How do you form your political opinions? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14813970
Of late I have come to realise that I base all of my political opinions on the ideas of authority figures. These are people I use to look at the world with. For example, if Lenin says something and it agrees with my world view, I will integrate it into my world view. If Margaret Thatcher says something else, I will take that as representative of a centre right opinion. Gradually a visual mosaic starts to form where there are multiple opinions from different authority figures (famous politicians, philosophers, ideologues etc). None of the opinions is really right or wrong, but all opinions are observations of a physical reality. Someone who votes Republican or Tory has one opinion of the world, someone who votes for the communists has another. But each opinion is observing something about reality in which there appears to be some level of objective truth.

Now of late I have encountered an opinion from an authority figure, but this opinion does not correspond to any reality as I understand it. It has no representation in physical reality.

How do we synchronise opinions into our world view when they are patently untrue? You agree with ninetry percent of what the authority figure says, but the remaining five percent is nonsense.

Or is my way of looking at reality fundamentally incorrect?
#14813976
I believe our feelings about things come before our ideologies. Some trust authority others don't. Some get angry about homelessness others get angry about having to pay tax and people living on welfare.

We come to believe ideologies that best suit our fundamental values and feelings about reality. We build an internal model of what reality looks like.

Reality will win out over this in the end regardless.

The reality right now is that despite my intellectual attraction to Marxist, socialist, and technocratic ideas there isn't anything I can do to make those things happen. In fact I think grand projects like communism are doomed to failure because they try to make what they think reality should be happen. Perhaps it will one day but we can see the remaining communist countries join global capitalism in the end.

I think we should make a distinction between intellectual and practical politics. I want to see universal healthcare in America, which is something that is both possible and would do a lot of good for a lot of people. I'm not changing the world by doing so but at least I'm doing some good. I don't think we can do anything else.

I'm under no illusion that for all practical purposes I'm basically a globalist liberal. However I'm doing far more good working with reality as it is instead of just complaining about how it doesn't work according to my preferred order.

Capitalism will fall or it won't all on its own. It doesn't need my help and I have to live with it in the meantime.
#14814253
I read books and think about things, it is time consuming and I long for the day post revolution when the party will have a nice clear party line on all issues. I will able to open up pravda and get all my opinions on everything from there and life will be better and simpler.
#14814261
It depends. Your going to get a lot more shit from people and have to put a lot more work in to make it coherent if you try to make your own thing.

Even then it's going to be some subset of a larger ideology like liberalism, communism, or fascism. Creating a truly new ideology is a work of a lifetime.
#14814278
This is probably forcing my own curiosity into the subject in a way that might not appease the way you've thought of the matter.
In line with what mike has said about feeling and internalizing reality, I think this is a good heuristic in regards to what conclusions we're prone to, though not necessarily destined to. I often make the simplistic comparison that our sense of reality is felt in much the same way one comes to understand inertia physically. There are things that are felt to be real and this seem's relevant when considering the direction that our reasoning takes us.

I often wonder if this is what is what is expressed by Ficthe
Spoiler: show
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm
Of course, the thinking of people is formed first of all not by teachers and philosophers, but by the real conditions of their lives.

As Fichte said, the kind of philosophy you choose depends upon the type of person you are. Everyone is attracted to a philosophy which corresponds to the already formed image of his own thinking. He finds in it a mirror which fully presents everything that earlier existed in the form of a vague tendency, an indistinctly expressed allusion. A philosophical system arms the thinking (consciousness) of the individual with self-consciousness, i.e. with a critical look at oneself as if it were from the side, or from the point of view of the experience common to all mankind, of the experience of the history of thinking.

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/fichte.htm
Fichte insisted that it was necessary to found science on a single principle, but held that such a first principle cannot be derived by philosophical means. Whether you choose a given principle to be the founding principle of your theory of knowledge or not “depends on what sort of person you are” he said. The choice of a theory of knowledge is therefore also an ethical act.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/#3
It must be granted that the truth of the Wissenschaftslehre's starting point cannot be established by any philosophical means, including its utility as a philosophical first principle. On the contrary—and this is one of Fichte's most characteristic and controversial claims—one already has to be convinced, on wholly extra-philosophical grounds, of the reality of one's own freedom before one can enter into the chain of deductions and arguments that constitute the Wissenschaftslehre. This is the meaning of Fichte's oft-cited assertion that “the kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon the kind of person one is.”

Though it doesn't seem reducible to some sort of simplified social determinism.
To me, the curiosity I have to try and understand this is based partially in our relation to the material world mirred in social relations and an ideological layer of meaning imbued in it through the experience of those relations.
Because the material foundation is pivotal but we don't experience reality as it is, we necessarily inject our subjectivity that gives it's essence. That it's necessary that our sense of the world entails much subjectivity which complicates our epistemological views.

Spoiler: show
https://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/existent_s_-_hegel_s_critique_of_kant12.pdf
More intriguingly yet, Hegel Hegel’s account of essence rejects all transcendence in favor of appearances. For Hegel there is not one thing, essence, and another thing, appearance such that essences are transcendent to beings like Plato’s forms, or are unchanging and invariant like Aristotle’s essences. Rather, it is appearance all the way down and there is no further fact “beyond” the appearances that is hidden and that must be discovered or uncovered. Hegel will say, “Essence must appear.”4 The real surprise is that the mediation of essence is a reference to another appreance, not a distinct ontological entity to be contrasted with existence. Indeed, in the Science of Logic, Hegel argues that essence is relation. Thus, as Hyppolite recounts, “The great joke, Hegel wrote in a personal note, is that things are what they are. There is no reason to go beyond them.”5

This is a striking claim that immediately brings Lacan’s discussion of objet a in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis to mind. There Lacan recounts the story of two artists named Zeuxis and Pharrhosios, locked in competition with each other to see who is the better artist. Lacan remarks that,

"In the classical tale of Zeuxis and Parrhosios, Zeuxis has the advantage of having made grapes that attracted the birds. The stress is placed not in the fact that the grapes were in any way perfect grapes, but on the fact that even the eye of the birds was taken in by them. This is proved by the fact that his friend Parrhosios triumphs over him for having painted on the wall a veil, a veil so lifelike that Zeuxis, turning towards him said, Well, and now show us what you have painted behind it. By this he showed that what was at issue was certainly deceiving the eye (tromper l’oeil). A triumph of the gaze over the eye.6"

The lesson to be drawn from this little parable is that the cause of desire-- not the object desired - -is precisely this enigma of what is behind the veil or curtain. As Lacan will recount elsewhere in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, we can be naked precisely because we wear clothing. “Doesn’t she know she’s naked under those clothes!” What we have here is the logic of the secret or crypt. Analysis comes to an end when objet a falls away and the analys and no longer attributes a secret knowledge to the analyst. Similarly, it can be said that metaphysics too needs to undergo analysis insofar as all too often it posits a true reality behind appearances in precisely the same way that Zeuxis believes there is something behind the veil painted on the wall.
...
The point here is that the very idea of the thing-in-itself contains an internal contradiction insofar as it calls us to think a thing without determination, yet the very nature of a thing is to contain determinations. In the Phenomenology, Hegel shows that the distinction between the unknowable thing-in-itself as conceived by Kant and appearance is itself a distinction of the understanding, and therefore a product of thought.8 It is nothing but the ego’s reflection of itself into an other. That is, the thing-in-itself is identical to the ego, as a substrate divested of all concrete properties or qualities, a pure void as Hegel puts it, and therefore a phantasm of thought much like Zeuxis asking what is behind the veil.


The classic example being that the workers relation to production is fundamentally different from that of a capitalist and so upon looking at the same reality they necessarily see things of different meaning based on their relation to it. Which is why its a fair heuristic to point out the classist bias that typically originates from being raised in a well do to family.
Again I emphasize that this would be inadequate in better understanding the nuances of the many things interacting to the point that you have a certain ideological outlook. But the overall point in all of this, is that your felt being of reality strongly shapes what sort of reasoning you'll find appeal in. This I assume is the basis on which there can be assertions of classist tendencies, things that a probable on the basis of what class one belongs to. Many people don't need to read Marx or undergo a thorough education to see through some of the apologetic bullshit that runs counter to their interests through their lived reality. Though the matter is often complicated that our sense of reality isn't direct but has an imagined quality to it.
"Ideology is a ‘Representation’ of the Imaginary Relationship of Individuals to their Real Conditions of Existence" - Louis Althusser

Whilst we can try and become uber rationalists who use a healthy degree of skepticism and logical analysis in trying to consider our views (who the hell has the time to be perfect of mind). At the bottom of it all, one inevitably has to make certain assumptions that can't be based on reason, but leaps of faith.
And I think it is here that might find the significant influence of the felt reality upon what sort of reasoning and points we find persuasive beyond being logical.
I think ideas would appear not only as they exist as perceptions of reality but also of relations between people and their circumstances. That what underpins the struggle of ideas is a struggle within real world conditions itself.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/foucaul1.htm
Firstly, how does the subject form the object? Who is this subject? Of course, the subject cannot exist outside of individual human beings, but that means nothing - one also needs hydrocarbons, but so what? The subject which forms concepts is the social and historical practice of human beings. Concepts are social products. They are passed on to generations through social vehicles and products such as languages, media, institutions, wars and industries, etc. They are not primarily the creation of individuals, who 99% inherit concepts and work with them together with others within definite social relations, and to the extent of no more than 1% do individuals create concepts.

So when, for example, my male chauvinism confronts your feminism, it is not true that both are equally true, nor that the truth of each are incommensurable, or that the truth of each is in my life and your life, or yours is true for middle-class Western women and mine for backward males, nor surely that "truth" is meaningless, or something trivial that interests only dogmatists!? Nor that I make a better, more convincing, politically-correct defence of my position which is published in a reputable journal, or vice versa, or that I get more votes than you. But nor can I make the claim that my idea reflects what objectively exists, independently of human experience and yours not - what an absurdity! Perhaps we can say that yours is liberatory and mine repressive, and although neither is true, one is good and the other is bad, and that is all that matters? Perhaps we could settle the matter by arm-wrestling?

We must not get this question confused with the right of an individual to hold a view. This is of course a basic bourgeois right. But that is not the point; I do not thank you for allowing me the right to walk across a mine-field. I am interested in whether my idea of the best way home is objectively correct or not.

The structuralists were right when they identified the location of truth in the social practice of a culture, but limited by the conception of culture in anthropological static isolation (dynamic, static or partial "equilibrium"). The truth and error of my view and your view (continuing the metaphor from above) is a really-existing patriarchal society of which we are both a living part and which is undergoing transformation under the impact of the socialisation of women's labour and your struggle for the value of your labour. That is the source of the concepts (of "feminism", "male-chauvinism", "sexist language", etc.), that is the criterion of truth and that is what is changed by the material struggle of our ideas, that is the meaning.

So I would emphasize that whilst there is an ideological struggle, it is also based in the material world to.
Which as noted about the subjectivity involved in the view of the objective world is necessarily partisan. Which might be clearer if one thinks about how a worker and capitalist might view the same reality based on their different experience and relation to it.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm
Spoiler: show
The key question thus concerns the exact STATUS of this externality: is it simply the externality of an impartial “objective” scientist who, after studying history and establishing that, in the long run, the working class has a great future ahead, decides to join the winning side? So when Lenin says “The theory of Marx is all-powerful, because it is true,” everything depends on how we understand “truth” here: is it a neutral “objective knowledge,” or the truth of an engaged subject? Lenin’s wager — today, in our era of postmodern relativism, more actual than ever — is that universal truth and partisanship, the gesture of taking sides, are not only not mutually exclusive, but condition each other: in a concrete situation, its UNIVERSAL truth can only be articulated from a thoroughly PARTISAN position — truth is by definition one-sided. (This, of course, goes against the predominant doxa of compromise, of finding a middle path among the multitude of conflicting interests.) Why not, then, shamelessly and courageously ENDORSE the boring standard reproach according to which, Marxism is a “secularized religion,” with Lenin as the Messiah, etc.? Yes, assuming the proletarian standpoint IS EXACTLY like making a leap of faith and assuming a full subjective engagement for its Cause; yes, the “truth” of Marxism is perceptible only to those who accomplish this leap, NOT to any neutral observers. What the EXTERNALITY means here is that this truth is nonetheless UNIVERSAL, not just the “point-of-view” of a particular historical subject: “external” intellectuals are needed because the working class cannot immediately perceive ITS OWN PLACE within the social totality which enables it to accomplish its “mission” — this insight has to be mediated through an external element.

And why not link these two externalities (that of the traumatic experience of the divine Real, and that of the Party) to the third one, that of the ANALYST in the psychoanalytic cure? In all three cases, we are dealing with the same impossibility which bears witness to a materialist obstacle: it is not possible for the believer to “discover God in himself,” through self-immersion, by spontaneously realizing its own Self — God must intervene from outside, disturbing our balance; it is not possible for the working class to actualize spontaneously its historical mission — the Party must intervene from outside, shaking it out of its self-indulgent spontaneity; it is not possible for the patient/analyst to analyze himself — in contrast to the Gnostic self-immersion, in psychoanalysis, there is no self-analysis proper, analysis is only possible if a foreign kernel which gives body to the object-cause of the subject’s desire. Why, then, this impossibility? Precisely because neither of the three subjects (believer, proletarian, analyst) is a self-centered agent of self-mediation, but a decentered agent struggling with a foreign kernel. God, Analyst, Party — the three forms of the “subject supposed to know,” of the transferential object, which is why, in all three cases, one hears the claim “God/Analyst/ the Party is always right”; and, as it was clear already to Kierkegaard, the truth of this statement is always its negative — MAN is always wrong. This external element does not stand for objective knowledge, i.e. its externality is strictly INTERNAL: the need for the Party stems from the fact that the working class is never “fully itself.”
...
This formalization is strictly correlative to focusing on the Real of an antagonism: “class struggle” is not the last horizon of meaning, the last signified of all social phenomena, but the formal generative matrix of the different ideological horizons of understanding. That is to say, one should not confuse this properly dialectical notion of Form with the liberal-multiculturalist notion of Form as the neutral framework of the multitude of “narratives” — not only literature, but also politics, religion, science, they are all different narratives, stories we are telling ourselves about ourselves, and the ultimate goal of ethics is to guarantee the neutral space in which this multitude of narratives can peacefully coexist, in which everyone, from ethnic to sexual minorities, will have the right and possibility to tell his story. The properly dialectical notion of Form signals precisely the IMPOSSIBILITY of this liberal notion of Form: Form has nothing to do with “formalism,” with the idea of a neutral Form, independent of its contingent particular content; it rather stands for the traumatic kernel of the Real, for the antagonism, which “colors” the entire field in question. In this precise sense, class struggle is the Form of the Social: every social phenomenon is overdetermined by it, which means that it is not possible to remain neutral towards it.


But in regards to agreeing with most of what some prominent figure espouses whilst disagreeing with some of it, I suppose I don't make too much of a fuss of it depending on how significant that point is.
If it's pivotal to the thinkers overall views, then I might wish to examine further. Have to understand something to see its limitations and then attempt to move beyond them, as if expanding it rather than simply ignoring it. But other things someone thinks seem irrelevant, like if someone was a great thinker but they held some prejudice that I thought was based on crappy points, wouldn't really get me to focused on it necessarily. I probably hold a bias in the emotional impact I experience of finding my thoughts already fleshed out by someone, which is exciting. Which is expected as i'm no where near the frontier of knowledge to be an original thinker and so naturally I play catch up in the history of human thought.
#14814383
Political Interest wrote:@mikema63 @Decky

Thank you for your responses.

Do either of you feel that to have an opinion you must find someone else who has expressed that opinion before you?


I don't believe it as a rule or anything but that is always how it has worked out. As Mikeman said creating an ideology is the work of a lifetime, whatever you believe someone will have already though of it. Rather than a rule that I think it is vital to follow I just see it as a fact of life. You don't need rules about the inevitable, it will happen anyway.

The important thing is that your ideas are true and reflect the real world. I know communism is true as I have met people richer than me and they are worms. They can't possibly add any value to the world and can't possibly be earning anything that they have in their hoard of riches so it must be coming from the working class and if so why shouldn't we get the stuff that we produce?
#14814441
Decky wrote:The important thing is that your ideas are true and reflect the real world. I know communism is true as I have met people richer than me and they are worms. They can't possibly add any value to the world and can't possibly be earning anything that they have in their hoard of riches so it must be coming from the working class and if so why shouldn't we get the stuff that we produce?


Are you sure that you even understand what communism is?

Communist ideology is complicated and makes lots of claims about the world, many of them highly theoretical and subtle. It is very far from being reducible merely to the claim that "rich people are worms". The fact that this is the reason you call yourself a communist suggest to me that you don't have any real understanding of Marxism. Sorry to say it, but your personal dislike of this or that group of people (although I agree that the British upper classes are detestable) is no substitute for a real Marxist analysis.

Nor does it even remotely prove your further claim that those richer than you "can't possibly add any value to the world and can't possibly be earning anything that they have in their hoard of riches". You seem to think that this implies "so it must be coming from the working class" but that is a non-sequitur.

and if so why shouldn't we get the stuff that we produce?


Why does it matter whether or not they are doing anything productive or whether the source of their wealth is justified? Why not just express your naked class-interests and take what you want regardless?
#14814443
You really do know nothing about Marxism, maybe you should stick to talking about fascism? It is telling that you have went for a white supremacist ideology, a self hating oriental perhaps? You should try and do something to boost your self esteem. :lol:

For you information I know that the working class produce 100% of all the wealth in the world because of the labour theory of value. Wealth is produced when workers apply work to the bounty found in the natural world. Work, not sitting behind a desk is behind everything mankind enjoys and the true wealth creators have never owned suits or drank non black tea or eaten muesli. They eat fried breakfasts and drink in Weatherspoons, the worker's canteen, and pass their time with football violence and gambling!

Why does it matter whether or not they are doing anything productive or whether the source of their wealth is justified? Why not just express your naked class-interests and take what you want regardless?


That seems an odd question, why do I need reasons for doing things? :?: Reasons are good otherwise you are just drifting from thing to thing based on whatever your whim is at the time, people like that end up living under bridges drinking from 3L plastic bottles of cheap cider and doing their turds in the open air like animals.
#14814446
It seems inevitable that whatever concept of labor might still exist a long time from now, I doubt there will be things like class distinction and unequal distribution of the fruits of society's productive powers. Communism appeals to me because it resolves certain inherent contradictions within capitalism, and because its features are probably going to be in our future. We are not ready for it, but we are ready for socialism at the very least. I don't see that happening anytime soon with the way leftism in the West has been supplanted by bourgeois movements, but I still think it's the right path, not simply because it resolves serious problems within capitalism but because it's probably what our society will inevitably morph into, over a lot of suffering, over time.

I tend to start out by thinking about our present state: humans have only existed in our present, modern state for about 100,000 to 200,000 years. On the time span of life on earth, and for the development of a species, that's an incredibly short period of time, and yet we have gone from learning how to cultivate crops to using thermonuclear weapons in the space of some 10,000 years. We are still governed by our violent, selfish, and petty impulses that served us well when we were hunter gatherers. We have a long way to go before we develop an innate sense of danger around things that are electrified; on a similar note, we have a long way to go before we grow out of our infancy and the human psyche becomes less governed by our animal impulses and instincts.

So, I generally express my political opinions in opposition to liberal/bourgeois "democracy," bourgeois movements that convince morons they're leftists despite being clearly capitalist, and so on. There's just no chance for socialism for the time being in the US with such a long history of actual leftists or even simply labor organizers being suppressed and murdered by the police and other elements of the state. Reformists and democratic socialists can't win in a system that is rigged to the point of always neutering any socialist movement that thinks they can win votes and somehow prevent a response by the people with money and power who are in charge, control the courts and the police and the military, and don't take kindly to the prospect of losing their money and power.
#14814447
Decky wrote:You really do know nothing about Marxism, maybe you should stick to talking about fascism? It is telling that you have went for a white supremacist ideology, a self hating oriental perhaps? You should try and do something to boost your self esteem. :lol:


What white supremacist beliefs do I hold? I think you are imagining things.

For you information I know that the working class produce 100% of all the wealth in the world because of the labour theory of value. Wealth is produced when workers apply work to the bounty found in the natural world. Work, not sitting behind a desk is behind everything mankind enjoys and the true wealth creators have never owned suits or drank non black tea or eaten muesli. They eat fried breakfasts and drink in Weatherspoons, the worker's canteen, and pass their time with football violence and gambling!


But mathematicians do nothing but sit behind a desk all day. Hell, they may not even do that much. I knew some of them who just lay on a couch all day. Would you say that they also produce no value whatsoever?

That seems an odd question, why do I need reasons for doing things? :?: Reasons are good otherwise you are just drifting from thing to thing based on whatever your whim is at the time, people like that end up living under bridges drinking from 3L plastic bottles of cheap cider and doing their turds in the open air like animals.


That's not the question I asked. You said that the rich produce no wealth and horde it, and that therefore you are justified in taking it. My question is, why does it matter whether or not the rich produce any wealth in the first place? If you want or need their wealth, then why not just skip all this talk of who produces what and take what you want/need?
#14814449
What white supremacist beliefs do I hold? I think you are imagining things.


You are a fascist, a non Aryan fascist is no different to a working class Tory.

But mathematicians do nothing but sit behind a desk all day. Hell, they may not even do that much. I knew some of them who just lay on a couch all day. Would you say that they also produce no value whatsoever?


Of course they don't, we have calculators now, produced by working class people in factories. :lol:

That's not the question I asked. You said that the rich produce no wealth and horde it, and that therefore you are justified in taking it. My question is, why does it matter whether or not the rich produce any wealth in the first place? If you want or need their wealth, then why not just skip all this talk of who produces what and take what you want/need?


As I said earlier it seems an odd question. People have reasons for doing things, that isn't unusual and does not need some kind of special justification. Maybe you are no better than a beast in a field and work only on instinct but the vast majority of us have reasons behind our actions.
#14814450
Decky wrote:You are a fascist, a non Aryan fascist is no different to a working class Tory.


That's a lame dodge. You have not even remotely demonstrated that I hold any white supremacist beliefs.

Of course they don't, we have calculators now, produced by working class people in factories. :lol:


Are you just being facetious, or are you actually this ignorant of what mathematicians actually do?

As I said earlier it seems an odd question. People have reasons for doing things, that isn't unusual and does not need some kind of special justification. Maybe you are no better than a beast in a field and work only on instinct but the vast majority of us have reasons behind our actions.


Yeah, I agree that the question you are talking about is an odd one, especially since its not even remotely the one I asked.

I guess I'll reiterate. Why do you feel the need to (morally!) justify your actions when you are supposedly a Marxist? Please note that Marxists do not believe that anything like an objective morality exists, and that therefore, no ethical justification of anything you do is necessary (or even possible).
#14814452
That's a lame dodge. You have not even remotely demonstrated that I hold any white supremacist beliefs.


You... are... a ... fascist. English not your first language?

Are you just being facetious, or are you actually this ignorant of what mathematicians actually do?


Are you just being facetious or are you actually this ignorant about the fact that all wage labourers are Proletarians? Don't get all pissed off because I respond to your trolling in kind, if you make serious posts maybe someone will make serious posts back.

Yeah, I agree that the question you are talking about is an odd one, especially since its not even remotely the one I asked.


Memory issues? Maybe you should leave the glue sniffing for the weekend?

Why not just express your naked class-interests and take what you want regardless?


^Oh look there it is!

I guess I'll reiterate. Why do you feel the need to (morally!) justify your actions when you are supposedly a Marxist? Please note that Marxists do not believe that anything like an objective morality exists, and that therefore, no ethical justification of anything you do is necessary (or even possible).


That's nice dear, maybe you should read some texts by Marxist thinkers like Lenin before spewing up your ill informed ramblings for the whole world to see? There is a very definite objective morality.

“Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants. In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality? In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters.”


Not believing in your morality is not the same as not believing in any morality.

If you don't like Lenin you could always go with Khrushchev.

Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies, will pay for it with hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers.


Maybe it is time for you to stop pretending you know my own ideology better than I do fascist? The argument between us was settled in 1945. I have nothing left to prove and you have nothing left to fight with.
#14814453
Decky wrote:You... are... a ... fascist. English not your first language?


But Decky. You are a white man. And an English one at that. Not to mention that you take all your ideological calls from a man who wrote a piece called "On The Jewish Question" (Marx, not Hitler). If anything, you're the white supremacist.

Are you just being facetious or are you actually this ignorant about the fact that all wage labourers are Proletarians? Don't get all pissed off because I respond to your trolling in kind, if you make serious posts maybe someone will make serious posts back.


A wage laborer does not necessarily produce any wealth, Decky. You could be getting paid to hurl pebbles into the ocean, but that does not mean you are producing any sort of wealth.

So what if all wage laborers are proletarians? Your argument was that anyone who just sits behind a desk all day produces no wealth. Well, mathematicians sit behind all desk all day. Do you deny that they produce any wealth or don't you? I think that's a very relevant question. You seem to deny that they do, so I think I'm perfectly justifying in saying that you have no idea what it is that they actually do. But I'll leave it to you to correct the record on that one.

EDIT:

Regarding Morality:

Oh c'mon Decky. As a Marxist, surely you know that Lenin was not referring to an objective morality of any kind in that passage. Nor could he as historical materialism precludes any such belief.
#14814454
But Decky. You are a white man. And an English one at that. Not to mention that you take all your ideological calls from a man who wrote a piece called "On The Jewish Question" (Marx, not Hitler). If anything, you're the white supremacist.


:lol:

I am far from a white supremacist. I find the whole concept of white supremacism deeply insulting, whites are not a homogeneous group, I will not be put on the same level as a Frenchman or a Dutchman. I could not imagine anything worse than being lumped in with those degenerates.

Americans have to believe in "white culture" (whatever that is) as they have no culture of their own so have to invent some fictional white culture to belong to. Those of us with an actual culture know that the difference between a Brit and some savage from are across the channel is a vast uncrossable gulf. I don't even believe in whiteness as an actual existing thing let alone support white supremacism. :lol:

A wage laborer does not necessarily produce any wealth, Decky. You could be getting paid to hurl pebbles into the ocean, but that does not mean you are producing any sort of wealth.


I would be very slowly creating more land, like the Dutch have or like the Germans did on the Baltic coast. Creating land is creating a very valuable commodity indeed.

So what if all wage laborers are proletarians? Your argument was that anyone who just sits behind a desk all day produces no wealth. Well, mathematicians sit behind all desk all day. Do you deny that they produce any wealth or don't you? I think that's a very relevant question. You seem to deny that they do, so I think I'm perfectly justifying in saying that you have no idea what it is that they actually do. But I'll leave it to you to correct the record on that one.


Do I need to have any idea what they actually do? :?: I am sure the peasant soldiers fighting for the Bolsheviks during the revolution didn't have a totally clear idea of exactly what the aristocrats did with their days (very little I suspect). It didn't stop them marching the rich scum down to cellars and shooting them/ pushing them down mineshafts and dropping grenades down afterwards/ all the other interesting stuff they got up to did it?
#14814455
Decky wrote::lol:

I am far from a white supremacist. I find the whole concept of white supremacism deeply insulting, whites are not a homogeneous group, I will not be put on the same level as a Frenchman or a Dutchman. I could not imagine anything worse than being lumped in with those degenerates.

Americans have to believe in "white culture" (whatever that is) as they have no culture of their own so have to invent some fictional white culture to belong to. Those of us with an actual culture know that the difference between a Brit and some savage from are across the channel is a vast uncrossable gulf. I don't even believe in whiteness as an actual existing thing let alone support white supremacism. :lol:


Decky. You. Are. A. WHITE. BRITISH. MAN. Ergo, you are a white supremacist. Do you lack reading comprehension? Is English not your first language?

I would be very slowly creating more land, like the Dutch have or like the Germans did on the Baltic coast. Creating land is creating a very valuable commodity indeed.


You would be creating land... by throwing pebbles into the sea? :?:

:lol:

I'm going to let you figure out for yourself why this is pants-on-head-retarded, as I shouldn't have to explain this.

Do I need to have any idea what they actually do? :?: I am sure the peasant soldiers fighting for the Bolsheviks during the revolution didn't have a totally clear idea of exactly what the aristocrats did with their days (very little I suspect). It didn't stop them marching the rich scum down to cellars and shooting them/ pushing them down mineshafts and dropping grenades down afterwards/ all the other interesting stuff they got up to did it?


So you don't even have the slightest clue what mathematicians do, and yet you feel justified in making the claim that they do not produce any wealth?
#14814456
Finally, what took you so long? Although to be fair I don't fully trust anyone who owns a suit so their job is just the icing on the cake really.
#14814462
Decky, you can thank mathematicians for being able to use the Internet to write your ideological crap on PoFo, for breaking enigma so you could keep on mentioning how the UK won the war on PoFo and for creating the calculator that working class people manufactor. So does any of these things have any value to you?

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]