but i'd be the same gender or race.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

andysays said:


> UK subversive - before you dig yourself in any deeper maybe have quick look here
> 
> difference between sex and gender



i know this shit. 
i just dont find it convincing. or is that against the anarchist/liberal party line?


----------



## andysays (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> no its not. sex and gender are not seperate, they are different words for the same thing, except to pomo academics.
> a man wearing a dress and dressing up like a woman, pretending to be a woman is not 'really' a woman because he's got balls, even if he's cut them off.



I hope you have a better and more nuanced grasp of the issues around "race" and ethnicity than this, though somehow I doubt it...


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> UK subversive, how old are you? Are you the Maoist equivalent of Donald Trump?



how old are you? 
i am sympathetic to Maoism, i'm not a Maoist as such. 
Donald Trump? haven't got his kind of money.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> UK subversive, how old are you? Are you the Maoist equivalent of Donald Trump?



He isn't a Maoist.  Not even of the third-worldist edges of it.  He might like to think he's one, though.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

andysays said:


> I hope you have a better and more nuanced grasp of the issues around "race" and ethnicity than this, though somehow I doubt it...



by that you mean, 'i hope you have the same view i have'.


----------



## LDC (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i know this shit.
> i just dont find it convincing. or is that against the anarchist/liberal party line?



Now you're just being a dickhead.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> He isn't a Maoist.  Not even of the third-worldist edges of it.  He might like to think he's one, though.



thats right. i never said i was, i am sympathetic to maoism, but never claimed to be.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Now you're just being a dickhead.



not really, because obviously, this view is being pushed, and one is not allowed to disagree with it.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

why is the western left obsessed with these weird sex things? 
decadence?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> no its not. sex and gender are not seperate, they are different words for the same thing, except to pomo academics.
> a man wearing a dress and dressing up like a woman, pretending to be a woman is not 'really' a woman because he's got balls, even if he's cut them off.



You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about have you? I'm a pipe fitter by trade - neither an academic nor a post-modernist by the way.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> why is the western left obsessed with these weird sex things?
> decadence?


We're not. You are - you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

Weird sex things? Really?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> not really, because obviously, this view is being pushed, and one is not allowed to disagree with it.



Yet here you are, disagreeing with it.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> no its not. sex and gender are not seperate, they are different words for the same thing, except to pomo academics.
> a man wearing a dress and dressing up like a woman, pretending to be a woman is not 'really' a woman because he's got balls, even if he's cut them off.



Fuck off.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

You can't even call trans women blokes in dresses any more


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i wouldn't use the world 'socially constucted' at all. it is a weasel word, and easy to use.
> 
> if you have to sell your labour to survive, then you are a worker.
> this is not really the same for gender or race. if i make a lot of money, and then set up a business and hire other people, i would no longer be a worker obviously. but i'd be the same gender or race.



So you're saying that by taking on the social role of capitalist you become a capitalist. Equally, if you take on the social role of 'woman' then you're a woman. 

This is where the difference between gender and sex - however much you may wish to deny it - becomes indespensible. Because sex only describes biological difference - gender comes with a whole load of additional social and cultural baggage.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yet here you are, disagreeing with it.



and being shouted down as anarchists are good at doing to anyone that disagrees with them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> and being shouted down as anarchists are good at doing to anyone that disagrees with them.



You mean people are disagreeing with you, don't you? That's how freedom of expression works - you're free to spout ill-informed nonsense and we're free to laugh, point and if we see fit call you a cunt. 

Who on this thread is an anarchist?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> So you're saying that by taking on the social role of capitalist you become a capitalist. Equally, if you take on the social role of 'woman' then you're a woman.
> 
> This is where the difference between gender and sex - however much you may wish to deny it - becomes indespensible. Because sex only describes biological difference - gender comes with a whole load of additional social and cultural baggage.




not really


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> not really



That's it? That's your response?

Piss weak.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> thats right. i never said i was, i am sympathetic to maoism, but never claimed to be.



What aspects of it make you sympathetic to Mao Tse-tung Thought or Maoism?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's it? That's your response?
> 
> Piss weak.



i dont believe gender and sex are different. i dont have a problem with man pretending to be a woman, but that's all it is, pretence. 
one can change ones job, but not one's gender or race.  

i think radical feminists also don't accept trans as 'real women'. 
take it up with them. 
You may call me a TERF but I am not transphobic


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i dont believe gender and sex are different. i dont have a problem with man pretending to be a woman, but that's all it is, pretence.
> one can change ones job, but not one's gender or race.
> 
> i think radical feminists also don't accept trans as 'real women'.
> ...



They're wrong as well but they're not on this thread. You are.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> What aspects of it make you sympathetic to Mao Tse-tung Thought or Maoism?



third worldism anti imperialism in general, rather than Mao Tse Tung or Maoism. 
including Gaddafi, Mugabe, some Islamist movements such as Iran etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i dont believe gender and sex are different. i dont have a problem with man pretending to be a woman, but that's all it is, pretence.
> one can change ones job, but not one's gender or race.
> 
> i think radical feminists also don't accept trans as 'real women'.
> ...



What does "pretending to be a woman" mean?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> What aspects of it make you sympathetic to Mao Tse-tung Thought or Maoism?



third worldism anti imperialism in general, rather than Mao Tse Tung or Maoism. 
including Gaddafi, Mugabe, some Islamist movements such as Iran and hezbollah etc.


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

i think Khomeini was pretty cool.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

pretty sure mugabe has used starvation as a weapon on his own people as well as intimidation and outright rigging to secure unbroken zanu pf in power. Does thirld worldism always lead to 'enemy of my enemy' stuff like supporting mugabe.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i think Khomeini was pretty cool.



He'd have had you killed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> third worldism anti imperialism in general, rather than Mao Tse Tung or Maoism.
> including Gaddafi, *Mugabe, *some Islamist movements such as Iran etc.



So sending in government troops to massacre child labourers in diamond mines is all fine and dandy then?

Fucking hell


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

OK, you are ernestolynch's latest troll creation and I claim  my £5.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> How is it 'bollocks'?



simple really Stalin was a tryant millions died under his rule that rather puts paid to any good he did
much like Hitler isn't remembered for his motorways or child care plans.
Mao killed millions through staggering incompetence peasants arnt going to make steel worth a damm, the cultural revolution I think thats his clock throughly cleaned.

while possibly saying something nice about your enemy while they are fighting your enemy is one thing.
mistaking a thug for anything else than what they are is bollocks.
 while you have to admire castro for surviving the US blockade that doesnt make him a good guy most of the rests lefts international "heros" are even worse.
 hint if  someone declares themselves leader for life and theirs no legal way for the ruled to get rid of them they aint a good guy.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> simple really Stalin was a tryant millions died under his rule that rather puts paid to any good he did
> much like Hitler isn't remembered for his motorways or child care plans.
> Mao killed millions through staggering incompetence peasants arnt going to make steel worth a damm, the cultural revolution I think thats his clock throughly cleaned.
> 
> ...



It was bad because it was bad.  

That hasn't really helped me understand it.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

whats too understand?
 if you ism leads to a massive famine ,destruction of history its bad and needs to be forgotten much like
moselyism its not worth understanding


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> whats too understand?
> if you ism leads to a massive famine ,destruction of history its bad and needs to be forgotten much like
> moselyism its not worth understanding



So you'd include capitalism in that list of 'isms' then?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> whats too understand?
> if you ism leads to a massive famine ,destruction of history its bad and needs to be forgotten much like
> moselyism its not worth understanding



What does capitalism do?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> whats too understand?
> if you ism leads to a massive famine ,destruction of history its bad and needs to be forgotten much like
> moselyism its not worth understanding



So you are saying that you are against something you don't understand and don't even care to understand?  Then how can you know what it is you're against?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> pretty sure mugabe has used starvation as a weapon on his own people as well as intimidation and outright rigging to secure unbroken zanu pf in power. Does thirld worldism always lead to 'enemy of my enemy' stuff like supporting mugabe.



does western leftism always end up supporting western imperialism? 
are white leftists always obsessed about their own purity?
Do western leftists have anything more than just moral posturing? 
Mugabe is the greatest fighter against apartheid, and the British have never forgiven him for taking back the land stolen by white settlers.

He has been demonised, but he is not a demon.
i think Britain should pay reparations to African and Asian countries.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2015)

What's producing all these shit threads?


----------



## UK subversive (Sep 20, 2015)

this is interesting.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

lol


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> So you are saying that you are against something you don't understand and don't even care to understand?  Then how can you know what it is you're against?



If what I'm against puts up borders with the claymores rigged to kill anyone leaving, hides mass graves in forests signs a pact with Hitler it doesnt take very much to figure out ITS A BAD THING.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> If what I'm against puts up borders with the claymores rigged to kill anyone leaving, hides mass graves in forests signs a pact with Hitler it doesnt take very much to figure out ITS A BAD THING.



Still non the wiser.  It's so vague as to be meaningless.  The kind of stuff you talk about is also part of an 'ism' that you've been for...


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

no capitalist states haven't tried to kill people who want to leave.
 rather important difference


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

And just when you thought this thread could not get any stupider...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> no capitalist states haven't tried to kill people who want to leave.
> rather important difference



So it's ok as long as they're not trying to leave then?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

no it points out Marxist states were such a shit idea they had to threaten to kill people who tried to leave.
 traditionally border defenses were designed to stop invading army's and theses days try to keep migrants out.
 Only the Warsaw pact made such an awful job of running a state, eastern Europe would have been depopulated if the people could vote with their feet as happened when they stopped shooting people trying to leave.

The Warsaw pact as an alternative to the western economic model is only an alternative if you consider banging your head against a wall repeatedly is an alternative to not banging your head against a wall..

that model just doesn't work the West could afford guns space travel,proxy wars etc  and all the consumer tat you could possibly afford.
 Whats in it for me? is a powerful motivator.
 best countrys to live in are Scandinavia where you let capitalists make money then tax them to pay for stuff you want for everyone.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

Who could afford this consumer tat?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2015)

just about everyone even in the 70s British  people could afford color tvs clothes shoes LP's etc etc etc cars etc.
 skateboards etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

o rly? just about everyone you say?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:


> just about everyone even in the 70s British  people could afford color tvs clothes shoes LP's etc etc etc cars etc.
> skateboards etc



And in other parts of the world?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 20, 2015)

likesfish said:
			
		

> just about everyone even in the 70s British  people could afford color tvs clothes shoes LP's etc etc etc cars etc.
> skateboards etc



Bollocks. My folks couldn't afford a colour telly until the early 80s. We weren't particularly poor either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2015)

Belushi said:


> He'd have had you killed.



Probably slowly.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 21, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> And in other parts of the world?




Not so much but then communism sort of gaurunteed not only no consumer tat but shortages of the basics
America Gets the Shaft | News | The Harvard Crimson

If the soviet model was so good how come it had to by wheat from the US?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Not so much but then communism sort of gaurunteed not only no consumer tat but shortages of the basics
> America Gets the Shaft | News | The Harvard Crimson
> 
> If the soviet model was so good how come it had to by wheat from the US?



Why are you assuming I am arguing the case for Stalinism?   And besides, you don't know what it is anyway.  

I was asking you about capitalism and other parts of the world.   Tell me how it works.  How it provides.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i think Khomeini was pretty cool.



The same Khomeini that crushed the workers councils, was involved in strikebreaking, that arrested and killed Iranian revolutionary workers and forced a small minority to go into exile?

Just checking good sir. We've got the same Khomeini, right?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

And before you start brandishing your philistine okra all over the place I will care to remind you that this is not the position of white leftists but the Iranian and middle eastern left themselves. I am neither a Trotskyist nor anarchist you numbskull, so get it right you tool. I am also not white, as it bares repeating ad nauseam.

You guys are absolutely hilarious you know that? I know someone similar who has no compunctions about having sex with whitey but then goes on rants about south asian diaspora nationalism. If you met actual conservatives from the region you'd be called traitors and americanisers and westoxicated. Who does the expression gharbzadegi come from, BTW? Don't google it.

I think people like you should be castrated, in all honesty. and yes I'm being serious. At least genuine conservatives aren't hypocrites. You're just a bunch of falsifiers obsessed with the very same decadence that you partake in. Utterly contemptible.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i think Khomeini was pretty cool.



So do Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway and STWC, for that matter. What, offended that it isn't such a novel position and clueless whities can get behind it as well? Off to the labour party with you, middle-class butthurt dickhead.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> i think radical feminists also don't accept trans as 'real women'.
> take it up with them.
> You may call me a TERF but I am not transphobic



So what. All you've illustrated is that radical feminism and more generally most feminisms are bourgeois ideologies perpetuated by middle-class white and PoC women as an impediment to genuine equality, absolutely lacking in communistic and liberatory content. What's your point? Putting radical and feminist together doesn't make a proletarian position. Connect with the working-class and fuck this infantile leftism for god's sake.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Putting radical and feminist together doesn't make a proletarian position.



What's a "proletarian position?"  Come to that, what's a proletarian?  Last time I looked it was anyone who worked for a wage, which includes 99% of the UK population.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

UK subversive said:


> does western leftism always end up supporting western imperialism?



Yes.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> What's a "proletarian position?"  Come to that, what's a proletarian?  Last time I looked it was anyone who worked for a wage, which includes 99% of the UK population.



The positions that communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class adopt based on historic experiences and defeats. I.E: defence of national liberation struggles is no longer a proletarian position and outright counter-revolutionary, whilst it was acceptable in the 1914-1921 era, even though it had its own pitfalls and was rightly criticised.

The party isn't a monolithic entity, or a deligative governmental body which is territorially or nationally constituted. It's the historic conscience of the w/c. As such it will necessarily be a minority. This does not imply jacobinism.

Incidentally this is why I couldn't join most UK anarchist and autonomist groups as they're based on tailism in their complete rejection of the party form - whilst rightly rejecting the bolshevik model they are just as mystical as todays leninists in thinking that spontaneism>enlightened intellectual propaganda>concessions to the working-class>collapse of bourgeois state machinery>transitional period.

'Typewriters don't make revolution', as Onorato Damen succinctly put it.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Yes.



As does the eastern left. What's your point? The left is as much a part of capital as is the right.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

dialectician said:


> The positions that communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class adopt based on historic experiences and defeats.



No, that's the position of communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class.  It's not the proletarian position.

The proletariat is the universal class, _ergo _the "proletarian position" is the position of all humanity.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> No, that's the position of communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class.  It's not the proletarian position.
> 
> The proletariat is the universal class, _ergo _the "proletarian position" is the position of all humanity.



Nice crude Hegelianism, did you read wikipedia?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

What's the position of humanity then phildwyer - finding out they have souls and submitting to a neoplatonism for the masses?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> No, that's the position of communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class.  It's not the proletarian position.
> 
> The proletariat is the universal class, _ergo _the "proletarian position" is the position of all humanity.



If the position of all humanity is communism, then indeed opposition to national liberation, parliamentarism, conquest of unions, etc etc... are requisites. Don't give me this Kautskyian rubbish. I hear your old shill has close positions to the unreconstructed tripe of CPGB and Mike MacNair. Take it up with him, not me.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

dialectician said:


> If the position of all humanity is communism, then indeed opposition to national liberation, parliamentarism, conquest of unions, etc etc... are requisites. Don't give me this Kautskyian rubbish. I hear your old shill has close positions to the unreconstructed tripe of CPGB and Mike MacNair. Take it up with him, not me.



See, this is what happens when post-Metcalfian intra-vanguardism gets over-entrailed with Rightist socio-fascist neo-pluralist dogmatism.  Connect with the workers ffs.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

dialectician said:


> The left is as much a part of capital as is the right.



But this is the merest neo-Nechayevism quasi-dressed up in the pseudo-clothes of post-imperialist ultra-Zogism.  I'd have thought a would-be former Left Messian such as yourself would come up with a better intra-Giggsian position than this. For shame.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

dialectician said:


> What's the position of humanity then phildwyer - finding out they have souls and submitting to a neoplatonism for the masses?



Until you assimilate the deviationist hyper-irrationalism of your stance into the post-Ronaldinhoist tendency of the 'forty-fivers you have no hope of reaching the masses.


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2015)

'e's making it up as he goes along!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 21, 2015)

JimW said:


> 'e's making it up as he goes along!



Take it up with the CPKLF's anti-centrist Nabokovian tendency or McWally's neo-triangulation strategists, not me.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2015)

Stop it, you're killing me.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2015)

Just say 'Fuck off, Dwyer' dialectician.


----------



## cesare (Sep 21, 2015)

JimW said:


> 'e's making it up as he goes along!


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 22, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is what happens when post-Metcalfian intra-vanguardism gets over-entrailed with Rightist socio-fascist neo-pluralist dogmatism.  Connect with the workers ffs.



Well divorce your rich wife then and marry one of our filthy Kurdish peasants why don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2015)

dialectician said:


> The positions that communists and the most class conscious members of the working-class adopt based on historic experiences and defeats. I.E: defence of national liberation struggles is no longer a proletarian position and outright counter-revolutionary, whilst it was acceptable in the 1914-1921 era, even though it had its own pitfalls and was rightly criticised.
> 
> The party isn't a monolithic entity, or a deligative governmental body which is territorially or nationally constituted. It's the historic conscience of the w/c. As such it will necessarily be a minority. This does not imply jacobinism.
> 
> ...


Give it a fucking rest eh? Stop the half digested drivel and name dropping.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 22, 2015)

Radical feminists have disappered up a blind alley and missed loads of turnings on the way at some point,
 Feminism has a lot to say but around the point where you equate hetrosexuality with rape and anybody who isn't  the correct kind of lesbian is *WRONG!!!!!!*  they lose it


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 22, 2015)

So I clicked on this thread; thinking it was a discussion on racism & what a shocker; another bout of infighting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2015)

JimW said:


> 'e's making it up as he goes along!



So, not much of a change there, then, from the man who *didn't* provide definitive proof of G-d's existence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Radical feminists have disappered up a blind alley and missed loads of turnings on the way at some point,
> Feminism has a lot to say but around the point where you equate hetrosexuality with rape and anybody who isn't  the correct kind of lesbian is *WRONG!!!!!!*  they lose it



You're talking about a minority within a minority though, with regard to that particular strain of feminist thought.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, not much of a change there, then, from the man who *didn't* provide definitive proof of G-d's existence.



No but you misunderstand man. God is a discourse and a concept m8, not an existing entity.

Also why do you spell God G-d? I thought you were an atheist and such sacred distinctions didn't matter to you?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're talking about a minority within a minority though, with regard to that particular strain of feminist thought.


 Oh course but they make an awful lot  of noise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2015)

dialectician said:


> No but you misunderstand man. God is a discourse and a concept m8, not an existing entity.



G-d is who and whatever attributes the followers imbue it with. 



> Also why do you spell God G-d? I thought you were an atheist...



I'm not an atheist, I merely don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian deity, and am ambivalent about worshipping anything except maybe The Baphomet (there's a joke in there, for those who know The Baphomet's attributes). 



> ...and such sacred distinctions didn't matter to you?


I'm not into deliberately offending others if I can avoid it (yeah, yeah, I know!), so when I'm talking about Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh/Jah I say G-d. If I'm referring to Zeus, Vesta or Herne, I say god(dess). Jews, Christians and Muslims are soooo touchy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Oh course but they make an awful lot  of noise



In much the same way that a tiny boil on your arse is painful out of keeping with its size.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Oh course but they make an awful lot  of noise


an empty vessel makes the most noise


----------

