[Victoribus Spolia]

She meant that I was charismatic and zealous, but in a dangerous and potentially malevolent sorta way.

She was totally exaggerating........

*tucks away plans for his compound and training camp: "New Zion."*

[Potemkin]

She meant that I was charismatic and zealous, but in a dangerous and potentially malevolent sorta way.

She was totally exaggerating........

*tucks away plans for his compound and training camp: "New Zion."*

Hey, at least she didn't tell you you reminded her of Jim Jones.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Hey, at least she didn't tell you you reminded her of Jim Jones.

She knows I was never big on Koolaid.

[annatar1914]

By supporting cultural marxists, the old left is supporting bourgeois policies that oppress the working class and hinder the revolutionary struggle. Not just on gun control, but in identity politics that divide the working class and push them into the arms of the reactionaries.

That why it doesn't make sense to take the stance of Habermas on this Pote.

I am accusing you of acting like @B0ycey in this regards.

@Victoribus Spolia ,@Potemkin ,

I felt like I have to make a statement regarding this, maybe even put off my computer/social media sabbatical off until this weekend, but here it goes;

I think it's possible to remain true to one's position on the Left (the true Left) without giving ''aid and comfort'' to the reactionaries/fascists/bourgeoisie, that it is safe to acknowledge some common fund of spiritual and intellectual capital from previous thinkers and men of action in the past while not creating confusion in the minds of the masses. There is no need to make an absolute clean break with the past, on the part of the Communists, in order to demolish the Bourgeoisie system of things (Capitalism, which is actually the really unique and clear break with the past in absolute practical terms...).

I refer specifically to the experience of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War, when without prejudice to their ideals Russian Nationalists, Orthodox Christians, and Soviet Communists united as one to fight the Fascist evil. One then could speak of the struggles of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky, and Joseph Stalin, all realized as the same struggle extended through history.

The Old Left, the true and genuine Left for all it's mistakes and even crimes, false starts and failures, had already made basically the correct decision long ago now. If anything, it did not go far enough. There is a place for the correct understanding of nationalism within Communist thought, and the same goes likewise for religion too.

Because it's not a question of ''conservative'' or ''reactionary'' thought involved, but simply right or wrong, when it comes to identity politics, cultural ''marxism'', gun control, and so forth.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I felt like I have to make a statement regarding this, maybe even put off my computer/social media sabbatical off until this weekend, but here it goes;

I think it's possible to remain true to one's position on the Left (the true Left) without giving ''aid and comfort'' to the reactionaries/fascists/bourgeoisie, that it is safe to acknowledge some common fund of spiritual and intellectual capital from previous thinkers and men of action in the past while not creating confusion in the minds of the masses. There is no need to make an absolute clean break with the past, on the part of the Communists, in order to demolish the Bourgeoisie system of things (Capitalism, which is actually the really unique and clear break with the past in absolute practical terms...).

I refer specifically to the experience of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War, when without prejudice to their ideals Russian Nationalists, Orthodox Christians, and Soviet Communists united as one to fight the Fascist evil. One then could speak of the struggles of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky, and Joseph Stalin, all realized as the same struggle extended through history.

The Old Left, the true and genuine Left for all it's mistakes and even crimes, false starts and failures, had already made basically the correct decision long ago now. If anything, it did not go far enough. There is a place for the correct understanding of nationalism within Communist thought, and the same goes likewise for religion too.

Because it's not a question of ''conservative'' or ''reactionary'' thought involved, but simply right or wrong, when it comes to identity politics, cultural ''marxism'', gun control, and so forth.

Quit beating around the bush and just tell Pote that you agree with me that it would be in the best interests of the old left to disavow the cultural marxists, especially if they ever hope to win back the trust of the proletariat, because as it stands, the working class views all marxists as cultural marxists and the enemies of everything they hold dear.

[Drlee]

I was going to stay out of this one but I bothered to read through it so why not.

As a conservative I am for strong gun control. People masquerading as conservatives maintain that they need guns to constrain the government. First of all they are mostly fascists and do not subscribe to the ideas of the founders. I do not want them in charge by any means. (You know who you are Tump'ets.) Further, I believe that the government must remain strong to prevent any takeover.

As a former real soldier I shudder at the notion of the people who I am sworn to protect taking up arms against their own children. Make no mistake. What these right wing losers are talking about is this: They are prepared to take up arms against the soldiers of their country and their fellow countrymen over a political disagreement.

But you say they would never do that. Well. Look at this thread. Someone invented a hard-left in the US out of whole cloth. There is no hard left in this country. None of any size to give a single thought to not to mention fear.

Of those few real far left wingers who even bother to think about it....they have far more to fear from the armed right wing civilians than they ever will from the established government. They would certainly want a disarmed populace because they can treat with the government.

Further. The smart left in America knows that they will eventually prevail. Capitalism cannot survive the end of work. It certainly will have to become more socialist in nature as fewer and fewer people are needed in the workplace.

Once does not a trend make but let's compare two things. Look at the so-called Tea Party Patriots who were all the rage a few years ago. Where are they now? Holding out with the Trumpists because they are by and large not really smart enough to see that he is their worst nightmare. But their power as a group is essentially gone. This mid-term election sees a rejection of Trump's person but not so much his agenda. Toss the medical insurance lobby and the republicans could have held the house this time in all likelihood. Toss Trump and they will win again next time.

At the end of the day, guns are not a factor in US politics and probably never will be. Thedemocrats are just as armed as the republicans so a civil war is too bloody to imagine at this point. Political unrest in the US on both sides is about the sharing of what money is out there. Abortion, guns, gay rights, religion, all of that stuff are just things used to draw in the one-issue voters. They add a few low hanging fruit to the search for voters but the two parties exist for and at the behest of big money and the people.

Where does the far-left come in? Arm all of those in the US who are truly far left and they would be little more than an annoyance. Easily put down. And in the current political climate on both sides brutally would be OK. So smart far-left folks don't care about guns at all. They know that if they take the long view they are inevitably going to win.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I was going to stay out of this one but I bothered to read through it so why not.

Have you though?

The question is whether or not orthodox marxism implies a heavily armed working class.

It clearly does.

I don't see much in your post that has contributed to this at all other than telling us why you are an anti-gun conservative, which is as irrelevant to the OP as it is painfully predictable coming from you; likewise, you seem to also spend you time in this post telling us how mass gun-ownership leads to greater public lethality (and therefore gun deaths), which is similarly irrelevant and cliche to the point of being maddening.

The only thing in your post of any relevance to the OP (and therefore having any value to the conversation) is the speculation that the true left, in spite of being ideologically pro-gun, remains silent because they "know" that the general mass of working class peoples would squash their attempt at a revolution; though, that seems to misunderstand what the Marxists mean by a liberated proletariat during the last stage of capitalism.

The Marxists see the revolution happening as a mass armed act of defense, after a stage of preceding mass unification and organization on the part of the working class. The guns exist for the revolution to fight in its protection of what it regards as rightfully theirs against the owner-class controlled government; namely, the means of production.

Any gun control, under this paradigm, could only ever be an aid to the owner-class and a hindrance to the revolution of the working class, given that the Bougie-controlled police and military are armed and always will be.

So..... even the point you made that had any value, still seems to indicate that you misunderstand orthodox marxism and this thread, in spite of your "allegedly" reading through it, as these points were constantly repeated by me and the orthodox marxists of the forum nearly Ad Nauseam.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

On a seperate note,

I fail to understand how you are conservative, you say this all the time, but its starting to sound disingenuous and I actually posted remarks about the meaning of conservatism addressing a debate that you HongWu and Potemkin were having at one time, to which I never got an answer. (I will find it and link it upon request if you are interested).

In my opinion, you seem to be some variant of a constitutionalist that takes a more moderate interpretation of that document; Somewhere between a classical liberal and a centrist neo-liberal, but in no way conservative except by some small hints of libertarianism on certain issues and with some vague elements of a Christian ethos likely stemming from the liberal Christian background you have (which does not sound very orthodox to me, based on the things you have said about your religion on the forum anyway).

I guess I don't understand why you continue to use that the term "conservative" to describe yourself.

I know why Ancaps are conservatives; because of their insistence on natural rights and the natural order, which implies a radically hierarchical traditionalism; but I see no semblance of that in your vision. None whatsoever.

Likewise, in spite of my radical disagreement, I also understand why Fascists call themselves conservative, because of their similar belief in a hierarchical traditionalism (albeit enforced artificially by a authoritarian state).

I also understand the stupid "American" definition of conservatism; wherein "classical liberalism" and "minarchism" is considered conservative by some weird stretch of the imagination (only my own Ancaps definitions could even begin to give credence to such an idea, in all truth).

BUT, none of these things really describes you. You are not a libertarian-type (limited gov as an end in-itself), nor do you seem interested in hierarchical traditionalism; whether naturally occurring (ancaps), or state-enforced (fascists); Christian, or otherwise.

So....

For the love of all that is good and holy, why the fuck do you keep calling yourself a conservative?



Is it because you like having an (R) beside your name to look avant-garde around your Democrat colleagues at DC cocktail parties? A sorta McCain-esque narcissism where you can show that not all conservatives are actually conservative and cross the aisle? Do you call yourself Maverick too per chance?

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide evidence where I stated this.

Thanks.

Otherwise.....Strawman Fallacy.



Please provide evidence from this thread where I generalized from my own experiences to reach such a conclusion.

Thanks.

Otherwise.....Fallacy of Presumption.

The New Left (SJWS) or Cultural-Marxists as @Potemkin referred to them, are not ONLY in the United States. They definitely exist in the UK and in Continental Europe as well.

Feel free question him on his use of the term if you'd like.

I am satisfied with the conclusion of this thread and see no reason drag it on further. I'll leave it to the marxists to debate their differences, which is all I ever intended to demonstrate. The New Left, the cultural-marxists, are not orthodox marxists. This has been proven much to my satisfaction.

Mission Completed.

I am now moving on to bigger and better things, so if you don't have anything substantive to add, i'll be going.

This is why posting the same thing in different threads is frowned upon.

I just replied to this claim in the SJW thread.

For this thread, I will simply repeat my points:

While Marxists and conservatives may be both described as pro-gun, it is incorrect to treat the two positions as being the same. It would be like saying stingrays and giraffes are the same animal because both are vertebrates.

Unless conservatives wish to dismantle the US army and hand out WMDs to indigenous communities and small scale socialist communities, then no, they are not the same position.

[Sivad]

it would be in the best interests of the old left to disavow the cultural marxists

Can't do that, I need those idiots. Until someone invents a cure for idiocy the best we can hope for is an idiot stalemate.

[Victoribus Spolia]

While Marxists and conservatives may be both described as pro-gun, it is incorrect to treat the two positions as being the same.

Well since I didn't do that.

Conversation done.

Unless conservatives wish to dismantle the US army and hand out WMDs to indigenous communities and small scale socialist communities, then no, they are not the same position.

I want to dismantle the US Army and spread their weaponry to everyone.

Likewise, this is simplistic and broad, the op was specific, but you already answered my specific questions satisfactorily so I don't see the need to argue around the edges all over again.

This matter has been settled as far as I am concerned.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we agree that ancaps, Marxists, and conservatives all have very different ideas about allowing the people to have weapons.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So we agree that ancaps, Marxists, and conservatives all have very different ideas about allowing the people to have weapons.

I never denied this, I only pointed out that orthodox marxism wants the working class armed inasmuch as possible right NOW, which was confirmed by other orthodox marxists.

On this point alone there is some superficial agreement with ancaps and conservatives of which whenever I spoke of it I qualified such appropriately.

Full-Stop.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving (even if you're a canuck).

I'll see you next week sometime. I'll be gone for like a week.

see ya then.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, your claim about similarities was superficial.

[B0ycey]

Shock VS doesn't know what a Conservative is. Can't someone who is a nationalist, supports private ownership and free enterprise also have liberal values in equality? I know this is uncommon but don't embarrass yourself when this happens occasionally and shout out "You're not a conservative because you aren't like me" like this means anything outside of PoFo. And FYI, Drlee is pro gun. So another rung on the ladder for you VS. So stop bitching. He is on your side.

[Drlee]

The question is whether or not orthodox marxism implies a heavily armed working class.

No its not. Read the title of this thread. Then read your original post. I note that you referred to previous armed revolts but in my post I rejected the need for that here.

I don't see much in your post that has contributed to this at all other than telling us why you are an anti-gun conservative,which is as irrelevant to the OP as it is painfully predictable coming from you;

Wake up VS. Read my post again. I am not anti-gun. I am a gun owner permitted to carry a concealed weapon. You appear to believe that a person who strongly believes in the people's right to keep and bear arms must reject any control of them. And I did not address this in my post at all by the way.


l

ikewise, you seem to also spend you time in this post telling us how mass gun-ownership leads to greater public lethality (and therefore gun deaths), which is similarly irrelevant and cliche to the point of being maddening.

I did no such thing. Post where I said that. I did not discuss the number of guns and public safety at all. What is wrong with you today?

The only thing in your post of any relevance to the OP (and therefore having any value to the conversation) is the speculation that the true left, in spite of being ideologically pro-gun, remains silent because they "know" that the general mass of working class peoples would squash their attempt at a revolution; though, that seems to misunderstand what the Marxists mean by a liberated proletariat during the last stage of capitalism.

You really need to read my post again.

You also need to bear in mind that I did not address some theoretical group of Marxist purists. I clearly addressed America's vanishingly small far left movement.

The Marxists see the revolution happening as a mass armed act of defense, after a stage of preceding mass unification and organization on the part of the working class. The guns exist for the revolution to fight in its protection of what it regards as rightfully theirs against the owner-class controlled government; namely, the means of production.

A smart American Marxist may have this wet dream but a practical one would reject it.

Any gun control, under this paradigm, could only ever be an aid to the owner-class and a hindrance to the revolution of the working class, given that the Bougie-controlled police and military are armed and always will be.

Not in a nominal democracy. There are more ways to skin a cat.....

So..... even the point you made that had any value, still seems to indicate that you misunderstand orthodox marxism and this thread, in spite of your "allegedly" reading through it, as these points were constantly repeated by me and the orthodox marxists of the forum nearly Ad Nauseam.

Yes. And if orthodox Marxism had fuck all to do with America's far left I would have posted about it.

In my opinion, you seem to be some variant of a constitutionalist that takes a more moderate interpretation of that document; Somewhere between a classical liberal and a centrist neo-liberal, but in no way conservative except by some small hints of libertarianism on certain issues and with some vague elements of a Christian ethos likely stemming from the liberal Christian background you have (which does not sound very orthodox to me, based on the things you have said about your religion on the forum anyway).

Liberal, Liberal, Liberal. You sound like Rush Limbaugh.

Interesting you consider people you identify as "constitutionalist" as non-conservative. Odd. What other kind of interpretation of our constitution could you imagine other than moderate. It was moderate in the beginning and has inexorably maintained a moderate position since the beginning.

You say I have a "liberal Christian background. Really? What other kind is there. Risking the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' Jesus was not exactly an arch conservative. He was a social and fiscal liberal in every sense of the word. It is not the "liberals" who have to justify acting like a Christian, it is the conservatives who have to temper their conservatism as informed by the Christianity. And frankly when I look at today's arch conservatives I find little that Jesus would have liked about them despite their Bible thumping and speaking in tongues.

Th

I guess I don't understand why you continue to use that the term "conservative" to describe yourself.

I have been through this time out of mind. Again. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have redefined American conservatism. I do not agree with them nor do I surrender to them the rights to the label.

I know why Ancaps are conservatives; because of their insistence on natural rights and the natural order, which implies a radically hierarchical traditionalism; but I see no semblance of that in your vision. None whatsoever.

On the contrary. You see lots of that in my posts.

BUT, none of these things really describes you.

Correct.

I am a small government, balanced budget, social libertarian. That is what the republican party used to be. It is none of those things now. I am anti-Russia, strong military, get the government out of our bedrooms and capitalist. T.

For the love of all that is good and holy, why the fuck do you keep calling yourself a conservative?

Because that is what a Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan brand of conservative is. Try reading a little more history and a little less......

Is it because you like having an (R) beside your name to look avant-garde around your Democrat colleagues at DC cocktail parties? A sorta McCain-esque narcissism where you can show that not all conservatives are actually conservative and cross the aisle? Do you call yourself Maverick too per chance?

No. The beard and round glasses speak for themselves.

There is no "aisle" in reality. Both parties are currently sold out to special interests to the extent that they are both moderate socially and fiscally reckless.

I am not prepared to give up on my republican party. I have lived long enough to see it go from Tailgunner Joe McCarthy to environmentalist left-moderate internationalist (Nixon) to closet liberal (Reagan) two moderates (Bush 1 & 2) and finally to Fascist Trump. Why would you think that I would not imagine change in the party? It has changed even more than the Democrats, who, oh by the way, I remember as the party of George Wallace and the Dixiecrats.

If you want to know my politics then read

Goldwater:

"You do not have to be straight to be in the Army, you have to shoot straight".

Buckley:

Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.

and you may want to personally consider this one:

In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Or maybe this guy:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I will leave it to you to decide whether He is liberal or conservative.

[Victoribus Spolia]

What is wrong with you today?

Apparently I got a dingle-berry twisted in a knot.

Anyway....I came out of my vacation hiatus after reading your post and wanted to simply say that I apologize for being an ass and treating you as I did in my post.

I forget sometimes how long you have been around and how much change you have seen in the parties and instead treat you like some middle-aged flake, instead of with the respect you have earned.

Forgive me. I am sorry.

That being said.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving and I look forward to your comments on my thread on the relationship between Anarcho-Capitalism and Feudalism that I intend to post shortly after my return.

God bless and don't drink too much over your holiday ol' fella.

[Pants-of-dog]

And a happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, @Victoribus Spolia .

[annatar1914]

Quit beating around the bush and just tell Pote that you agree with me that it would be in the best interests of the old left to disavow the cultural marxists, especially if they ever hope to win back the trust of the proletariat, because as it stands, the working class views all marxists as cultural marxists and the enemies of everything they hold dear.

@Victoribus Spolia ;

''Beating around the bush''? Lol, I think pretty much everybody on this forum knows that I myself despise ''Cultural Marxism'' and that to my mind it's just the Faux-Left that has been trying to pass itself off as Left for decades now.

It's real simple; you're a Leftist if you are Anti-Capitalist. If your main thrust politically is anything else but replacing Capitalism with Socialism, you are not a Leftist. Furthermore, you are not a real Marxist if you see Marxism as an analytical tool and are a reformist instead of a revolutionist. Indeed, I go further and say that you are not a Marxist unless you are a Leninist, someone who believes in a revolutionary vanguard that exists to raise the consciousness of the proletariat and bring about the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. And lastly, you are not a Marxist-Leninist unless you are in line with the general principles of Leninism as brought about by Joseph Stalin, primarily ''Socialism in One Country''. Why? Because it is fucking retarded to try worldwide revolution without being strong and building up Socialism in one country or region first, so that counter-revolution does not overcome revolution in it's cradle. Dialectical Materialism itself indicates this.

Now, I'm not necessarily any of these things, but logically it's the only sequence that makes any practical real world sense

[Drlee]

Thank you for your kind words VS. Have a great Thanksgiving. I will raise a glass of Bordeaux to you tomorrow.

[ingliz]

orthodox marxism wants...

"Disarmament is the ideal of socialism... Dictatorship is state power based directly on violence."

Lenin