National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rev Scare on Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:57 am

Revocity wrote:What's the RSF? Is that a thing you made up? How adorable.

Well, "Lord Protector," our humble organization, while certainly lacking the majesty of your "back of the woods," was established in the hope of consolidating modern syndicalism and left-wing nationalism upon a coherent, competent platform. Of course, it is mundane in comparison to your feudal fetish, your lordship.

Oh fucking Christ not this straw man bullshit again.

Admit your folly and be done.

I kind of expected a response like this since you are, after all, a snide little twot. Rest assured, I understand your language perfectly which is why I know the words you use are unnecessary and everything you're saying can be put in much more concise terms which would save us both time. But if you want to continue writing like you're penning an academic essay to impress your lecturers at the University of Hicksville, go right ahead.

"Unnecessary" according to whom? To a disgruntled anti-intellectual? I cannot imagine why you would take issue with my style of writing. It seems awfully paltry of you. Perhaps it is the hint of an inferiority complex, Lord Protector?

Regardless, the subject obviously reduces itself to a matter of taste. If you prefer to employ the coarse and lackadaisical language of the self-described "barbarian," Rebel Warrior, above, who has kindly graced us once more with his presence in this thread, then you are free to do so (for no reason other than your own preference, as we here are not—I repeat, we are not—under the illusion that the content of this forum constitutes serious activism of any sort and requires tempering in order to meaningfully affect cognitively stunted modern audiences), but spare me your petty criticism. I choose to infuse nuance into my language. End of story.

Yes, I'm sure your little forum posts are capable of refuting the theories of one of the most influential sociologists in history. Corporative socialism is not a contradictory position. It's a necessary theory to resolve the contradictions inherent in both systems of thought.

First of all, his theories are subject to criticism, whether you wish to play childish philosophical parlor games or not, whether you wish to shield the inferiority of your ideology behind epistemological irreducibility or not. As such, they have been thoroughly critiqued on this forum and elsewhere. Your ignorance speaks for itself. Secondly, corporative socialism is a contradiction in terms, plain and simple. In order to even begin protesting this assertion, you would need to: 1) provide a coherent and historically accurate definition of socialism, as it has been traditionally understood on the Left, 2) demonstrate how it can be reconciled with the economic system known as corporatism, and 3) prove that it would resolve rather than entrench or even intensify the contradictions between capital and labor. You would also do well to provide a rational analysis of socialism's alleged "contradictions"—without resorting to trite remarks and non-arguments such as "class warfare sux."

As an aside, the above quote strikes rather close to argumentum ad verecundiam, Lord Protector. (It means argument from authority.)

Yes, the relevance of not being a racist is "negligible."

In the greater context of your political ideology, when including questions of political economy, reactionary nationalism, blind devotion to traditionalism, etc., it is trivial whether you believe in the superiority or inferiority of racial constructs.

I am a left-wing nationalist because I believe capitalism and consumerism are the common enemies of the workers and the nation who need to enter into an alliance in order to exorcise them. It's really as simple as that. If you want to convolute it and turn it into an intellecutalist circle jerk of self-gratifying wankery that's your business but I know many patriotic socialists who have done great things for their country and the workers who would not meet your precious little definition of what a "left-wing nationalist" is.

The left-wing nationalism we uphold on this forum is decidedly different form your right-wing nationalism. Yours is xenophobic, chauvinistic, hierarchical, and tinged with classical conservatism. Simply because you happen to denounce certain facets of bourgeois society (as do numerous individuals from within the paradigm of bourgeois thought, such as mainstream liberals) does not render you a leftist. Your corporative socialism is not socialism. It continues to retain class divisions (indeed, it enforces them) and so fails to eliminate capitalist exploitation (i.e., the appropriation of unpaid surplus labor by the capitalist by means of the wage-for-labor-time contract, or alternatively, profiting from the relative vulnerability of another), it thus eschews the class struggle, and it is rooted in a (backward) traditionalist outlook. It is idealism at its worst, and I was generous in admitting that it resided slightly to the left of free-market capitalism.

I will not continue to engage you in a duel over semantics, however. Define your terms, and we can proceed to debate their merits then.

Yes, and then I directly said I KNOW FUCKING MARXIST THEORY DOES NOT ADVOCATE THE ABOLITION OF ALL PRIVATE SPACES.

Struck a nerve, eh? Then I was correct in assuming that your initial comments lacked any purpose other than to offer a taste of your snarky humor. They were otherwise fatuous.

Drab online forums? Really? Don't throw stones mate, you live in a glass house. I guess it's a question of taste at the end of the day, though. Personally, I prefer clean designs and layouts to the grungy Ukrainian porn site look. This place looks like it was made by someone who plays way too much RedAlert, but I'm assuming it's not you and I can appreciate the work that went into it, so I'll just chalk it up to a matter of personal taste.

It is a matter of taste, but I believe most neutral individuals would favor us as possessing the more aesthetically pleasing design. In any case, I will also not continue to argue this trifling matter, as I could not care less if you dislike our style. I am positive that it is well received by the majority of our visitors.

I did my undergraduate degree in the United States and for the vast majority of “socialist” students being working class meant they couldn’t afford to get the latest I-whatever. Judging by the fact you have time to write obnoxious paragraphs of text on an internet forum as opposed to say mopping the floors at Walmart, chances are you’re not a “worker” but a spoilt American teenager who wears skinny jeans and smokes weed.

You see, you have further betrayed your ignorance. Like your reactionary predecessors from Iron March (provided you are not some defector from that horrid site), you have very little comprehension of what you are arguing. The working class is not delineated by some arbitrary income category: it is the other end of a social relationship between capital and labor, specifically regarding the means of production. It matters not whether one is a custodian or a professional football/soccer player, so long as he or she is employed by a capitalist.

The UK Labour Party may have been overrun by communitarian frauds and pseudo-socialist hipster weasels like yourself, but at least my country has a labour party as opposed to just different shades of liberal.

The UK's Labour Party is a standard bourgeois political party which has long succumbed to the will of capital. The fact that you attribute this development to infiltration by "communitarian frauds" and "pseudo-socialist hipster weasels" yet further underscores the depth of your ignorance. I believe Celtiberian has already recommended you watch the documentary based upon the book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson, as it basically vindicates the Marxist position that the modern state is little more than an instrument of the ruling class. Your idealist twaddle leads you to overlook this fact, despite that it would haunt your model of "corporative socialism," rendering any possibility of class collaboration null.

In terms of my contribution to the labour movement, I wish I could do more but there's only a certain amount of time I can invest in lost causes, this site being a case in point. But there are glimmers of hope. See, for instance, Blue Labour.

I was correct about your silly dabbling in the Labour Party then.

Oh look, you do have a sense of humour. Too bad it just comes across as fucking creepy.

What can I say, Lord Protector? Your tasteless machismo rubbed me the wrong way.

Isakenaz wrote:Possibly, but at least I'm not pathetic like you lot.

Laughing

That is rich, dear Isa. Truly so. You have the most colorful and embarrassing history on this forum—and your new playground.

When this forum began, great things were promised.

Such as? This was always intended to be a message board, a medium where we could refine and establish our views, and to this end, we have succeeded. The RSF remains fully committed to pursuing future activism, but your simple-minded conception of how this should or could proceed simply deludes you.

Yet here we are over two years later and what has changed? nothing. Still you bleat the same promises, tell people that great things are in the offing, and point to an increasing membership to prove the vigour and strength of your failed ideology. However, how many of the original membership still remain? From what I see now most members are bored American highscool kids playing socialist because its fashionable.

And what? Instead of continuing to improve your knowledge, you join some backwater fascist site? You are in no position to judge our ideology, as you have never properly understood it to begin with. You are as mercurial as ever, but I suppose your shallow dedication explains your abandonment of scientific socialism, as it requires little effort to mingle with your recent anti-intellectual "comrades."

The RSF has become nothing more than a hipster fashion accessory in which a few twenty somethings show the little children the might of their intellect. If, and it's a big if, America was ever to undergo a socialist revolution you would probably come out from under your desk to discover you are the first to go up against the wall.
Left-wing Nationalism can never be internationalist outside your wet dreams.

The history of the American labor movement is not to be diminished by the likes of you lot. Furthermore, I request a reasonable explanation as to why "left-wing nationalism can never be internationalist." Seriously, offer one or cease to make this mindless claim, which has been addressed ad nauseum.

Did something transpire in your personal life to leave you in such a slum state, dear Isa? Wifey leave you for a foreigner?

_________________
"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common." Hammer Sickle
Karl Marx



RSF Executive Committee Officer
avatar
Rev Scare
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 821
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 27
Location : Utah

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:01 pm

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Dah fuck this long ass post!


There's no sense in it. Anyways the point is ( like others have pointed out) many of y'all act way too arrogant. For no fucking reason at that. Yes sure y'all are more smart than many of your opponents but that dont mean you gotta act so high and mighty. Besides y'all are shooting yourselves in the foot here in the long run.



I mean you want to bring down the System right?


Well guess what, you might not have enough numbers even in the future to bring it down by yourselves. Which means there's a good chance youd have to ally with other radicals. I can just see a situation like that : Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neo Nazis, Black Panthers, outlaw bikers, metalheads, punk rockers, skinheads, pissed off rednecks and all the fucking radicals and loose screws out there uniting to bring down the Man once and for all.



And y'all know what? Thats the most realistic scenario if you think about it unless one group becomes really huge to take on the System by itself ( which may not happen) cause the general public most likely ain't gonna do shit.


All your rants about rising above counterculture aside, your still in it.


If y'all had some sense you would be more respectful to your opponents because one day you might have to ride in the same boat with them to survive. It dont matter whether your a Corporatist or a Socialist the Man's always going to be against you if your a radical. Anyways think about that people.



Over and out.


_________________
De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
-Friedrich Engels Hammer Sickle

ECRSF Officer
avatar
Admin
_____________________________
_____________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 971
Reputation : 864
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : La Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Revocity on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:53 pm

I think the problem is that we are looking at socialism from two different perspectives. I’m looking at socialism from a contemporary, practical perspective specific to a particular national context. The project of modern socialism in Britain is building a socially conscionable nation without recourse to instituting a burdensome state apparatus. Class politics have lost a lot of their relevance in the political scene here, whereas before it used to be the bread and butter of debate. Due to this development, the left has either had to adapt or die and I believe a key aspect of its adaption should be overcoming its inherent squeamishness around ideas of tradition and nation.

You, on the other hand, look at socialism from an academic, theoretical perspective with a universalist undertone that socialism must be the same thing to all nations and peoples (i.e. an indiscriminate acceptance of Marxist theory) and anyone who doesn’t share in the belief of the class war is not a bona fide socialist and therefore a “reactionary.” What you fail to realise is that the notion of class struggle has lost its relevance to mainstream politics in many national contexts, especially in mine where, unlike yours, we don’t believe it’s ok to let insurance companies directly murder our people (yet) and our government has a long history of instituting enlightened welfare policies. While these accolades are being assaulted form every direction and since the 1980s we’ve been edging closer and closer towards an American-style neo-liberal political economy, they are nonetheless part of our national tradition which is why traditionalist socialism has already gained some traction here. Your belief that traditionalist socialism is absurd probably stems from the fact that in your nation tradition is the preserve of gun-toting, bible-bashing, free market fellating, neo-cons so you believe socialism has to be achieved in spite of tradition.

Dismissing the Labour Party as bourgeois is fine in theory when you’re not interested in working with anyone towards any kind of practical goal, but since I’m committed to achieving socialism in some practical way, this precludes me from making my own “movement” because I’ve seen the outcome of such ventures so many times from both the left and right and they’re always disappointing. This is because these “organizations” are never the product of any serious consideration or prior activism, but just ego-fuelled whims. Ridiculous, mickey-mouse groups like your pitiful RSF are the prime example of this. I’ve never made any claims to corporative socialism being a movement or anything other than a summation of my personal convictions based on the literature I have read and agreed with. As for my “feudal fetish,” since we all know that Oliver Cromwell was a member of the feudal aristocracy, it’s not sincere as I told you before and it comes from a historical reference not from fighting elves on the internet, a pastime to which you would be probably better suited. Anyway, you want to talk about fetishists? What about your bizarre Soviet Fetish which looks like it’s based on a 12 year olds understanding of what communist Russia was like with the Cyrillic lettering in the menu and the excessive use of red stars and hammers and sickles? I mean you say I have a feudal fetish when the extent of that is a two word title and some picture you dug up while stalking me on DeviantArt whereas you have an entire website devoted to your little fetishist sensibilities (two if you count that shitty RSF page) and it comes off as exactly what it is: a suburban yank teenager’s fantasy of communism. But I suppose it’s not surprising since you’ve likely never left that swampy armpit of a state let alone the good ol’ US of A.

Revocity
___________________
___________________

Tendency : null
Posts : 15
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-03

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:59 pm

You have been fairly respectful to me personally Celt, but thats not the point here. More than one of the most active members of this forum have written arrogant and condescending posts now and in the past. Take a look at Ghostwolf and that Valjean guy, their posts certainly weren't as colorful as mine yet they still got a bunch of snooty replies. Your side has as much blood on its hands as your opponents when it comes to posting arrogant high and mighty writings.

In the end nobody really knows anything. I mean sure you guys read a lot of books by many different authors, check the bibliography, then form your conclusions, but guess what : All the stuff you have read could be a pack of lies. I mean how do you know the economy works like you say it does? " Oh I read several books by Professors so and so" And how do they know ? " Well they compiled a list of evidence in the references page" And how does the list of evidence know? " Well because its evidence, I mean it must be right because of that" The truth is all you think you know could be wrong. All the evidence in those references could be made up. I mean were you standing right behind Professor so and so when he was collecting the evidence for his book? The point is nobody knows anything for certain and that's why y'all have no reason to think that your beliefs are as watertight as you make them come across in your posts.

I also dont see what's immature about writing about a possible radical alliance in the future when theres a good chance that that might be the only way to bring down the Man.

_________________
Hail the Heroic Barbarian Outlaw Past! Death to Civilization Modernity and Society!
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rev Scare on Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:51 pm

Rebel Warrior, all that you tell us could be a pack of lies. Think about it: how do you know anything you know? You don't. You don't even know whether we exist. We could be figments of your imagination. What is reality anyway? How do you know anything you type makes any sense to us? We don't share your mind. There is an unbridgeable chasm between us mentally and philosophically. What is philosophy, anyway? It is a human construct. What is humanity anyway? It is merely a thought construct. Does humanity validate the thought or does the thought validate humanity? Can they validate each other at the same time? What is thought? Thought is thought. Must there be a duality between mind and matter? Why can't they just get along? That is not sufficient. What is sufficiency? What are constructs anyway? They are merely aspects of consciousness. What is consciousness anyway? Nobody really knows. What is nobody? Who is nobody? What does it mean to be nobody? How can I prove what nobody can prove to nobody? What is the point of having a point? What are points? Are they mathematical or physical? What is the difference? Is there a difference? How could we prove there is a difference? We can't prove there is a difference because everything is made up. Or is it? Who are we? Do we even inhabit the same plane of existence? Do I exist? Do you exist? What does it mean to exist? I think you exist, but if I exist, does it mean we both exist? Perhaps not, perhaps yes. What is perhaps? Think about it, everything you tell us could be dead wrong. Everything dead wrong could be interpreted by us as dead right. Where would we stand then? What is the difference between wrong and right? Who is Ghost Wolf? Does Ghost Wolf exist? Think about it, guy: Ghost Wolf is an anonymous "person" on the internet. Actually, "his" posts were on the internet. Ghost Wolf could have been a troll. YOU could be Ghost Wolf for all you know. We never know anything for certain, remember. I could be Ghost Wolf. What is the internet? Is the internet us? Was it developed by people or did it exist before? It couldn't have existed before because barbarians existed before. But did they? Couldn't barbarians and the internet coexist? What would that entail? Where is the evidence, I ask. What does it mean to be a ghost and a wolf? Does it presuppose the existence of ghosts or wolves or both? Must one exist before the other? What is the point of naming yourself Ghost Wolf? What about Rebel Warrior? There is no way to convey any of this to anybody but yourself, so why not live in your head? Or is your head already everything? Perhaps it is everything and nothing at the same time. Paradox. What is paradox? para + dox. Is there even a reason to label? Who gets labeled by what and how? How do I know that you know what you don't know that I know? Does that sentence make sense? Think about it carefully: DOES IT MAKE SENSE? To whom? To what end? What is an end and a whom? Can we even agree upon terminology? Who are "we" to begin with? I don't know that you're real, RW. You post, but that doesn't mean anything. Is that real? Are your posts real? CAN I take your posts for granted? Is any of the above true? How can any of us know? Is "us" a categorical certainty or a description of transient phenomena? is there a difference between the two? I challenge you, RW, to challenge yourself to challenge your views to challenge the challenge of your views to yourself. You cannot be certain of anything, RW, not even the certainty of whether this statement is certain. Does this mean that you can in fact be certain? Surely you can be certain that nothing is certain at least. Or can you? Paradox. Para + dox.

_________________
"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common." Hammer Sickle
Karl Marx



RSF Executive Committee Officer
avatar
Rev Scare
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 821
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 27
Location : Utah

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:32 pm

Exactly if you use this ( its called solipsist I think ) sort of questioning then you will find nothing is absolutely certain. Which is why there's no reason for y'all ( yes I can use you all but y'all is shorter) to be so confident about the rightness of your beliefs. That was my point. Also Ill go on official record here writing that Im not sure at all that my opinions are absolutely true.

_________________
Hail the Heroic Barbarian Outlaw Past! Death to Civilization Modernity and Society!
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Celtiberian on Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:35 pm

Revocity wrote:I think the problem is that we are looking at socialism from two different perspectives. I’m looking at socialism from a contemporary, practical perspective specific to a particular national context. The project of modern socialism in Britain is building a socially conscionable nation without recourse to instituting a burdensome state apparatus.

It's undeniable that we're approaching socialism from radically different perspectives; the RSF understands it in material terms, and you view it as an idealist "project."

Class politics have lost a lot of their relevance in the political scene here, whereas before it used to be the bread and butter of debate. Due to this development, the left has either had to adapt or die and I believe a key aspect of its adaption should be overcoming its inherent squeamishness around ideas of tradition and nation.

The reason class is no longer politically acknowledged is because labor—for a variety of reasons (e.g., globalization, immigration, and automation)—is no longer the potent force it once was. It's not that a social zeitgeist shift has occurred among the masses, capital is simply more hegemonic in the political process now. But the class struggle hasn't been rendered anachronistic as a result of this superficial change in political rhetoric, as you seem to suggest; it has intensified. Every wage-for-labor-time contract signed, factory moved overseas in response to domestic wage demands or regulations, and share of stock sold, is an act of class warfare, whether you acknowledge it as such or not.

As a syndicalist, I reject the notion that it's efficacious to participate in bourgeois parliamentarism in order to usher in social change. Even the milquetoast reforms necessary to construct your corporative state haven't a chance of being realized by way of parliament at this point in time. (The historical record indicates that corporativism is only adopted when the bourgeoisie feel especially threatened by the class consciousness and organization of the proletariat.)

You, on the other hand, look at socialism from an academic, theoretical perspective with a universalist undertone that socialism must be the same thing to all nations and peoples (i.e. an indiscriminate acceptance of Marxist theory) and anyone who doesn’t share in the belief of the class war is not a bona fide socialist and therefore a “reactionary.”

This is a straw man of our position. First of all, I don't consider individuals who reject class struggle as being inherently reactionary, they simply have a difficulty accepting reality. If they should advocate on behalf of a qualitatively different mode of production, characterized by collective ownership and management of the means of production, I would have no hesitancy whatsoever in considering them a comrade.

Secondly, our theory of revolution is informed by history. It isn't an abstract model conjured up in the minds of utopian academicians, it's based upon an observation of how change has been achieved in previous epochs—particularly what the conditions and motivations were of the agents who brought about said change.

Turning to universalism, since the possible ways to organize production are finite, the problems and solutions are going to be comparable throughout the world. The development of information technology and transportation which have accompanied capitalism also universalized production and its implications in profound ways. As Otto Bauer explained,

"It is certain that the differences between the material contents of different national cultures will be reduced in socialist society. Modern capitalism has already begun this work. The precapitalist peasant lived and produced for centuries in the manner inherited from his ancestors without adopting any of the advances made by his neighbors. He used the same primitive plough even though, only a few miles away, he would have had the opportunity to observe a better plough that would have assured him a much higher yield. Modern capitalism, however, has taught the nations to learn from one another; each technological advance becomes the property of the whole world within a few years, every change in the law is studied and imitated by neighboring peoples, each scientific and artistic current influences the civilized peoples of the entire world. There can be no doubt that socialism will increase this cosmopolitan tendency in our culture to an enormous extent, will reduce the differences between the material contents of cultures at an incomparably greater speed, such that the nations will learn still more from one another, each learning from the other that which corresponds to its particular goals. However, it would be precipitate to conclude from this that the reduction of differences between the material contents of cultures will also lead to nations' becoming completely identical."
Otto Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. 96.

unlike yours, we don’t believe it’s ok to let insurance companies directly murder our people (yet) and our government has a long history of instituting enlightened welfare policies. While these accolades are being assaulted form every direction and since the 1980s we’ve been edging closer and closer towards an American-style neo-liberal political economy, they are nonetheless part of our national tradition which is why traditionalist socialism has already gained some traction here.

One need only apply a material analysis to the history of the British welfare state to understand why it materialized and why it's currently being eroded. Even bourgeois historians are honest enough to now admit that the impetus behind its ascendency was the European elites' anxiety toward the prospect of Sovietism spreading westward, following the Second World War. As a result, popular concessions were permitted in order to pacify the masses. But now that the Soviet threat has receded and organized labor has been eviscerated, the bourgeoisie are preparing to further increase their hegemony by dismantling extant social programs.

There isn't some sort of longstanding ethical difference in the fabric of North American and European society that explains the United States' lack of a robust welfare state. As in Europe, a segment of our bourgeoisie was horrified by the possibility of workers joining radical movements en masse in response to the Great Depression, so they supported Roosevelt's New Deal programs. That created the few safety net programs we have. After the war, however, our economy was in a privileged position vis–à–vis the rest of the world, and that, operating in conjunction with the fact we had a chronic shortage in our labor markets, explains why we didn't develop a welfare state analogues to those in Europe. Workers simply didn't require those services because they were obtaining enough income to individually afford decent housing, health care, and education. This historical anomaly came to a halt in the 1970s, which is why our working class finds itself in the deplorable state it's currently in.

Your belief that traditionalist socialism is absurd probably stems from the fact that in your nation tradition is the preserve of gun-toting, bible-bashing, free market fellating, neo-cons so you believe socialism has to be achieved in spite of tradition.

Absolutely not. It stems from the fact you're idealists and fail to acknowledge the injustices of class society, private property, and markets. As for American culture, it contains far more admirable elements than what you've arbitrarily selected. I certainly don't eschew our history or culture altogether.

Dismissing the Labour Party as bourgeois is fine in theory when you’re not interested in working with anyone towards any kind of practical goal, but since I’m committed to achieving socialism in some practical way, this precludes me from making my own “movement” because I’ve seen the outcome of such ventures so many times from both the left and right and they’re always disappointing.

It's quite revealing that you think reforming the Labour Party is in any way "practical." If you wish to waste a lifetime in that pursuit, that's your prerogative, but you're delusional if you think any tangible results will follow from your efforts.

This is because these “organizations” are never the product of any serious consideration or prior activism, but just ego-fuelled whims. Ridiculous, mickey-mouse groups like your pitiful RSF are the prime example of this.

On the contrary, the RSF is the product of "serious consideration," and we're anything but "ego-fuelled." These vanity projects you're referring to are almost exclusive to the authoritarian Right.

Anyway, you want to talk about fetishists? What about your bizarre Soviet Fetish which looks like it’s based on a 12 year olds understanding of what communist Russia was like with the Cyrillic lettering in the menu and the excessive use of red stars and hammers and sickles?

Apparently reactionaries are forced to resort to petty aesthetic quibbles when debating with the members of this forum.. Nevertheless, it's self-evident that our forum exceeds yours in both design and member quality. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter.

But I suppose it’s not surprising since you’ve likely never left that swampy armpit of a state let alone the good ol’ US of A.

Geographical insults? Just how old are you?

In Florida's defense, it's a stunningly beautifully state—from our crystal clear southern coastline to our rolling hills of orange grove. (There's a reason why it's such a major tourist destination.)

Rebel Warrior 58 wrote:You have been fairly respectful to me personally Celt, but thats not the point here. More than one of the most active members of this forum have written arrogant and condescending posts now and in the past. Take a look at Ghostwolf and that Valjean guy, their posts certainly weren't as colorful as mine yet they still got a bunch of snooty replies. Your side has as much blood on its hands as your opponents when it comes to posting arrogant high and mighty writings.

I cannot control the manner by which forum members interact with one another, unless they violate our guidelines, of course—and we encourage members to report any posts which do so to the moderator staff.

I don't recall precisely what transpired with Ghost Wolf, but V for Valjean was a propertarian who joined this forum solely to antagonize socialists. People attempted to engage in civil dialogue with him, but it wasn't long before he began leveling insults. We responded in kind.

All the stuff you have read could be a pack of lies. I mean how do you know the economy works like you say it does? " Oh I read several books by Professors so and so" And how do they know ? " Well they compiled a list of evidence in the references page" And how does the list of evidence know? " Well because its evidence, I mean it must be right because of that" The truth is all you think you know could be wrong. All the evidence in those references could be made up. I mean were you standing right behind Professor so and so when he was collecting the evidence for his book? The point is nobody knows anything for certain and that's why y'all have no reason to think that your beliefs are as watertight as you make them come across in your posts.

You're essentially arguing that the whole of academia is possibly involved in a conspiracy theory of unprecedented proportions, and it has miraculously managed to avoid being exposed for centuries. Sure, that "could" be true, but it's highly improbable. It's akin to saying, "life could all be a dream." But, to answer your question, all one can do when confronted with such a degree of uncertainty is follow what intuitively seems reasonable.

_________________
RSF Executive Committee (Chairman)
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:04 pm

Allright well Ive already wrote what I wanted to say and Im not in the mood for arguing over the details of who was arrogant so Im gonna let Revocity be the king of this thread ( its about his forum anyways) . Come to think of it I need to seriously catch up on arguing for my views on other forums from Stormfront to the Phora. Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

_________________
Hail the Heroic Barbarian Outlaw Past! Death to Civilization Modernity and Society!
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Celtiberian on Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:03 pm

Rev Scare wrote:Rebel Warrior, all that you tell us could be a pack of lies. Think about it: how do you know anything you know? You don't. You don't even know whether we exist. We could be figments of your imagination. What is reality anyway? How do you know anything you type makes any sense to us? We don't share your mind. There is an unbridgeable chasm between us mentally and philosophically. What is philosophy, anyway? It is a human construct. What is humanity anyway? It is merely a thought construct. Does humanity validate the thought or does the thought validate humanity? Can they validate each other at the same time? What is thought? Thought is thought. Must there be a duality between mind and matter? Why can't they just get along? That is not sufficient. What is sufficiency? What are constructs anyway? They are merely aspects of consciousness. What is consciousness anyway? Nobody really knows. What is nobody? Who is nobody? What does it mean to be nobody? How can I prove what nobody can prove to nobody? What is the point of having a point? What are points? Are they mathematical or physical? What is the difference? Is there a difference? How could we prove there is a difference? We can't prove there is a difference because everything is made up. Or is it? Who are we? Do we even inhabit the same plane of existence? Do I exist? Do you exist? What does it mean to exist? I think you exist, but if I exist, does it mean we both exist? Perhaps not, perhaps yes. What is perhaps? Think about it, everything you tell us could be dead wrong. Everything dead wrong could be interpreted by us as dead right. Where would we stand then? What is the difference between wrong and right? Who is Ghost Wolf? Does Ghost Wolf exist? Think about it, guy: Ghost Wolf is an anonymous "person" on the internet. Actually, "his" posts were on the internet. Ghost Wolf could have been a troll. YOU could be Ghost Wolf for all you know. We never know anything for certain, remember. I could be Ghost Wolf. What is the internet? Is the internet us? Was it developed by people or did it exist before? It couldn't have existed before because barbarians existed before. But did they? Couldn't barbarians and the internet coexist? What would that entail? Where is the evidence, I ask. What does it mean to be a ghost and a wolf? Does it presuppose the existence of ghosts or wolves or both? Must one exist before the other? What is the point of naming yourself Ghost Wolf? What about Rebel Warrior? There is no way to convey any of this to anybody but yourself, so why not live in your head? Or is your head already everything? Perhaps it is everything and nothing at the same time. Paradox. What is paradox? para + dox. Is there even a reason to label? Who gets labeled by what and how? How do I know that you know what you don't know that I know? Does that sentence make sense? Think about it carefully: DOES IT MAKE SENSE? To whom? To what end? What is an end and a whom? Can we even agree upon terminology? Who are "we" to begin with? I don't know that you're real, RW. You post, but that doesn't mean anything. Is that real? Are your posts real? CAN I take your posts for granted? Is any of the above true? How can any of us know? Is "us" a categorical certainty or a description of transient phenomena? is there a difference between the two? I challenge you, RW, to challenge yourself to challenge your views to challenge the challenge of your views to yourself. You cannot be certain of anything, RW, not even the certainty of whether this statement is certain. Does this mean that you can in fact be certain? Surely you can be certain that nothing is certain at least. Or can you? Paradox. Para + dox.


_________________
RSF Executive Committee (Chairman)
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Rev Scare on Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:04 pm

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Exactly if you use this ( its called solipsist I think ) sort of questioning then you will find nothing is absolutely certain. Which is why there's no reason for y'all ( yes I can use you all but y'all is shorter) to be so confident about the rightness of your beliefs. That was my point. Also Ill go on official record here writing that Im not sure at all that my opinions are absolutely true.

What is truth? Can we define it? Can we know it? Do we know it? Is your truth the same as my truth? No, you are not certain of your truth. We cannot be certain of truth. We cannot be certain if we cannot be certain of truth. Truth cannot be certain of certainty. Are you telling the truth? Why should we believe you? Do you exist in our minds or do we exist within yours? Do you have a mind, Rebel? Prove it. Prove your mind. Can somebody with no mind tell the truth? Can they exist? Do you exist? Does the fact that you cannot prove your mind mean your truth is in fact not truth? What is fact? Is your fact right? What is right? Are you right? You don't seem right, but are you? What are beliefs? Can YOU have beliefs? If you cannot be certain of your truth, does it not mean you cannot be certain of your beliefs? Does this mean your beliefs are non-beliefs? Is there a difference? Is everything the same? Is there a difference between you posting and not posting? Maybe not. Maybe you do not wish to post but post because posting is not wishing. Perhaps your beliefs are no different than our beliefs, RW. Perhaps your mind, which is a non-mind, grasps the truth of our truth but cannot express the truth as we see the truth, hence we are right. You can't know for certain. Why post here, RW? You cannot be certain it reaches us. Since your truth is non-truth and our truth is untruth, since my certainty is doubtful of your certainty and your certainty is doubtful of my certainty, we can never come to an agreement over anything. What is an agreement? Impasse.

Allright well Ive already wrote what I wanted to say and Im not in the mood for arguing over the details of who was arrogant so Im gonna let Revocity be the king of this thread ( its about his forum anyways) . Come to think of it I need to seriously catch up on arguing for my views on other forums from Stormfront to the Phora. Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

What is arrogance? You keep using words, but what are words? Do words have meaning? How could they? You can never be certain of meaning. Your non-mind could mislead you into ascribing meaning to the meaningless. Or the meaningless could mislead your mind. Does the mind give rise to meaning or does meaning give rise to the mind? Words are stupid if you think about it, Rebel. They are symbols of meaningless human meaning. Why be mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarian? These are all words with meanings, but words with meanings have no real meaning. Do they? They are just words. They mean nothing. How can you be sure that what you defend is better than what it is not? For all you know, you might not even enjoy any it. What is enjoyment? Do you enjoy because you want to or because it wants you to? What is it? It is it. Tautology.

_________________
"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common." Hammer Sickle
Karl Marx



RSF Executive Committee Officer
avatar
Rev Scare
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 821
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 27
Location : Utah

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by DSN on Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:07 pm

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

I feel bad for laughing at this in case I find out one day that you really are as strange as you say you are.

_________________
"The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
avatar
DSN
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 344
Reputation : 276
Join date : 2012-03-28
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:26 am

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

Might I suggest a similarly stimulating pastime?


_________________
De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
-Friedrich Engels Hammer Sickle

ECRSF Officer
avatar
Admin
_____________________________
_____________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 971
Reputation : 864
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : La Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Balkan Beast on Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:01 am

http://www.nationalshield.org/index.php?/topic/46-the-official-socialist-phallus-thread/

I think some guise be butthurt :3
avatar
Balkan Beast
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Non-Aligned
Posts : 108
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Revocity on Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:40 pm

Balkan Beast wrote:http://www.nationalshield.org/index.php?/topic/46-the-official-socialist-phallus-thread/I think some guise be butthurt :3

You should be careful using such unsophisticated language otherwise you might get put in the doghouse by our eloquent friends.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

I suggest you look into the exciting world of voluntary lobotomies.

Celtiberian wrote: the RSF understands it in material terms, and you view it as an idealist "project."

Well you say that but I haven’t seen evidence of any kind of practical activism from this Revolutionary Syndicalist Front (or is it Federation?). The preponderance of information about it on here and on its webpage comes down to “will update later, stay tuned” and that’s from almost a year ago. This is what almost all vanity groups do – say they’re ironing out “theoretical issues” and eventually only get as far as putting a website up with obnoxious paragraphs of text which nobody will ever read. This is in spite of the fact that most people don’t care about theoretical consistency or immaculate political doctrines.

You might be every bit as clever as you think you are, but you can spend decades building a critique of society, reading James Connolly et al, and honing your understanding of revolutionary thought, and still not be in any better position to actually implement your ideas. Such is why your allegations of idealism on my part don’t make any sense when I have already said I am attempting to work with what I’ve got. You, on the other hand, presumably seek political change through an organisation that has no power, influence, or resources whatsoever. The advantage of this is you have full control over its ideological content but that’s where the advantages stop.

Even if you had resources and a sizable support base your methodology for gaining power, which is presumably revolutionary in character, is utterly impractical and you are the one who’s delusional if you honestly believe that you’re going to generate enough backing to establish a worker’s state in America by sheer popular will. We both know more Americans would sooner shoot you in the face than support your workers revolution. This is why I said you weren’t focused on the practical aspects of achieving socialism, something which I didn’t actually expect you to disagree with.

In any case, objectively speaking, my aim of reconnecting a historically socialist party with its traditional roots is a lot more practical than whatever you have in mind; which I can only assume is an American proletarian revolution.

(The historical record indicates that corporativism is only adopted when the bourgeoisie feel especially threatened by the class consciousness and organization of the proletariat.)

The historical record indicates no such thing. Corporativism, as espoused by yours truly, is a philosophy of organising society dating back to the bible, long before the alleged simplification of class antagonisms into the bourgeoisie-proletariat dichotomy. While it was revived to some extent in the 19th and 20th centuries to reckon the conflict between capital and labour in the national interest, or “class collaboration” as you would call it, it’s not simply reactive to an upsurge in class consciousness. When capital maintains a monopoly on the use of force, it has no need of an elaborate system of compromise which is why in many national contexts, even the when the bourgeoisie has felt especially threatened, nothing even close to corporative system has ever emerged.

First of all, I don't consider individuals who reject class struggle as being inherently reactionary, they simply have a difficulty accepting reality. If they should advocate on behalf of a qualitatively different mode of production, characterized by collective ownership and management of the means of production, I would have no hesitancy whatsoever in considering them a comrade

Your attitude towards me indicates otherwise. I reject the idea of class struggle but I believe in the collective ownership of the means of production, only that the state should not take charge of all production and distribution and that the activity of occupational corporations should be coordinated in the common interest of the nation. This is in recognition of the fact that the anarchy of capitalist production can only be overcome by a system of authoritative organisations with powers of compulsion. The contradiction, of course, is that the reorganisation of production along socialistic lines is not in the interest of capital so how can we reject the concept of class war? Simply put, the overcoming of capitalist hegemony in the 21st century is not a matter of class, but an issue of national sovereignty against economic and cultural imperialism the weapons against which are i) nationalism and ii) tradition.

Turning to universalism, since the possible ways to organize production are finite, the problems and solutions are going to be comparable throughout the world. The development of information technology and transportation which have accompanied capitalism also universalized production and its implications in profound ways

This is internationalist nonsense. The problems capitalism causes might be comparable between different national contexts, but the solution to these problems must be furnished by self-determining nations acting in accordance with their interests and not part of a “new globalism.” The solution to capitalism is nationalistic as much as it is socialistic. The socialist movements in each country trying to prescribe to each other the “true path” will simply swap one set of problems for another.

Being the reactionary simpleton that I am, I was not familiar Otto Bauer so I took it upon myself to Google him. I was quite puzzled as to why you would be quoting a veteran pornographic actor in our debate and, perhaps more perplexing, why said pornographic actor would have written so eloquently about socialism. I subsequently came to learn that the Otto Bauer you were talking about was not the same Otto Bauer who had received recognition for such accolades as “Best Double Penetration Sex Scene” but an Austrian Social Democrat.

One need only apply a material analysis to the history of the British welfare state to understand why it materialized and why it's currently being eroded. Even bourgeois historians are honest enough to now admit that the impetus behind its ascendency was the European elites' anxiety toward the prospect of Sovietism spreading westward, following the Second World War. As a result, popular concessions were permitted in order to pacify the masses. But now that the Soviet threat has receded and organized labor has been eviscerated, the bourgeoisie are preparing to further increase their hegemony by dismantling extant social programs.

Utter tripe which shows complete disrespect and disregard for differences between various European national contexts and the struggles of the British labour movement. One only need look at history to know there was no real possibility of communism taking hold in Britain in the wake of the Second World War and that social programmes materialised to aid post-war reconstruction which wasn’t some nefarious bourgeois plot but a prerogative of national recovery. Moreover, after the national struggle against Germany, there was a strong commitment to the ideal of “the public interest” and this patriotic sentiment was channelled into socialistic policies. The decline of this social cohesion was the result of i) mass immigration and resultant multi-culturalism ii) our membership to the EU which made neo-liberal policies virtually compulsory iii) En masse deindustrialisation which obligated policies to keep the UK economy “competitive” iv) a simultaneous shift in values away from post-war public interest collectivism towards rampant individualism.

There isn't some sort of longstanding ethical difference in the fabric of North American and European society that explains the United States' lack of a robust welfare state.”

Ahem? Culturally, the differences in the evaluation of socialism are enormous. In Europe we’ve never really seen the sheer amount of anti-statist paranoia about the power of the “guvment” which forms a large part of American political culture. You are living proof of this tendency as “American radicals have generally been more sympathetic to libertarianism and to syndicalism than to state collectivism” and “unlike Scandinavian social democracy, Fabian bureaucratic socialism, and Soviet communism, American radicalism has been permeated by suspicion, if not hostility, toward centralized power.” (Lipset and Marks, 2001) This is why you lack a robust welfare state; because your political culture detests state power and your “socialists” are just red libertarians.

but you're delusional if you think any tangible results will follow from your efforts.

Says the man who wants to establish a worker’s state in America.

On the contrary, the RSF is the product of "serious consideration," and we're anything but "ego-fuelled."


Evidence?

Apparently reactionaries are forced to resort to petty aesthetic quibbles when debating with the members of this forum.. Nevertheless, it's self-evident that our forum exceeds yours in both design and member quality. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter

It’s not an aesthetic quibble. It’s simply evidence of your fetish for Red Alert–esque mock-Soviet design.

Revocity
___________________
___________________

Tendency : null
Posts : 15
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-03

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Isakenaz on Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:02 pm

I may have a colourful history on this forum and I can rightly be accused of changing my position often. In my defence its simply because I keep looking for an answer and each time I think I've found it the same old bullshit quickly raises it head -Internationalism.
Do you honestly think that the British or European worker, or even the American for that, gives a flying F*** about the plight of some peasant in Asia. Their main concern is their family and their lives. Socialism for the world - yes, but first in my country. Nationalism concerns the nation, Internationalism does not. The only difference between your Internationalism and that which you call Cosmopolitanism is that they are spelt different, both offer nothing more than global exploitation wearing a different coat.
Since it would seem that you have been accepted by the Revleft 2 lot, it would appear that you have finaly joined the chosen of the next revolution. Rolling Eyes

Rev Scare wrote:Did something transpire in your personal life to leave you in such a slum state, dear Isa? Wifey leave you for a foreigner?

Very amusing, at least I have a wife. How is it in your kennel?
avatar
Isakenaz
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Socialist-Nationalist
Posts : 646
Reputation : 266
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 61
Location : Yorkshire, England

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Celtiberian on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:39 am

Revocity wrote:You should be careful using such unsophisticated language otherwise you might get put in the doghouse by our eloquent friends.

We've yet to restrict any member for their grammar.

Well you say that but I haven’t seen evidence of any kind of practical activism from this Revolutionary Syndicalist Front (or is it Federation?). The preponderance of information about it on here and on its webpage comes down to “will update later, stay tuned” and that’s from almost a year ago. This is what almost all vanity groups do – say they’re ironing out “theoretical issues” and eventually only get as far as putting a website up with obnoxious paragraphs of text which nobody will ever read. This is in spite of the fact that most people don’t care about theoretical consistency or immaculate political doctrines.

You misinterpreted what I wrote, but I'll address that below.

The Revolutionary Syndicalist Federation is in its infancy and makes no pretenses to the contrary. The reason our website hasn't been completed is because we're not yet in a position where we'd be comfortable accepting membership applications, ergo it isn't a major priority at this time. Unlike groups which begin with a website and subsequently attempt to organize actual meetings, we favor the opposite approach. As for theoretical consistency, "most people" may not realize its value, but it behooves serious radical activists to—lest they fail to interpret current events correctly or risk embarrassing themselves in public debates with more knowledgeable reactionary detractors.

You might be every bit as clever as you think you are, but you can spend decades building a critique of society, reading James Connolly et al, and honing your understanding of revolutionary thought, and still not be in any better position to actually implement your ideas. Such is why your allegations of idealism on my part don’t make any sense when I have already said I am attempting to work with what I’ve got.

You're not comprehending what Marxists mean by the term "idealist." It's not an accusation of one's aspirations being particularly outlandish, but rather that their theory of social change is based solely upon the ideas historical agents possess. In other words, idealists fail to appreciate the structural factors that inhibit revolution and the material conditions necessary to surmount those barriers.

You, on the other hand, presumably seek political change through an organisation that has no power, influence, or resources whatsoever. The advantage of this is you have full control over its ideological content but that’s where the advantages stop.

Resources are acquired as organizations mature. The CNT-FAI, for instance, took decades to develop into a movement capable of successfully executing a revolution and administering a region's economic and political affairs. The same could be said of countless other influential leftist organizations.

Even if you had resources and a sizable support base your methodology for gaining power, which is presumably revolutionary in character, is utterly impractical and you are the one who’s delusional if you honestly believe that you’re going to generate enough backing to establish a worker’s state in America by sheer popular will. We both know more Americans would sooner shoot you in the face than support your workers revolution. This is why I said you weren’t focused on the practical aspects of achieving socialism, something which I didn’t actually expect you to disagree with.

Your entire critique rests upon the ahistorical assumption that the relatively conservative disposition workers currently exhibit is unchangeable. No one, least of all me, has argued that a proletarian revolution is presently viable; I've repeatedly stressed that conditions have to further deteriorate before a legitimation crisis significant enough to penetrate the false consciousness of the masses emerges. At that point (what some theorists refer to as the 'Gramscian moment') it will be a matter of whether or not radical activists succeed in aligning the subjectivity of the proletariat with its objective interests. Scientific socialism isn't teleological, it recognizes agency, but it does emphasize the primacy of material forces in generating revolution—and for good reason.

In any case, objectively speaking, my aim of reconnecting a historically socialist party with its traditional roots is a lot more practical than whatever you have in mind; which I can only assume is an American proletarian revolution.

The Old Labour Party's constitution was socialist in the sense it ostensibly supported an expansion of social welfare provisions and the progressive nationalization of the means of production. It was thus a paternalistic, statist form of socialism. History, however, has demonstrated that such reformist tactics inevitably fail to displace capitalism, and the alienation workers experience under state management of industry is only marginally preferable to that endured within capitalist enterprises. Some would even challenge the notion that nationalized (i.e., state-owned and managed) economies constitute socialism at all, and would argue that 'bureaucratic collectivism' is a more apt label. (If I recall correctly, Isakenaz had written a fairly convincing essay wherein he adamantly rejected the idea that the Labour Party was ever legitimately socialist.)

The historical record indicates no such thing.

Of course it does. Every manifestation of corporativism has thus far emerged in reaction to a heightened sense of class consciousness among the proletariat, e.g., Fascist Italy emerged in reaction to the biennio rosso, Fascist Spain in reaction to the radical elements of the Second Republic, and Nazi Germany in reaction to the Bavarian Soviet Republic. Each of the aforementioned countries witnessed a dramatic increase in socialist, syndicalist, and communist activity, whereupon the ruling class utilized a combination of coercion (the squadristi, Freikorps, etc.) and psychological manipulation (vague corporativist doctrines intended to appeal to every demographic, without actually threatening the status quo) to impede the revolution.

Corporativism, as espoused by yours truly, is a philosophy of organising society dating back to the bible

One can find textual justification for virtually any political philosophy in the bible—from communism to capitalism—the reason being that the gospels were written by apostles who espoused markedly divergent views on such matters, and consequently chose to emphasize or minimize the teachings of Christ in accordance with their own political and economic beliefs.

long before the alleged simplification of class antagonisms into the bourgeoisie-proletariat dichotomy.

Corporativist philosophy, as far back as Plato's Republic, has consistently failed to acknowledge class contradictions, which is why it has been dismissed as useless by sensible social scientists and philosophers throughout the ages.

While it was revived to some extent in the 19th and 20th centuries to reckon the conflict between capital and labour in the national interest, or “class collaboration” as you would call it, it’s not simply reactive to an upsurge in class consciousness. When capital maintains a monopoly on the use of force, it has no need of an elaborate system of compromise which is why in many national contexts, even the when the bourgeoisie has felt especially threatened, nothing even close to corporative system has ever emerged.

The reason it has never emerged is because its only utility lay in dividing the proletarianized petite bourgeoisie from the working class. I've never argued that corporativism has been practiced as its theorists intended, only that rhetoric and ceremonial institutions affiliated with the theory have been resorted to by the status quo during periods of intense class struggle, in order to obstruct the development of socialism. A genuine corporativist state is simply impossible to realize because the state cannot be made to be an impartial arbiter in the economic affairs of the contending social classes, nor can the contradictions of capital be transcended by recourse to bureaucratic procedure and/or 'patriotism.'

Your attitude towards me indicates otherwise. I reject the idea of class struggle but I believe in the collective ownership of the means of production, only that the state should not take charge of all production and distribution and that the activity of occupational corporations should be coordinated in the common interest of the nation.

As I've repeatedly stated, your "occupational corporations" retain class distinctions and therefore perpetuate exploitation and alienated labor. A system cannot be "socialist" if it maintains the existence of capitalists. If you instead advocated on behalf of a system which truly collectivized the means of production (i.e., eliminated the bourgeoisie by banning private ownership of capital and the institution of wage labor) you wouldn't be restricted.

This is in recognition of the fact that the anarchy of capitalist production can only be overcome by a system of authoritative organisations with powers of compulsion. The contradiction, of course, is that the reorganisation of production along socialistic lines is not in the interest of capital so how can we reject the concept of class war? Simply put, the overcoming of capitalist hegemony in the 21st century is not a matter of class, but an issue of national sovereignty against economic and cultural imperialism the weapons against which are i) nationalism and ii) tradition.

Ridiculous. A nation could theoretically extricate itself from the nexus of international finance capital and nevertheless remain fully capitalist, albeit on a national scale. Nationalism and tradition cannot achieve the ends you seek because they are futile methods for overcoming globalization and capitalist production. Considering the state is captured by an international class with considerable means at its disposal, it can only be abrogated by the united efforts of the proletariat (the class without which society cannot function).

This is internationalist nonsense. The problems capitalism causes might be comparable between different national contexts, but the solution to these problems must be furnished by self-determining nations acting in accordance with their interests and not part of a “new globalism.” The solution to capitalism is nationalistic as much as it is socialistic. The socialist movements in each country trying to prescribe to each other the “true path” will simply swap one set of problems for another.

Absent the "new globalism" you flippantly disparage, your hypothetical socialist nation would be besieged by hostile countries which would assert their geopolitical influence in order to sabotage socialism's development. Economic embargoes, blockades, political assassinates, etc. would ensure that the construction of socialism would fail. So even if the country somehow managed to withstand foreign military intervention, popular opinion would quickly evaporate once the articles of consumption people have become accustomed to (especially the staples of a dignified existence) were no longer available in sufficient quantities.

Utter tripe which shows complete disrespect and disregard for differences between various European national contexts and the struggles of the British labour movement. One only need look at history to know there was no real possibility of communism taking hold in Britain in the wake of the Second World War and that social programmes materialised to aid post-war reconstruction which wasn’t some nefarious bourgeois plot but a prerogative of national recovery. Moreover, after the national struggle against Germany, there was a strong commitment to the ideal of “the public interest” and this patriotic sentiment was channelled into socialistic policies.

These plots to subvert socialism via welfare concessions have an extensive history, and you would do well to acknowledge it. As early as the 19th century, we find Germany undertaking such actions:

"During the kulturkampf, the government encountered a new problem in the considerable growth of German socialism and the establishment in 1875 of the German Workingmen's Party. Within its ranks moderate socialists joined with Marxists to form the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The early socialists were beset by divisions within their ranks between the followers of Marx and those of the evolutionary socialists (Lassalle), but despite these differences, the party gained membership rapidly. Bismarck was deeply concerned with these events since he mistrusted even moderate socialism and viewed the recent Paris Commune as a truly horrific event. Viewed as anarchial and republican in nature, socialism in an empire of monarchies justified fear of revolution. In 1878, after two attempts to assassinate the emperor, both unrelated to the socialists, Bismarck succeeded in having antisocialist legislation passed in the Reichstag. The socialists were forbidden to gather in groups and to distribute printed material, but Bismarck realized that these measures alone did not have the strength to stem the rising tide of socialist support and activity. He cunningly preempted the demands of the socialists with a program of reform that included sickness insurance, insurance against periods of unemployment, and a pension plan for the elderly. With these reforms, Germany was in the forefront of social legislation, far ahead of England, France, and the United States."
Shirley Elson Roessler & Reny Miklosp, Europe, 1715-1919: From Enlightenment to World War (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), p. 189 (bold emphasis added).

Bismarck, the marionette of the monarchy and (to a lesser extent) nascent bourgeoisie, is also remembered for saying, "Crowned heads, wealth, and privilege well may tremble should ever again the Black and the Red unite!" [Otto von Bismarck quoted in A. J. Starkweather & S. Robert Wilson, Socialism: A Brief Statement of the Doctrines and Philosophy of the Social Labor Movement (New York: John W. Lovell Company, 1884), p. 91]. The anxiety he was referring to was experienced throughout Europe and North America, and only intensified following the Bolshevik Revolution. As John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff recount in The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences (p. 108), Joseph Kennedy, expressing the feelings of many bourgeois at the time, was perfectly willing to "give up half his fortune if he could be sure the other half would be safe." This attitude is what made the New Deal reforms in the United States possible. Bear in mind the conditions which induced this sudden willingness on the part of the American bourgeoisie to dispense with a substantial portion of their wealth:

"Urban and rural Americans were united by a shared sense of desperation. Reinhold Niebuhr, who was then a Detroit pastor with a large number of autoworkers in his congregation, had just published an essay that declared, 'Capitalism is dying. . . it ought to die.' When the novelist John Dos Passos visited Detroit, he found parks filled with Communists selling The Daily Worker. In the Farm belt, radical farmers, enraged over the low price of milk, were putting nail-filled boards on the highways to stop delivery trucks. Mobs were showing up at farm foreclosures, stopping the proceedings by force and sending bank lawyers fleeing. In rural areas and small towns, talk of revolution was growing. 'You would be astonished if you could attend these township and county meetings of farmers, crowded full of militant farmers—more militant all the time,' Ella Reeve Bloor, the legendary Communist known as Mother Bloor, reported from Sioux City, Iowa. The president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union told a congressional committee that 'there are more actual Reds among the farmers of Wisconsin than you could dream about.'"
Adam Cohen, Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), pp. 16-17.

Are we to believe that the ruling classes of Great Britain were somehow immune to this anxiety? Don't be naïve. The very fact that the Labour Party's reform platform was so popular among the electorate signaled to the elite that concessions had to be made in order to avert the possibility of the masses resorting to more extreme alternatives. Hence, it wasn't the British bourgeoisie's sense of patriotism that was pivotal to these reforms being passed, but their fear. The Soviet Union is germane to this history because it was waiting and willing to assist any Western movement that promised to weaken the geopolitical hegemony of capital, and served as a living example of just how far the proletariat could go in eliminating bourgeois privilege.

Ahem? Culturally, the differences in the evaluation of socialism are enormous. In Europe we’ve never really seen the sheer amount of anti-statist paranoia about the power of the “guvment” which forms a large part of American political culture. You are living proof of this tendency as “American radicals have generally been more sympathetic to libertarianism and to syndicalism than to state collectivism” and “unlike Scandinavian social democracy, Fabian bureaucratic socialism, and Soviet communism, American radicalism has been permeated by suspicion, if not hostility, toward centralized power.” (Lipset and Marks, 2001)

The American proletariat's skepticism toward bureaucracy is well-founded, and given the events of the 20th century (e.g., the dissolution of the Soviet bloc by the nomenklatura and betrayal of social democracy by the rent-seeking politicians of Western Europe), I suspect this distrust of technocratic paternalism is becoming commonplace among workers throughout the world.

This is why you lack a robust welfare state; because your political culture detests state power and your “socialists” are just red libertarians.

To address the latter half of your statement first, "red libertarian" is redundant, as the term 'libertarian' was first used in a political context by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in 1858; it wasn't appropriated by American propertarians until the 1970s. Regarding our lack of a welfare state, I already listed the reasons that occurred in my previous post; I submit to the readers to determine who provided the more persuasive explanation.

Evidence?

And how do you suppose I service such an inane request? By providing you with transcripts of early conversations?

It’s not an aesthetic quibble. It’s simply evidence of your fetish for Red Alert–esque mock-Soviet design.

Whatever you say, my lord.



We're lost without you..

Isakenaz wrote:I may have a colourful history on this forum and I can rightly be accused of changing my position often. In my defence its simply because I keep looking for an answer and each time I think I've found it the same old bullshit quickly raises it head -Internationalism.

Fascinating how you were absolutely convinced we weren't internationalist enough at the time of your initial departure from the forum, is it not? As I recall, the very term 'nationalism' was problematic in your eyes.

Do you honestly think that the British or European worker, or even the American for that, gives a flying F*** about the plight of some peasant in Asia.

Not presently, but it would be within their enlightened self-interest to do so. If you're agreed that it's in the British proletariat's interest to struggle for socialism, then they have no choice but to concern themselves with its global dissemination. Capitalism is an international system and will not be confined to arbitrary geographical spaces, nor will it permit individual nations to develop socialist methods of production while it remains a force in the world.

Nationalism concerns the nation, Internationalism does not. The only difference between your Internationalism and that which you call Cosmopolitanism is that they are spelt different, both offer nothing more than global exploitation wearing a different coat.

Internationalism concerns the peaceful co-existence of self-determined nations, as you well know. It has nothing whatever to do with cosmopolitanism.

_________________
RSF Executive Committee (Chairman)
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by GF on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:43 am

Isakenaz wrote:I may have a colourful history on this forum and I can rightly be accused of changing my position often. In my defence its simply because I keep looking for an answer and each time I think I've found it the same old bullshit quickly raises it head -Internationalism.
Do you honestly think that the British or European worker, or even the American for that, gives a flying F*** about the plight of some peasant in Asia. Their main concern is their family and their lives. Socialism for the world - yes, but first in my country. Nationalism concerns the nation, Internationalism does not. The only difference between your Internationalism and that which you call Cosmopolitanism is that they are spelt different, both offer nothing more than global exploitation wearing a different coat.
Since it would seem that you have been accepted by the Revleft 2 lot, it would appear that you have finaly joined the chosen of the next revolution. Rolling Eyes

Considering workers' first concerns are their families and their lives I imagine they don't care considerably more for their nation than the nation of another people.

_________________




"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."

"My special juice is gonna help me win." - Honey Boo Boo Child

Commissar of Latrines
avatar
GF
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 375
Reputation : 191
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 20
Location : FL

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by DSN on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:54 am

GF wrote:Considering workers' first concerns are their families and their lives I imagine they don't care considerably more for their nation than the nation of another people.

That is true until it comes down to things like public healthcare being sold off in the UK. I'm not siding with Isakenaz's "fuck everyone else" take on nationalism, but certain issues will obviously affect families on a national level at first.

_________________
"The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
avatar
DSN
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 344
Reputation : 276
Join date : 2012-03-28
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum