National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Celtiberian wrote:fascists are restricted

Fascists! Oh, wait...

Revocity wrote:Fascists! Oh, wait...

If you're attempting to equate us with fascists with this little remark, you're committing a false equivalency. Even free speech absolutists recognize the legitimacy of regulating speech and behavior within private settings. Churches don't regularly allow atheists to denounce the idea of god in their buildings, nor do clubs allow people to join who hold positions hostile to their stated goals; internet forums operate in an analogous manner. No one has a right to join a forum, and people aren't being oppressed if they're restricted or banned from one.

Celtiberian wrote:Even free speech absolutists recognize the legitimacy of regulating speech and behavior in private settings.

Spoken like a true Marxist.

Revocity wrote:Spoken like a true Marxist.

You're mistaken if you're under the impression that Marxists advocate that everything become communalized following capitalism. What we want abolished is the exploitation of man by man, and unless you can provide a logical reason for believing that the regulation of speech on an internet forum is tantamount to one maximizing his or her wealth at the expense of those in a position of relative vulnerability, you've not revealed any inconsistency in my political philosophy.

Celtiberian wrote:You're mistaken if you're under the impression that Marxists advocate that everything become communalized following capitalism. What we want abolished is the exploitation of man by man, and unless you can provide a logical reason for believing that the regulation of speech on an internet forum is tantamount to one maximizing his or her wealth at the expense of those in a position of relative vulnerability, you've not revealed any inconsistency in my political philosophy.

I know Marx didn't advocate everything becoming "communalized." Everyone with half a brain knows that. I just found it funny that your reason for restricting people you disagree with is because the forum is "private." I apologise if my sense of humour doesn't live up to the scrutiny of the technicalities of Marxist theory.

Revocity wrote:I know Marx didn't advocate everything becoming "communalized." Everyone with half a brain knows that. I just found it funny that your reason for restricting people you disagree with is because the forum is "private." I apologise if my sense of humour doesn't live up to the scrutiny of the technicalities of Marxist theory.

The basis for the humor in your joke is the erroneous assumption that Marxists fail to acknowledge the validity of private spaces, which is why I responded in the manner I did. It's not that I'm incapable of appreciating your brand of snarky humor, I just refuse to allow accusations of fascism or inconsistency—regardless of whether they're meant in jest—to go unanswered.

Celtiberian wrote:The basis for the humor in your joke is the erroneous assumption that Marxists fail to acknowledge the validity of private spaces

I guess that would be the first time anyone made a joke about something based on an inaccurate stereotype.

Revocity wrote:I guess that would be the first time anyone made a joke about something based on an inaccurate stereotype.

You've derailed the introduction thread with enough sarcastic comments. Give it a rest.

Hello again.

I would just like to add that I do not believe Speech should in any way be restricted. with the exception of Mature content bieng kept from children.

First a Marxist asserting that in private settings people shouldn't have free speech and now a Classical Fascist extolling its merits. Can't...take...the...IRONY.

Seriously I don't see how this place is any different from RevLeft in the sense that whenever you bring up something even vaguely related to nationalism, you get put in the gulag but only after members quote Marxist theory at you like it's the holy scripture.

I'm a left-wing nationalist and a member of the labour movement, but because I believe in the occupational franchise and one-nation socialism over Marxist, class war dogma I get thrown in the dog house. I've seen a lot of socialism/Marxism out of this place but not much nationalism because, just like on revleft, all you get is "MUH faith, flag, and family" followed by intellectualist preening when in actuality I have done a LOT more for the labour movement than most "college socialists" because I was raised in the tradition of patriotic socialism and, unlike these people who adopt left-wing values to be edgy and rebellious until they go onto the next trend, I have been a socialist nationalist my entire life which is why I find it funny that in a forum for "Left Wing Nationalists" I have the giant word RESTRICTED under my name.

Man Of Steel wrote:Hello again.

I would just like to add that I do not believe Speech should in any way be restricted. with the exception of Mature content bieng kept from children.

Technically, you still have the right to free speech.

It is just that we don't want a million threads being made by people who disagree with the basic ideas of the site criticizing those very same basic ideas. So, we need a section made for those people, hence the opposing views forum being made for criticisms of the site's tenets.

So, you can pretty much say whatever you want to, as long as it is in the right section.

Think of it as an out of topic issue.

Revocity wrote:Seriously I don't see how this place is any different from RevLeft in the sense that whenever you bring up something even vaguely related to nationalism, you get put in the gulag but only after members quote Marxist theory at you like it's the holy scripture.

I would like to see evidence corroborating this outrageous claim. However, if by "nationalism" you have in mind class collaboration and/or racism, it shouldn't be surprising why we restrict members who advocate such doctrines. We are, after all, a forum explicitly designed for revolutionary socialists.

As it happens, we have several members who espouse theories of nationalism and socialism which I adamantly disagree with (e.g., TheocWulf and Pantheon Rising), but their views nevertheless fall within the parameters of acceptability and they are therefore unrestricted.

I'm a left-wing nationalist and a member of the labour movement, but because I believe in the occupational franchise and one-nation socialism over Marxist, class war dogma I get thrown in the dog house.

When I informed you of the reasons why you would be placed under a Level-1 Restriction in your introduction thread you seemed to have no difficulty comprehending. But to recapitulate, we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what constitutes socialism. Your corporativist model retains class divisions, private property, and economic exploitation. (Recall that we were having a fairly productive debate on this topic a month ago, but you chose to abandon it.) So, suffice it to say, I'm perplexed as to why you've decided to protest your restriction now.

I've seen a lot of socialism/Marxism out of this place but not much nationalism because, just like on revleft, all you get is "MUH faith, flag, and family" followed by intellectualist preening

Given that we are currently living through an epochal crisis of capitalism, and the majority of our members live in countries which aren't being subjugated by other nations, it should be obvious why a disproportionate number of our threads are related to capitalism or socialism in some capacity.

As for our analysis of nationalism, I would say it is significantly more sophisticated than what is generally found on RevLeft.

when in actuality I have done a LOT more for the labour movement than most "college socialists" because I was raised in the tradition of patriotic socialism and, unlike these people who adopt left-wing values to be edgy and rebellious until they go onto the next trend, I have been a socialist nationalist my entire life which is why I find it funny that in a forum for "Left Wing Nationalists" I have the giant word RESTRICTED under my name.

No one is questioning your commitment or passion. Again, your political philosophy is simply at odds with what the forum accepts.

Revocity is a typical reactionary simpleton who has constructed a straw man argument in order to react indignantly to being incapable of rationally defending the vacuous views he has thus far propounded, which we have demolished time and again on this forum. Merely glancing through the Reactionary sub-forum affirms this. Of course, his douchebaggery hardly comes as a surprise, since his ideological fellows have failed to set a laudable precedent.

To the unbiased readers of this thread, consider this: the buffoon known to us as Revocity, who has needlessly opened an account on this forum, has 1) utterly neglected to examine the ideological disposition of the forum, its explicitly stated political orientation, before joining the board, 2) betrayed a complete ignorance of Marxist theory by seriously espousing the asinine notion that "Marxists" somehow reject all forms of "private" property--a ludicrous and obvious straw man that would naturally render our alleged views bunk, and 3) continues to behave in a sophomoric fashion while on the verge of violating our forum guidelines.

Fantastic, Revocity, I am sure your intellectual performance thus far has done your fascistic brethren proud. You've only incorporated one meme into your rant-posts so far! Well done. That is above what the refuse of Iron March managed to deploy.

Rev Scare wrote:Revocity is a typical reactionary simpleton

Thank you. Coming from a garden-variety pompous, intellectualist pseudo-socialist I’ll take that as a complement.

who has constructed a straw man argument

What straw man argument?

in order to react indignantly to being incapable of rationally defending the vacuous views he has thus far propounded...his douchebaggery

Expressing yourself in unnecessarily verbose language on an internet forum is the height of douchebaggery.

which we have demolished time and again on this forum.

I never get this claim which political groups on the internet love to make, especially the IronMarchers, that they’ve somehow disproved entire intellectual traditions with a handful of forum posts. They love to claim they’ve “demolished” the rationality behind entire ideologies too but, like you, all most of them seem to do is post overly-emotional, menstrual responses.

since his ideological fellows have failed to set a laudable precedent.

I’ll assume you mean the Iron March people. Well, I doubt either party would agree that we are ideological “fellows” since most of Iron March are rampant racialists obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories who simply hide behind ideologies like corporatism and indeed syndicalism to avoid looking like another Stormfront-esque circle jerk.

utterly neglected to examine the ideological disposition of the forum, its explicitly stated political orientation, before joining the board,

I’ll accept part of the blame for this but I had no way of knowing at the outset that when you claimed to be a forum for revolutionary socialists AND left-wing nationalists you really only meant the former. If the banner said “a forum for smug Syndicalists who find RevLeft a little too warm and fuzzy” I would’ve steered clear.

betrayed a complete ignorance of Marxist theory by seriously espousing the asinine notion that "Marxists" somehow reject all forms of "private" property--a ludicrous and obvious straw man that would naturally render our alleged views bunk,

If you read as well as you produce mental masturbation, you’d see that I explicitly acknowledged that Marxist theory does not reject all forms of private property.

When I said I found it ironic that someone WHO AGREES WITH MARX’S METHOD OF ANALYSIS used private property to justify restricting speech, I didn’t expect it to spawn bitchfits of such epic proportion just because, in a comment which clearly wasn’t meant to be taken seriously to begin with, I failed to observe the technicalities of Marxist theory. You pointing out to me something which has already been pointed out to me, that I agreed with, that I knew in the first place, doesn’t make you look like an authority on Marxist analysis, it makes you look like a moron.

Fantastic, Revocity, I am sure your intellectual performance thus far has done your fascistic brethren

Say what you will about Fascists and even Neo-Nazis but most of them are not nearly as pompously self-righteous as you are.

You’re American. I get it. You embrace leftism to rebel against the political establishment and I think that’s so precious and adorable but when you’re 30 or 40, which I really hope you’re not because that would be just sad, odds are you’ll be a typical white collar Republican whining about taxes and trying to convince your co-workers to read Atlas Shrugged. I call it the spoilt American teenager trajectory.

You've only incorporated one meme into your rant-posts so far! Well done.

What meme was that? I use memes in my posts sometimes because I’m not so intellectually insecure and relentlessly stuck-up to take what I write on a bloody internet forum 100% seriously at all times.

Anyway, since not being a giant pussy is against the rules here, I'll return to my neck of the woods

Revocity wrote:If the banner said “a forum for smug Syndicalists who find RevLeft a little too warm and fuzzy” I would’ve steered clear.

Harsh but fair. When this forum formed I had hoped for better things, but it seems to have followed the usual pattern. The world is ready for revolution and what do our college leftists do? Nothing just quote from tired old books.

Revocity wrote:Coming from a garden-variety pompous, intellectualist pseudo-socialist I’ll take that as a complement.

You're increasingly sounding like Rebel Warrior 59. (If I were you, I would be troubled by this development.)

What straw man argument?

Thus far you've accused us of being insincere in our left-wing nationalist convictions—even going so far as to label us "seditious" in one post, due to our recognition of the class struggle; and you've created a caricature out of Marxism by alleging that private spaces are incompatible with the theory. Of course, you attempted to guise your charges of fascism and ideological inconsistency with sarcasm and patently unfunny jokes, but that's because you're a passive aggressive little twit.

Expressing yourself in unnecessarily verbose language on an internet forum is the height of douchebaggery.

I disagree with the accusation that Rev Scare uses "unnecessarily verbose language" in his posts, and that this somehow qualifies as the "height of douchebaggery." Creating an internet forum and assigning oneself the rank of "Lord Protector" conforms better with the latter, in my opinion.

I never get this claim which political groups on the internet love to make, especially the IronMarchers, that they’ve somehow disproved entire intellectual traditions with a handful of forum posts. They love to claim they’ve “demolished” the rationality behind entire ideologies too but, like you, all most of them seem to do is post overly-emotional, menstrual responses.

First of all, the "intellectual tradition" you speak of—Durkheimian theory—has, for the most part, lay in ruin for close to a century. Marxist theoreticians have thoroughly refuted Durkheim's sociological work and his political philosophy. If you were capable of overcoming your confirmation bias and reviewed the relevant literature, you would already know this.

Secondly, any impartial observer would agree that the Socialist Phalanx is perhaps the most dispassionate left-wing forum online.

I’ll assume you mean the Iron March people. Well, I doubt either party would agree that we are ideological “fellows” since most of Iron March are rampant racialists obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories who simply hide behind ideologies like corporatism and indeed syndicalism to avoid looking like another Stormfront-esque circle jerk.

Apart from disagreements on the race question, there's virtually nothing separating you from those cretins. You share their general anti-intellectualism, traditionalist Weltanschauung, and affinity for labeling transparently capitalist doctrines "socialist."

I’ll accept part of the blame for this but I had no way of knowing at the outset that when you claimed to be a forum for revolutionary socialists AND left-wing nationalists you really only meant the former.

Had you read our FAQ section before registering, you would have seen that your definition of "left-wing nationalism" doesn't align with our own.

If the banner said “a forum for smug Syndicalists who find RevLeft a little too warm and fuzzy” I would’ve steered clear.

Say what you will about Fascists and even Neo-Nazis but most of them are not nearly as pompously self-righteous as you are.

Right.. Their incessant criticizing of the 'degenerate modern world' isn't self-righteous at all..

You’re American. I get it. You embrace leftism to rebel against the political establishment and I think that’s so precious and adorable but when you’re 30 or 40, which I really hope you’re not because that would be just sad, odds are you’ll be a typical white collar Republican whining about taxes and trying to convince your co-workers to read Atlas Shrugged. I call it the spoilt American teenager trajectory.

You would do well not project your own insecurity regarding your convictions onto us.

Anyway, since not being a giant pussy is against the rules here, I'll return to my neck of the woods

By all means, don't let us get in the way, Lord Protector. Whatever would your peasants do without your august guidance?

Isakenaz wrote:Harsh but fair. When this forum formed I had hoped for better things, but it seems to have followed the usual pattern. The world is ready for revolution and what do our college leftists do? Nothing just quote from tired old books.

The man depicted in your avatar spent an entire year studying Hegel's two-volume Logic prior to the Bolshevik revolution, so bear that in mind when you accuse people of wasting time with "tired old books."

I'm not ashamed to say that when this forum was initially established, I was ideologically backwards. Had the RSF proceeded with activism at that time, the results would have been pitiful. What we've been doing since then is solidifying our knowledge of class, economics, and revolution in order to more effectively capitalize on opportunities as they present themselves in the coming years—and, contrary to what you may think, this requires a great deal of time and discipline. But the fact of the matter is the world is not yet "ready for revolution" anyway. The material conditions are undoubtedly ripening, but things have to become considerably worse before leftists have a chance to meaningfully engage with the proletariat.

Also, I believe you've forfeited your right to criticize anyone's lack of activism. You've proven yourself fickle with respect to your political affiliations, and have recently descended to the point of joining a corporativist forum, therewith repudiating scientific socialism. For shame, sir.

Revocity wrote:Thank you. Coming from a garden-variety pompous, intellectualist pseudo-socialist I’ll take that as a complement.

Actually, I challenge you to find a contemporaneous socialist organization which espouses views analogous to those of the RSF. Furthermore, do you truly see no irony in what you spew? You are a garden variety, anti-intellectual reactionary windbag. At least I can color my insults.

What straw man argument?

Your entire characterization of Marxism thus far, whether explicitly or implicitly through your stupid jokes, has been a straw man.

Expressing yourself in unnecessarily verbose language on an internet forum is the height of douchebaggery.

It is not as though we are catering to the sound bite generation weaned on corporate capitalist advertising here, which you seem to embrace quite readily given your low-brow flirtation with internet humor, despite the fact that you are likely older than I am. There are numerous free online dictionaries that are available to you if my "unnecessarily verbose" language is beyond your comprehension.

I never get this claim which political groups on the internet love to make, especially the IronMarchers, that they’ve somehow disproved entire intellectual traditions with a handful of forum posts. They love to claim they’ve “demolished” the rationality behind entire ideologies too but, like you, all most of them seem to do is post overly-emotional, menstrual responses.

Your "intellectual tradition" reduces itself to standard corporativist nonsense and reactionary idealism cloaked in Durkheim's theory of solidarism, which is weak to begin with. The basic tenets of your ideology have been thoroughly refuted on this forum (and elsewhere, of course) in far more posts than can be described a handful. Your lack of education on the matter, which is not surprising considering your rank anti-intellectualism, is demonstrated by a number of obvious facts. An excellent case in point is your self-described tendency as "corporative socialism," which is a contradictory position. You can either be a corporativist or a socialist: there is no middle ground. Corporatism is not socialism, and I am averse to attributing any "leftist" characteristics to it apart from admitting that it is slightly more progressive than laissez-fair capitalism and that right-wing demagogues have often masqueraded it as "socialist."

I’ll assume you mean the Iron March people. Well, I doubt either party would agree that we are ideological “fellows” since most of Iron March are rampant racialists obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories who simply hide behind ideologies like corporatism and indeed syndicalism to avoid looking like another Stormfront-esque circle jerk.

As Celtiberian has mentioned above, the differences between you are negligible.

I’ll accept part of the blame for this but I had no way of knowing at the outset that when you claimed to be a forum for revolutionary socialists AND left-wing nationalists you really only meant the former. If the banner said “a forum for smug Syndicalists who find RevLeft a little too warm and fuzzy” I would’ve steered clear.

No, we intend both. The problem is that you consider yourself a left-wing nationalist when in fact you are not. Your nationalist tradition does not follow from the thought of such figures as James Connolly, Otto Bauer, John Maclean, Victor L. Berger, and even Vladimir Lenin. Yours is a decked out bourgeois nationalism which you erroneously conflate with left-wing nationalism, and even this is based upon a false premise, as your understanding of what constitutes "left-wing" (i.e., corporatism) is in fact false.

If you read as well as you produce mental masturbation, you’d see that I explicitly acknowledged that Marxist theory does not reject all forms of private property.

When I said I found it ironic that someone WHO AGREES WITH MARX’S METHOD OF ANALYSIS used private property to justify restricting speech, I didn’t expect it to spawn bitchfits of such epic proportion just because, in a comment which clearly wasn’t meant to be taken seriously to begin with, I failed to observe the technicalities of Marxist theory. You pointing out to me something which has already been pointed out to me, that I agreed with, that I knew in the first place, doesn’t make you look like an authority on Marxist analysis, it makes you look like a moron.

Your snappy little quip implied it; otherwise, there would be no reason to issue it in the first place, as it would be devoid of any meaning. In essence, you are admitting that all of your previous comments are fatuous.

Say what you will about Fascists and even Neo-Nazis but most of them are not nearly as pompously self-righteous as you are.

They very much are. The distinction is that we are self-righteous in the sense that we are correct and take great pains to ensure the logical consistency and empirical validity of our political ideology. Fascists, on the other hand, enjoy engaging in anti-intellectual rants about the "degeneracy of the modern world," "Marxism failz lolz," and "MUH *blank*" on drab online forums like your neck of the woods. Quite frankly, you are not impressing anybody with a couple of functioning neurons in the slightest. Your anti-intellectual whining is pitiful, it will not garner you any respect from the working class, and I am amused that you or any fascist believes a mass movement can be generated upon such a low-brow foundation.

There are no further vacancies for resident troglodytes on this forum.

You’re American. I get it. You embrace leftism to rebel against the political establishment and I think that’s so precious and adorable but when you’re 30 or 40, which I really hope you’re not because that would be just sad, odds are you’ll be a typical white collar Republican whining about taxes and trying to convince your co-workers to read Atlas Shrugged. I call it the spoilt American teenager trajectory.

I am a working class student who seeks to improve his intellectual faculties in order to assist in the formation of future working class movements. Your petty participation in some "labour movement" (likely trade union quibbles, if that, or heaven forbid, the Labour Party) does nothing in terms of allowing you to smugly consider yourself as having contributed anything of value to the UK's working class.

Anyway, since not being a giant pussy is against the rules here, I'll return to my neck of the woods

Be on your way, you pinnacle of man. We are all "pussies," but you are the idyllic embodiment of Western culture's historical depiction of the male gender. Venture forth and dominate all vaginas with your mighty phallus.

Isakenaz wrote:

Revocity wrote:If the banner said “a forum for smug Syndicalists who find RevLeft a little too warm and fuzzy” I would’ve steered clear.

Harsh but fair. When this forum formed I had hoped for better things, but it seems to have followed the usual pattern. The world is ready for revolution and what do our college leftists do? Nothing just quote from tired old books.

Dear Isa, what a pitiful spectacle you have become.

Revocity wrote:I’ll assume you mean the Iron March people. Well, I doubt either party would agree that we are ideological “fellows” since most of Iron March are rampant racialists obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories who simply hide behind ideologies like corporatism and indeed syndicalism to avoid looking like another Stormfront-esque circle jerk.

It's worth noting that the "syndicalism" advocated by fascists is little more than a euphemism for a system of political-economy that is virtually indistinguishable from corporatism. The history associated with this issue has been addressed so many times on this forum that I find it superfluous to waste any further time on it. However, I do find it amusing how certain fascists continue to find it fashionable to expropriate the language of the left in order to camouflage the reactionary nature of their doctrine (your "Corporative Socialism" constituting a perfect example of this phenomenon).

Rev Scare wrote:
Dear Isa, what a pitiful spectacle you have become. No

Possibly, but at least I'm not pathetic like you lot. When this forum began, great things were promised. 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.
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.

Celtiberian wrote:You're increasingly sounding like Rebel Warrior 59. (If I were you, I would be troubled by this development.)

I'll lay awake at night.

Thus far you've accused us of being insincere in our left-wing nationalist convictions

Ok, tell me this, because I really want to know, what is it about your belief system that makes you think you're a nationalist?

you attempted to guise your charges of fascism and ideological inconsistency with sarcasm and patently unfunny jokes, but that's because you're a passive aggressive little twit.

I was simply pointing out that I realise Marxism does not in theory advocate the abolition of all forms of privacy thus making it pointless for you to constantly lecture me about it. But I know now that wasn't the point, you and yours just love snidely lecturing people, even if it's about things they already know. Do I think you're fascists? No. That would be an insult to fascists. Do I think you're ideologically inconsistent? Of course not. You're a typical run-of-the-mill Marxian, internationalist but why you pretend to be different from RevLefters, a good portion of whom believe the exact same things you do, is beyond me.

I disagree with the accusation that Rev Scare uses "unnecessarily verbose language" in his posts, and that this somehow qualifies as the "height of douchebaggery." Creating an internet forum and assigning oneself the rank of "Lord Protector" conforms better with the latter, in my opinion.

Well the thing about that is I expect the vast majority of people to understand that I don't really think I hold a title from Cromwellian England and take it seriously just like you wouldn't expect people to take the fact you refer yourself as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of whatever the fuck seriously. It's meant to be over the top whereas Rev Scare's writing style is quite sincere unless he's trying to parody what all pseudo-socialist twats sound like in which case bravo.

First of all, the "intellectual tradition" you speak of—Durkheimian theory—has, for the most part, lay in ruin for close to a century. Marxist theoreticians have thoroughly refuted Durkheim's sociological work and his political philosophy. If you were capable of overcoming your confirmation bias and reviewed the relevant literature, you would already know this.

I wasn't talking about any particular ideological tradition but since you brought it up "Marxist theoreticians" are incapable of refuting Durkheim's theory mainly because you can't "refute" an ideology on scientific terms. You can disagree with it, you can make informed arguments against it, and I'm sure there would be many right wing word wankers who would claim that Marxist theory lays in ruins and that Marxism has been throughly refuted, but that's pointless because Marx, like Durkheim, was making an internally coherent case against/for a particular framework of analysis and worldview. Hence you claiming that solidaristic corporatism has been thwarted just because a bunch of "theoreticians" have made arguments against it is irrational.

Apart from disagreements on the race question, there's virtually nothing separating you from those cretins.

Well since their stance on race pretty much underlies most of what gets posted there, I'm fairly certain that difference alone is incapable of constituting "virtually nothing." It's like saying to someone "well other than the fact that I advocate the genocide of entire races and you don't, we pretty much agree on everything."

You share their general anti-intellectualism, traditionalist Weltanschauung, and affinity for labeling transparently capitalist doctrines "socialist."

Probably like yourself, I've spent much time and effort helping socialist causes and most of the people I have come into contact with have never found my traditionalist outlook objectionable namely because most people in my country don't like slavering, raving commie lunatics fixated on the "class struggle" like it's fucking 1860 and we have to save our children from being shoved up chimneys. What they want is a socially-conscionable nation without the impracticalities of bureaucratic state control which is basically what the Labour Party has been trying to create since the 90s and failed with third-way communitarianism namely because you can't talk in the language of communities without making references to the nation, tradition, shared collective struggle and hardship - in a word nationalism - which most of the left are reluctant to engage with in this country either because they're either cowardly social democrats scared of being labeled racists or esoteric Marxists who look down their noses at nationalists.

You would do well not project your own insecurity regarding your convictions onto us.

I'm not projecting anything. I'm simply observing the fact that to a lot of college socialists ideology is just a fashion choice and it's not at all unusual for them for them to drop everything and change their views when they graduate and get jobs.

Still more vag than you'd get.

Also, I believe you've forfeited your right to criticize anyone's lack of activism. You've proven yourself fickle with respect to your political affiliations, and have recently descended to the point of joining a corporativist forum, therewith repudiating scientific socialism. For shame, sir.

Here you have a long-time member, who has been with you since the beginning, directly call you out for being unpatriotic hipster posers. Now I see he’s been RESTRICTED and for what? For being a fascist? For being a corporatist? For being a reactionary? No. For criticising you, and not even that harshly. I see nothing in your guidelines about “thou shalt not join forums that we disagree with” despite the fact National Shield is not only for corporatists but principally caters for nationalists and patriots of all stripes.

Celtiberian wrote:I'm not ashamed to say that when this forum was initially established, I was ideologically backwards. Had the RSF proceeded with activism at that time, the results would have been pitiful. What we've been doing since then is solidifying our knowledge of class, economics, and revolution in order to more effectively capitalize on opportunities as they present themselves in the coming years—and, contrary to what you may think, this requires a great deal of time and discipline. But the fact of the matter is the world is not yet "ready for revolution" anyway. The material conditions are undoubtedly ripening, but things have to become considerably worse before leftists have a chance to meaningfully engage with the proletariat.

Also, I believe you've forfeited your right to criticize anyone's lack of activism. You've proven yourself fickle with respect to your political affiliations, and have recently descended to the point of joining a corporativist forum, therewith repudiating scientific socialism. For shame, sir.

I am ashamed to say that I believed the bull you were spinning at the beginning, you and the others took a viable idea and turned it into another 'yawn'. What you call "solidifying" has entailed doing little more than running a forum in which you and your confederates spread your words of wisdom onto the heads of adoring schoolkids. Instead of the 'Thoughts of Chairman Mao' we have 'the thoughts of chairman celt' both in the end worthwhile only for wiping your ass.
How dare you sit safe and sound in the Uited States of Apathy and accuse me of lack of activism. Five minutes spent on the streets is worth a thousand hours spent in your ivory towers of intellectual circle-jerking. If scientific socialism means watching my people burn from behind a screen of dust covered books, then you are welcome to it sir.
Socialism must be national, national for me is British, you are an American so goodnight.

Rev Scare wrote:Actually, I challenge you to find a contemporaneous socialist organization which espouses views analogous to those of the RSF. Furthermore, do you truly see no irony in what you spew? You are a garden variety, anti-intellectual reactionary windbag. At least I can color my insults.

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

Your entire characterization of Marxism thus far, whether explicitly or implicitly through your stupid jokes, has been a straw man.

Oh fucking Christ not this straw man bullshit again.

It is not as though we are catering to the sound bite generation weaned on corporate capitalist advertising here, which you seem to embrace quite readily given your low-brow flirtation with internet humor, despite the fact that you are likely older than I am. There are numerous free online dictionaries that are available to you if my "unnecessarily verbose" language is beyond your comprehension.

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.

Your "intellectual tradition" reduces itself to standard corporativist nonsense and reactionary idealism cloaked in Durkheim's theory of solidarism, which is weak to begin with. The basic tenets of your ideology have been thoroughly refuted on this forum (and elsewhere, of course) in far more posts than can be described a handful. Your lack of education on the matter, which is not surprising considering your rank anti-intellectualism, is demonstrated by a number of obvious facts. An excellent case in point is your self-described tendency as "corporative socialism," which is a contradictory position. You can either be a corporativist or a socialist: there is no middle ground. Corporatism is not socialism, and I am averse to attributing any "leftist" characteristics to it apart from admitting that it is slightly more progressive than laissez-fair capitalism and that right-wing demagogues have often masqueraded it as "socialist."

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.

As Celtiberian has mentioned above, the differences between you are negligible.

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

No, we intend both. The problem is that you consider yourself a left-wing nationalist when in fact you are not. Your nationalist tradition does not follow from the thought of such figures as James Connolly, Otto Bauer, John Maclean, Victor L. Berger, and even Vladimir Lenin. Yours is a decked out bourgeois nationalism which you erroneously conflate with left-wing nationalism, and even this is based upon a false premise, as your understanding of what constitutes "left-wing" (i.e., corporatism) is in fact false.

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.

Your snappy little quip implied it; otherwise, there would be no reason to issue it in the first place, as it would be devoid of any meaning. In essence, you are admitting that all of your previous comments are fatuous.

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

They very much are. The distinction is that we are self-righteous in the sense that we are correct and take great pains to ensure the logical consistency and empirical validity of our political ideology. Fascists, on the other hand, enjoy engaging in anti-intellectual rants about the "degeneracy of the modern world," "Marxism failz lolz," and "MUH *blank*" on drab online forums like your neck of the woods. Quite frankly, you are not impressing anybody with a couple of functioning neurons in the slightest. Your anti-intellectual whining is pitiful, it will not garner you any respect from the working class, and I am amused that you or any fascist believes a mass movement can be generated upon such a low-brow foundation.

There are no further vacancies for resident troglodytes on this forum.

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.

I am a working class student who seeks to improve his intellectual faculties in order to assist in the formation of future working class movements. Your petty participation in some "labour movement" (likely trade union quibbles, if that, or heaven forbid, the Labour Party) does nothing in terms of allowing you to smugly consider yourself as having contributed anything of value to the UK's working class.

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.

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.

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.

Be on your way, you pinnacle of man. We are all "pussies," but you are the idyllic embodiment of Western culture's historical depiction of the male gender. Venture forth and dominate all vaginas with your mighty phallus.

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

Isakenaz wrote:I am ashamed to say that I believed the bull you were spinning at the beginning, you and the others took a viable idea and turned it into another 'yawn'. What you call "solidifying" has entailed doing little more than running a forum in which you and your confederates spread your words of wisdom onto the heads of adoring schoolkids. Instead of the 'Thoughts of Chairman Mao' we have 'the thoughts of chairman celt' both in the end worthwhile only for wiping your ass.
How dare you sit safe and sound in the Uited States of Apathy and accuse me of lack of activism. Five minutes spent on the streets is worth a thousand hours spent in your ivory towers of intellectual circle-jerking. If scientific socialism means watching my people burn from behind a screen of dust covered books, then you are welcome to it sir.
Socialism must be national, national for me is British, you are an American so goodnight.

Yeah, you see that's what a left-wing nationalist is. I don't know what you lot think it is, but you're wrong.

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.

Revocity wrote:I'll lay awake at night.

As well you should.

Ok, tell me this, because I really want to know, what is it about your belief system that makes you think you're a nationalist?

Simply put, I acknowledge nationality as a legitimate source of self-identification and believe in the right of nations to self-determination.

I was simply pointing out that I realise Marxism does not in theory advocate the abolition of all forms of privacy thus making it pointless for you to constantly lecture me about it. But I know now that wasn't the point, you and yours just love snidely lecturing people, even if it's about things they already know.

It's rather easy for one to disingenuously claim they 'already knew' something after they've been corrected, but I suppose it's asking too much to expect honesty from an individual like yourself.

Do I think you're ideologically inconsistent? Of course not. You're a typical run-of-the-mill Marxian, internationalist but why you pretend to be different from RevLefters, a good portion of whom believe the exact same things you do, is beyond me.

I have never said that I disagree with most of RevLeft in terms of economic analysis, post-capitalist proposals, or (to a lesser extent) revolutionary theory. However, the fact you're unable to discern the myriad differences between myself and typical RevLeft members on matters concerning the national question merely underscores how little you know of the positions which have separated Marxists on this subject for over a century. Equating my views with a cosmopolitan RevLeft member is tantamount to claiming the differences between Otto Bauer's and Rosa Luxemburg's respective stances on the national question were trivial.

And I've given this advice to your ideological brethren in the past, but it bears repeating: cease attempting to appraise subjects you clearly know nothing about, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Well the thing about that is I expect the vast majority of people to understand that I don't really think I hold a title from Cromwellian England and take it seriously just like you wouldn't expect people to take the fact you refer yourself as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of whatever the fuck seriously.

It's not that you seriously consider yourself a "Lord Protector," but rather that you find the label "bad ass" that's so pathetic. You honestly strike me as a little dweeb who spends his leisure time battling virtual elves online and attempting to impress 'fair maidens' by jousting at renaissance festivals.

It's meant to be over the top whereas Rev Scare's writing style is quite sincere unless he's trying to parody what all pseudo-socialist twats sound like in which case bravo.

I sense a hint of jealousy in your antipathy towards Rev Scare's prose. I realize that not everyone is endowed with the ability to convey their thoughts as eloquently as he, but you're just coming across as petty.

I wasn't talking about any particular ideological tradition but since you brought it up "Marxist theoreticians" are incapable of refuting Durkheim's theory mainly because you can't "refute" an ideology on scientific terms. You can disagree with it, you can make informed arguments against it, and I'm sure there would be many right wing word wankers who would claim that Marxist theory lays in ruins and that Marxism has been throughly refuted, but that's pointless because Marx, like Durkheim, was making an internally coherent case against/for a particular framework of analysis and worldview. Hence you claiming that solidaristic corporatism has been thwarted just because a bunch of "theoreticians" have made arguments against it is irrational.

Nonsense. Both Marx and Durkheim made a number of positive claims which are subject to empirical evaluation. For his part, Marx made a great many errors in the course of his career, but he was nevertheless correct enough where it mattered that the crucial elements in his analysis of capital and theory of scientific socialism remain valid. The same cannot be said of much of Durkheim's sociology or his "solidaristic corporatism." With respect to the latter, Durkheim made a number of assumptions which simply cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

Probably like yourself, I've spent much time and effort helping socialist causes and most of the people I have come into contact with have never found my traditionalist outlook objectionable namely because most people in my country don't like slavering, raving commie lunatics fixated on the "class struggle" like it's fucking 1860 and we have to save our children from being shoved up chimneys.

Your utter disregard for the class struggle has been noted. As for traditionalism, I doubt you told these people what that elitist, technocratic Weltanschauung truly entails. Had you done so, I suspect their responses would have ranged from insulted to outright belligerent—provided they were proletarians and not petit-bourgeois reformists, of course.

What they want is a socially-conscionable nation without the impracticalities of bureaucratic state control

I find it more than a little ironic that a self-professed corporativist would take issue with the "impracticalities of bureaucratic state control."

I'm not projecting anything. I'm simply observing the fact that to a lot of college socialists ideology is just a fashion choice and it's not at all unusual for them for them to drop everything and change their views when they graduate and get jobs.

Thank you ever so much for that salient observation. It's not as though ephemeral adolescent radicalism is a well documented phenomenon that leftists are generally familiar with or anything. Your erudition is a real asset.

Here you have a long-time member, who has been with you since the beginning, directly call you out for being unpatriotic hipster posers.

Isakenaz has had a vendetta against the Socialist Phalanx in general, and Revolutionary Syndicalist Federation in particular, for well over a year now. Our initial falling out was over having a forum policy which was too lenient with respect to non-Marxist members for his taste, in case you were wondering.

Now I see he’s been RESTRICTED and for what? For being a fascist? For being a corporatist? For being a reactionary? No. For criticising you, and not even that harshly. I see nothing in your guidelines about “thou shalt not join forums that we disagree with” despite the fact National Shield is not only for corporatists but principally caters for nationalists and patriots of all stripes.

He was restricted because he has disavowed revolutionary socialism and can be found on your forum defending the contemptible legacies of Benito Mussolini and Oswald Mosley. Given the content of his posts at National Shield, it's obvious that he now espouses some variety of Strasserism.

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

Nothing's more precious than your "movement":



The quaint iconography is certainly in keeping with your aforementioned fetish for the feudal age, Lord Protector.

Corporative socialism is not a contradictory position. It's a necessary theory to resolve the contradictions inherent in both systems of thought.

On the contrary, all you're doing is introducing catastrophic contradictions into a mode of production free of them.

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

Actually, it is. There is undoubtedly more that binds you together than separates you, philosophically speaking.

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.

You're being misleading. You have no intention of 'exorcising' the dictatorship of capital from society, you merely intend on managing it differently.

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.

What a peculiar definition of "worker" you adhere to. In the Marxist tradition, a proletarian is defined as anyone who sells their labor-power to a capitalist, and this can range from the low-paid janitorial staff at Walmart to the highly remunerated research and development team at Apple, Inc.

Furthermore, as shocking as this might sound, many workers do in fact have the ability to post on message boards, should they choose to spend their leisure time partaking in that activity.

at least my country has a labour party as opposed to just different shades of liberal.

Harbor no illusions, the Labour Party is just barely to the left of the Democratic Party.

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.

Speaking of which, were you not supposed to head back to your "neck of the woods" already?

But there are glimmers of hope. See, for instance, Blue Labour.

Of course you would find "glimmers of hope" in that clique of idealistic, corporativist prats.

Isakenaz wrote:I am ashamed to say that I believed the bull you were spinning at the beginning, you and the others took a viable idea and turned it into another 'yawn'. What you call "solidifying" has entailed doing little more than running a forum in which you and your confederates spread your words of wisdom onto the heads of adoring schoolkids. Instead of the 'Thoughts of Chairman Mao' we have 'the thoughts of chairman celt' both in the end worthwhile only for wiping your ass.

You're in no position to pontificate on the activity of the RSF, Isakenaz. You've been out of correspondence with us for far too long to judge the merits or deficits of our current trajectory.

How dare you sit safe and sound in the Uited States of Apathy and accuse me of lack of activism. Five minutes spent on the streets is worth a thousand hours spent in your ivory towers of intellectual circle-jerking. If scientific socialism means watching my people burn from behind a screen of dust covered books, then you are welcome to it sir.

Is that right? Do tell how the revolution is coming along in Great Britain. Made many comrades among the workers, have you? Be sure to send us pictures of you rallying the troops in your BUF uniform.

Socialism must be national, national for me is British, you are an American so goodnight.

Don't you have anymore trite slogans to share with us before you retreat back to National Shield?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: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.

I have been extraordinarily patient with you (answering inane questions multiple times, persuading other moderators not to ban you for spamming the forum, etc.), and only recently have I started to insult your intelligence. Perhaps if you would take yourself and this board more seriously I would refrain from doing so and return to engaging with you on a mature level.

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.

We are respectful of our opponents. Take, for example, the responses given to Revocity's introduction thread. I would say we behaved in an exemplary manner. Unfortunately, he decided to take the juvenile route of responding with thinly veiled insults elsewhere.