[Decky]

Meh spaz isn't all that bad, there are far more offensive things to call disabled people (mongol etc).

[Lexington]

The thing I like about this kind of thing is "What kinds of profanity can I use in certain situations?"

I can say "fuck" in the office in NY or London. In fact I think I profit from it: it creates a certain congeniality if I curse in front of some fucking PowerPoint presentation.

My boss now is an observant Jew though (like, he wears kippah and leaves work on Friday before sundown to observe Sabbath, that kind of observant). So I'm trying to cut back on saying "fuck" as much as I used to.

Anyway, this thread is about name_xox, not about me. Welcome name_xox and I hope you realize that the little fucking words are important

[Brisket]

Are you aware that "cunt" is a very serious profanity in English and you're not likely to be taken seriously if you drop it into sentences randomly?

In Scotland and the North East of England, it's used synonymously with "person". I could be refering to the "cunt" next door without having any ill feeling towards him/her. Naturally, i wouldn't do it to their face. In the North East, "twat" is worse than "cunt" but in the South the opposite applies.

In response to the OP, why do you want to set up your own party? Have you not considered joining other leftist parties?

[Lexington]

In Scotland and the North East of England, it's used synonymously with "person". I could be refering to the "cunt" next door without having any ill feeling towards him/her. Naturally, i wouldn't do it to their face. In the North East, "twat" is worse than "cunt" but in the South the opposite applies.

Between "cunt", "spaz", "twat"...it's a wonder we have a language between Britain and the US.

I've never been to the north of England. I've been to London a couple times and "spaz" is right out, that's just awful. "Cunt" and "twat" also. But I feel like these are American imports. On the other hand, "spaz," we have not yet imported this word, it remains obscure. Spaz, spastic, whatevs.

[SolarCross]

Meh spaz isn't all that bad, there are far more offensive things to call disabled people (mongol etc).

How is mongol offensive? I'd be proud to be likened to the proud warrior people that had made an empire that covered the vastness of asia.

[Decky]

I've never been to the north of England. I've been to London a couple times and "spaz" is right out, that's just awful. "Cunt" and "twat" also. But I feel like these are American imports. On the other hand, "spaz," we have not yet imported this word, it remains obscure. Spaz, spastic, whatevs.

London can't really be taken to represent the UK, it might as well be in a different country. They are rude, people don't talk to each other, they are mostly rich bastards etc. They don't even have all that much in common with the rest of the south of England let alone the UK at large.

[Cromwell]

Religion is not an oppressor, by definition, because it is not an actor. You mind as well say that "politics is an oppressor" or that "morality is an oppressor".

To say that all of religion sits to one side or the other of the political divide is to completely ignore reality. You're posting this thread in the 'Socialism' sub-forum so I'm going to use that word as a descriptor from now on. If you want to back out and pretend that you, somehow, meant something other than 'socialist' when you said 'left-wing' then you shouldn't have started this discussion.

So, now, explain to me how a given person's religiosity precludes him from being, or becoming, a socialist. As socialists we recognise that classes exist and are engaged in a struggle against one another, where does religion factor into this? As socialists we believe that we should have, in some way, public ownership of the means of production, where does religion factor into this? As socialists we assert that it is necessary for the working class to gain or seize control of the state apparatus, where does religion factor into this?

If a man is inclined to support us by virtue of his religious views, should he be excluded from our parties or our movements? What purpose would such exclusion serve.

I think you'll find that just as there are many atheists on the libertarian right, there are many religious folks on the socialist left.

What you seem to be aiming for, however, is a political party with its guiding philosophy being Bill Maher style left-liberalism and its principal membership being bourgeois bohemian faux-radicals. There's certainly an audience for that, but it's not socialism and it's doomed to achieve nothing.

[name_xox]

Brisket.
One of the principals of Left-wing is Equality and there’s no Left-wing party in the UK which is based on that principal.
Here there are based on a Mandatory Hierarch Leader. Instead of having committee members with interests in Education, Housing, The Arts, Health Care, Science and Technology, Commerce, Law etc.

Lexinton
The public reality use of the word “CUNT” to describe Right-wing mind-set programming (of misery)
The American Joan Rivers was a well-liked straight talking comedian here in the UK. She used the (UK) word “CUNT” Ruthlessly on one of her recent UK Television shows.
She was sharp tongued politically and on celebs and would say out loud “Cunt” without shame or remorse.

It’s a universal word but most people hear it as” Fucking Cunt” I would guarantee Politicians say the word " YOU CUNT" behind the scenes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward VII 1901-1910, Sorry I meant Cromwell.

I am not a Socialist, I am Left-wing.
Also when you use the CON or TRICK word atheist instead of the word not-religious is like you still saying to me or another person that you believe in your god.

Since a theist is someone who believes in god in like a christian believes in god .

Use the word not-religious, non-religious and anti-religious to describe people who do not believe in mumbo jumbo god or gods etc.

The reason for Religious Cults like the Catholics were banned or expelled from Countries Government (and public services) like in the UK British parliament for example: is because they hold there number one allegiance to the Catholic Church and everything else is secondary.
Country's people' want government persons to represent them not any foreign Religious Cult what are there to feed of there host.

On Left-wing principles I wanted to put Freedom of Expression, which includes those who believe in gods, god, witchcraft, paganism, prostitution, homosexuality, freedom of speech, etc. (Freedom of Expression which is not harmful to others is consenting and not forced upon).

[name_xox]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Cromwell]

Edward VII 1901-1910, Sorry I meant Cromwell.

What?

I am not a Socialist, I am Left-wing.

Then why have you posted this thread in the 'Socialism' sub-forum, attempting to drum up support for the creation of a political party?

Also when you use the CON word atheist instead of the word not-religious is like you still saying a person believes in your god.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.

Since a theist is someone who believes in god in like a Christian believes in god .

What has that got to do with any thing?

Use the word not-religious, non-religious and anti-religious to describe people who do not believe in mumbo jumbo etc.

No.

The reason for Religious Cults like the Catholics were banned or expelled for example: from the UK parliament is because they hold there allegiance to the Catholic Church and everything else is second.

Protestants, who are religious themselves, were the ones who restricted Catholic suffrage, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there.

People in a country want persons to represent them not a Religious Cult which will feed off them.

What? People are still people, whether they're religious or not. A Hindu might well like another Hindu to represent him or he may not. Conversely, an atheist might prefer to be represented by a religious person who agrees with him on other issues rather than by a fellow atheist who does not.

[name_xox]

Not clear on how you up load images on political forum example: The Skull & Bones
http://wallpaperfast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pirate-Skull-Cross-Bones-HD-Desktop-Wallpaper.jpg

[name_xox]

[DrSteveBrule]

PRIVATISE AIR.

Imagine what would happen if someone didn't pay the air usage fee? Would the police put them in a chokehold to stop the theft? We would also have to charge the obese people more, since their higher body mass means that they use more air to survive.

On the other hand, "spaz," we have not yet imported this word, it remains obscure. Spaz, spastic, whatevs.

Really? Most of the people that I know use spaz all the time, albeit in a joking manner.

[Noob]

Imagine what would happen if someone didn't pay the air usage fee? Would the police put them in a chokehold to stop the theft?

I should think so.

We would also have to charge the obese people more, since their higher body mass means that they use more air to survive.

Excellent idea. See, this is where the Marxist idea of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' really just gets out of hand, because obese people 'need' more and more and more. Their needs rise exponentially in proportion to their level of fatness; then there's an increasingly drastic negative correlation between need and ability. More food, air, more seating space on couches, public transport and aeroplanes, more air, more television, more complaining about being fat... It's really inefficient. This is also why America is going downhill, because that country is turning into a pseudo-pinko dictatorship of obese people, only unlike in Marxism where the historical subject is class and in liberalism the historical subject is the individual, America's historical subject is the destitute triple-sized quintuple-chin hambeast on a mobility scooter with its own planetary-esque centre of gravity and orbit. It's also why the State should never fund healthcare for obese people.

Also, why is name_xox's avatar this:



And why is name_xox posting skull and bones logos and tattoos?

[Dagoth Ur]

Yeah I don't know why Lex thinks Americans don't use the term spaz.

[quetzalcoatl]

Since you're throwing a party, I see nothing wrong in throwing a left-wing one. But one thing you cannot do (and you might as well get it out of your head from the start) is innovate. The massive deadweight of history and reams of critical theory have frozen The Left into a timeless immobility. Every niche of left thought has been plowed and re-plowed countless times. Alternative interpretations of Marxism, or God-forbid a alternatives to Marxism, occupy a heavily-mined intellectual no-man's land. But other than that the sky is the limit.

[Dagoth Ur]

You hear shit like this from heterodox socialists all the time. It is a classic blame shift where their own failure to compel anyone to their point of view becomes a conspiracy of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism among their peers. But it is effective and until you realize the particular heterodox socialist you are dealing with has no ideas that are better than the communists who are "frozen" into "timeless immobility" you can easily fall for the scheme. Personally I would say that most communists are woefully ignorant of their own history.

You're one of the better ones though Quetz.

[quetzalcoatl]

You hear shit like this from heterodox socialists all the time. It is a classic blame shift where their own failure to compel anyone to their point of view becomes a conspiracy of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism among their peers. But it is effective and until you realize the particular heterodox socialist you are dealing with has no ideas that are better than the communists who are "frozen" into "timeless immobility" you can easily fall for the scheme. Personally I would say that most communists are woefully ignorant of their own history.

You're one of the better ones though Quetz.

Well I did try to bring up alternative ideas on the forum at one time. Big mistake. The worst thing was to go back and do further study and find out I wasn't the first, the third, on even the hundredth to come up with the same idea. If I were to be totally honest, I'd have to admit that at my age I no longer have the intellectual energy to try and put something together as comprehensive as a re-interpretation of Marxism or whatever. It would be a fool's task anyway.

What I can't understand is the lack of excitement and intellectual ferment that a massive shift in history should bring.

[SolarCross]

name_xox

I don't care for leftism but at the risk of helping my enemies I have to say your approach is all wrong. The strategic strength of the left is its potential appeal to the bottom layers of society across the world (bottom in terms of privileges and wealth) those people are individually weak but for their large numbers if united can make for a strong swarm. This is why savvy leftists go on about solidarity. There is nothing in that random grab bag of leftist sentiments you present as policies that is anything particularly new or necessary that merits a new party. New parties are inevitably small and can only grow at the expense of other parties so new parties are counter-productive to solidarity. If your mission is leftism then you will do better for the movement by finding the largest already existing leftist organisation and joining that and nevermind if it's policy manifesto is not precisely what you want. Just be ready to be 3rd spear carrier with all your heart.

Leftists here can probably point you to a suitable leftwing organisation but my suggestion for what it is worth would be the IWW.

[quetzalcoatl]

I don't care for leftism but at the risk of helping my enemies I have to say your approach is all wrong. The strategic strength of the left is its potential appeal to the bottom layers of society across the world (bottom in terms of privileges and wealth) those people are individually weak but for their large numbers if united can make for a strong swarm. This is why savvy leftists go on about solidarity. There is nothing in that random grab bag of leftist sentiments you present as policies that is anything particularly new or necessary that merits a new party. New parties are inevitably small and can only grow at the expense of other parties so new parties are counter-productive to solidarity. If your mission is leftism then you will do better for the movement by finding the largest already existing leftist organisation and joining that and nevermind if it's policy manifesto is not precisely what you want. Just be ready to be 3rd spear carrier with all your heart.

Leftists here can probably point you to a suitable leftwing organisation but my suggestion for what it is worth would be the IWW.

Wobblies, nice. We had a few oldsters that were ex-wobblies when I began as a member of IBEW in the early 70's. IWW still exists, but is far from the influential force it was at the beginning of the twentieth century. Even our Wobblies had joined it in its waning years. But the stories they had, my god. I don't even care if they were even made-up stories, they were great. The best guys I ever knew.

Anyway, your main point is correct. The left has no raison d'etre without a deep and comprehensive alliance with the underclass. Industrial workers won't cut it anymore, basically they have disappeared. Your main target, of necessity, has to be the people who shop at WalMart and Family Dollar...the lumpenproletariat that the left despises since they are judged unable to form a class consciousness. But they have formed a class consciousness (of sorts), led by elements of the right with access to money and media.

In principle, there is no reason the left could not have done the same thing...given the necessary cynicism and access to big money. And money will make itself available to people with troops on the ground and the ability to talk the language people understand.

Wobblies, as much as I admired them, can't be the center of such an outreach. You need the Karl Roves and Lee Atwaters...you need professional agitators and guys that come up with talking points and propaganda designed specifically to engage the biases of the loser class.

The economic forces are now aligning in such a way that the left, in classical theory, should be able to break the current logjam. The question is will they able to muster the number the number of troops necessary to offset the right's control of the military and police.