DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Reading Recommendations for a Fellow Anarchist

481 posts / 0 new
Last post
omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 21 2012 18:52
ComradeAppleton wrote:
omen wrote:
Answer me a straight question, ComradeAppleton, and I'll give you a biscuit: How is it that in a communist society, everybody is going to take a vote to steal your cake and gang rape you while you watch TV (your examples), but in an individualist society, where anyone can do what they want, for some reason nobody wants to do any of those things to you?

This is very simple really. People are mostly decent[...]

In that case why do you assume that they will vote to do indecent things!?

ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...] democracy is all about not letting people make their own decisions, but instead making them do what the majority wants them to do.

Oi, cheeky! That isn't what democracy is about at all! You're just making it all up as you go along!

Democracy is about allowing people to make their own decisions about matters that effect them as a group. For example, people might vote to use a lake as a reservoir and have the water treated and pumped into their homes -- a task that might require miles of piping, and hundreds of people to build. In Appletonland I take it you prefer to drink typhoid out of a well?

Democracy is not about individual decisions. If you want to sit naked in front of your TV all day long, eating Doritos out of your navel and drinking Vimto out of a Wellington boot, no one is going to vote to make you get off your fat arse and work an eighteen hour day down the shitmines. No one is going to take any of your stuff: cake, pants, house, ukulele, etc, unless you happen to own a large factory fitted out with industrial machinery. Do you?

I am talking here about a democratic communist society, and not what we have now, which is shit.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
That is the very definition of tyranny - taking away a person's will and replacing it with someone else's will.

That is because you defined it wrong! You might as well have defined democracy as a small, furry, insectivorous, mammal, then complained that democracy kept stealing all your cheese!

ComradeAppleton wrote:
What I fear from democracy is not rape,[...]

Well that was your own example, so you've only got yourself to blame for that one!

ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...] but material oppression [...]

For the umpteenth time in this thread: No one in a libertarian communist society wants to steal your stuff, unless you own a huge fuck'n factory! Do you own a huge fuck'n factory!?

ComradeAppleton wrote:
We are living in a world where [...]

You know very well when people are using the word "democracy" here they mean "libertarian communism" which is not the world we are living in. No one here supports the shit form of "democracy" that we have today.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...] theft is common and even supported by most people (through taxes)

No it isn't! You want to get a good accountant. Try tweeting Jimmy Carr.

Also, if you think people voting for modest taxes and cake theft is the worst form of tyranny, you want to crack open a history book. There was this one German bloke, and you wouldn't believe the stuff he got up to!

Anyway, here's your biscuit:

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 21 2012 19:43
laborbund wrote:

Also, Omen clearly wins the thread.

I suspect ComradeAppleton has other ideas...

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 21 2012 20:00

The following clip ("It's about money, Dick!") is from the 2004 film "The Assassination of Richard Nixon":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emrHIpzjANI&playnext=1&list=PL967FA3EFA10...

(Now re-imagine Sean Penn as your "average Libcom participant" and Richard Nixon as "ComradeAppleton")

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 21 2012 20:21

You guys are probably not going to believe it, but ComradeAppleton is 1 down click away from a landmark record of 100 downs for the entire thread. It's an achievement! At least he won something, right? Libcom should send him a medal or something, for most anti-intellectualism and un-sophistication expressed on a forum by any participant.

Melancholy of Resistance's picture
Melancholy of R...
Offline
Joined: 2-11-11
Sep 21 2012 20:44

Answer to eternal question of "what do war and Africa have in common?"

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 21 2012 20:59
omen wrote:
That is because you defined it wrong! You might as well have defined democracy as a small, furry, insectivorous, mammal, then complained that democracy kept stealing all your cheese!

Remember, he rejects "history" and "reality". So he has no clue as to what the concept means. He takes everything for granted.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 21 2012 22:18
radicalgraffiti wrote:
So according to you:

1. Democracy is more tyrannical than absolute monarchy or fascist dictatorship.

2. "Real" anarchists don't consider the effect their actions have on others, they just do whatever they fuck they feel like.

3. All anarchists are men.

1. No, they are identical because they are forms of absolute rule and statism. Unless it's voluntary in which case democracy is just as legitimate as monarchy - if someone wants to be ruled by the majority, let him/her be ruled by the majority. But if someone wants to be ruled by a particular individual, it is none of my concern as long as they don't try to coerce me into it. To each his own.
2. Real anarchists consider the effect their actions have on others, they are not sociopaths. This is because the way I affect others creates an effect on me as well (some people call this phenomenon "having a conscience"). But anarchists refuse to be bogged down by institutions which 'society' (i.e. other people who want to exploit them) thrusts upon them. This is why there are no such things as 'anarchist order' or, 'anarchist system', 'anarchist government', 'anarchist institution', etc. I'm an anarchist precisely because I am against 'the system' whatever that system may be. I don't want to have a 'system'.
3. You are probably referring to the way in which I use the word 'he' - which is natural for me because I am a man myself. I could, however, use 'she' just as well and the meaning of my language would be unchanged. Unfortunately in English there are no gender-neutral pronouns that can be used to describe/represent people.

Reginald J. Tro...
Offline
Joined: 23-05-12
Sep 21 2012 22:47
ComradeAppleton wrote:
2. Real anarchists consider the effect their actions have on others, they are not sociopaths.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
That's like saying that if I see someone being beaten up in the street and I don't defend that person, I am inevitably "assisting" the people who are beating him up. This is ridiculous beyond words.

Say what?

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 21 2012 23:49

ComradeAppleton,

You have yet to give us a proper example of a situation in which this "majoritarian" democracy (for example, a cake factory self-managed by worker's councils) is tyrannical or oppressive. Please demonstrate precisely how this "majority" will enslave the "minority" you speak of. Please do so without resorting to "orgies" or whatever ridiculous kind of crap you pull out of your head. I think we would all like to see a genuine example.

Also, I would note that your use of terms like "majority" and "minority" shows how little you understand the essence of what democracy is supposed to be about. That whole argument of "the tyranny of the majority" is consistently put forth by right-wing propagandists, particularly the pseudo-individualists and right-libertarians, whose sole purpose is to just dismiss all organizations (whether or not their "democratic"). But most of those proponents are incapable of expressing why they oppose democracy as we understand it, or why the theory of "the tyranny of the majority" is correct in the first place. Why? Because that theory was invented by bourgeois intellectuals at a time when society was class-divided (as it still is). It is grounded in a particular class bias. Is it no wonder why anyone whose a member of the ruling class, or have some privileges associated with the current economic order, would oppose democracy? They, the members of the ruling class, have always feared "the tyranny of the majority", and will continue to do so. Democracy always comes into conflict with capitalism, and for perfectly understandable reasons. The argument of "the tyranny of the majority" is a bit old-fashioned. But you never update your thinking, as we can all see. You repeat the same old mantra like those petty pseudo-individualists who repeat it generations after generations.

I think we can all see why they would continue to do so. Their narrow-minded, '2+2=4'- type logic makes them incapable of grasping complexities. Therefore, they (including yourself) resort to simplistic equations. The simplistic equation you put forth goes like this: democracy=majority rule; majority rule=good for majority, bad (or slavery, in your case) for minority.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 22 2012 08:03
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
The argument of "the tyranny of the majority" is a bit old-fashioned.

Heh. A couple of years ago I was listening to a BBC radio discussion about the government austerity measures. The two guests were a union leader, and some numpty from a free market think tank. Said numpty gave the usual argument in favour of government enforced austerity, despite its unpopularity, as being necessary because of the previous Labour government's spendthrift ways, blowing taxpayers' money on crazy social projects like schools and healthcare and poor people, etc. The union bloke suggested that the bulk of the deficit was actually caused by bailing out the banks after they screwed up the economy, and that a tax on bankers' bonuses might help to pay some of it, and moreover, that such a policy would prove popular with voters.

This was too much for the numpty, who went off on a near hysterical rant, and repeatedly bandied about the phrase, and I shit you not, "the tyranny of the majority."

So numpty logic seems to be, minority takes from relatively poor majority for something they didn't do and without their approval = good; majority takes a relatively small amount of money from a very rich minority, to pay for something that was all their fault = worse than Hitler!

I suppose I found it somewhat refreshing to hear someone from the ruling class basically say "fuck democracy", after nearly a decade of War On Turrur propaganda along the lines of "freedom and democracy are better than Jebus."

Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Their narrow-minded, '2+2=4'- type logic makes them incapable of grasping complexities.

No, you've got it all wrong! It's actually "2+2=5" because you forgot that the second 2 is defined as a 3. Honestly, it's simple mathematics...

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 22 2012 09:26
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Their narrow-minded, '2+2=4'- type logic makes them incapable of grasping complexities.

Yeah, our Communist method allows us to see that '2+2' can also '= 11', for example.

Because we know there is always a theoretical structure behind what seems obvious, we can soon work out that, if base 3 is being used, then '2+2=11'.

Of course, given the unspoken assumption that base 10 is being used, then we can agree that '2+2=4'.

But we have the advantage over those who take appearances and unspoken ideas as the basis of their method, including in social analysis.

As ComradeAppleton makes clear to us, that is the conservative method.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 22 2012 11:08
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
You have yet to give us a proper example of a situation in which this "majoritarian" democracy (for example, a cake factory self-managed by worker's councils) is tyrannical or oppressive. Please demonstrate precisely how this "majority" will enslave the "minority" you speak of. Please do so without resorting to "orgies" or whatever ridiculous kind of crap you pull out of your head. I think we would all like to see a genuine example.

Of course once again you completely misconstrued my position. I believe all enterprises which are currently ran by the government or ran with government privilege (which encompasses pretty much every industrial-size production in the UK and USA today) should immediately pass into direct worker control. The so-called owners of these businesses have been using government privilege to run their business and exploit everyone, both producers and consumers of 'their' products. Government enterprises fit this description even more so because they are entirely funded by stolen resources.
How would these cooperatives or worker-owned businesses and factories run? That's up to the workers. I have nothing against direct democracy under those circumstances. It might not work well with all industries, but that's for the workers to decide, not for me to speculate about. Their factory is their property.
By the way, this is exactly what Proudhon meant when he said that 'property is theft'.

But what I have been condemning is a larger conception of democracy. For example (because you wanted an example), workers of one factory have no right to vote on issues which would affect workers in another factory. I can't vote to close my competitor's business down. I can't vote to take someone's property away from them. Everyone has a right to own their own means of production and to distribute the product however they wish to do so. I cannot change this through voting. Democracy can only work in areas which are owned in common and even then only with the prior consent of every person involved (otherwise some people might be forced into a system which they do not want to live under).

Comparing me with rotten 'political economists' (as omen has done) who always side with the banksters and exploiters is complete rubbish. I do not side with these people and I do not consider them anything but a front for the frauds who they represent. I have no sympathy for these people and I do not care if they are expropriated - they did not earn their property by work and production, but by manipulation and exploitation.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 22 2012 11:35
ComradeAppleton wrote:
Of course once again you completely misconstrued my position.

Yeah, because you've never done that...

ComradeAppleton wrote:
But what I have been condemning is a larger conception of democracy.

I think you'll find this is a libertarian communist forum, populated by libertarian communists, who have a very different view of democracy to mainstream views and your own twisted version. What you've spent the last 283 posts doing is condemning libertarian communism by comparing it to everything unfavourable right up to and including fascism.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
Democracy can only work in areas which are owned in common and even then only with the prior consent of every person involved [...]

That's what we've been fuck'n saying to you all along! And then you turn round and accuse us of wanting to enslave you and steal your fuck'n cakes!

ComradeAppleton wrote:
Comparing me with rotten 'political economists' (as omen has done) who always side with the banksters and exploiters is complete rubbish.

Ooo you fibber! I didn't and and I didn't even mention you in my last post! Cuh! Individualists! Always make everything about themselves!

ComradeAppleton wrote:
I can't vote to take someone's property away from them

So, anyway, I fear we may be going in circles again:

laborbund's picture
laborbund
Offline
Joined: 1-03-10
Sep 22 2012 16:11

Its cool that Appleton is in to Proudhon now. Maybe in a few years he'll discover Bakunin and Marx. By the time he is fifty perhaps he'll be into Rudolf Rocker or something.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 22 2012 20:31

ComradeAppleton,

I think it's the complete opposite. You misconstrued our position, and continued to attack us with claims grounded on false assumptions. I'm not going to address every detail in your last post. I disagree with most of what you wrote in your first paragraph. You really need to work on your understanding of contemporary capitalism.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
By the way, this is exactly what Proudhon meant when he said that 'property is theft'.

As to Proudhon, you seem to be getting somewhere here, and I applaud that. First, his argument, ‘property is theft’, isn’t so different from the one given by a fellow named Marx. I’m not sure if you’re acquainted with him. His (Proudhon’s) argument is consistently put forth by most socialists that have followed him in the succeeding generations. In fact, it’s an argument most of us here at Libcom has been putting forth; and certainly in this thread against you. So I have no idea why you keep telling us about Proudhon and his ‘property is theft’ argument as if we didn’t have such knowledge already. Secondly, Proudhon too would disagree with most of what wrote in the first paragraph. I’m not going to explain why. As I said before, I don’t what to go into every detail. I suggest you read some more Proudhon.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
But what I have been condemning is a larger conception of democracy. For example (because you wanted an example), workers of one factory have no right to vote on issues which would affect workers in another factory. I can't vote to close my competitor's business down. I can't vote to take someone's property away from them. Everyone has a right to own their own means of production and to distribute the product however they wish to do so. I cannot change this through voting. Democracy can only work in areas which are owned in common and even then only with the prior consent of every person involved (otherwise some people might be forced into a system which they do not want to live under).

I think our disagreement here lies in the field of macroeconomics. At the microeconomic level (e.g., an individual workplace), you are willing to support democracy; from what I can guess from your quote above. So, I guess you would be willing to support a kind of ‘market socialism’ or a ‘mutualism’ expressed in Proudhon’s terms. But your personal approach to politics wouldn’t suggest that. You express yourself in a purely pseudo-individualist language that throws people off. Why wouldn’t we be confused as to what you want? You can’t just go up to somebody, and expect them to be talking in your language.

As to what we (at least, I) want is full democracy at the macroeconomic level. That means coordination between the workplaces of different industries. One can write a book on this, but I want to keep this short. Libertarian socialists feel that ‘markets’ and ‘competition’ isn’t an adequate way of regulating the affairs between productive enterprises and of distributing goods and services. Perhaps, it could be a potential disaster.

Maybe someone else here can further elaborate on our preference for democracy at the macroeconomic level.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 22 2012 21:18

Just to add a little more humor, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfloLPtaPrc) takes us deeper into the mind of sir ComradeAppleton, a child who never grows up.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 23 2012 15:49

Please don't insinuate that I haven't read enough Proudhon or Marx as I really have. I do not idolize Proudhon, but I do think he was years ahead of Marx with any of his analysis and he was actually honest enough to propose anarchist solutions, unlike the great champion of social democracy. All I see Marx as is a fool, perhaps one who was over-religious in his youth and carried on that zeal into his productive years (if you can call any of his contributions at all productive).
And it is also clear that Proudhon did not endorse any communist solutions - only individualist and voluntary ones. As such what you call workplace democracy is perfectly fine with me as well, I never challenged that. My challenge was and is against what you call "macroeconomic democracy". Such a system would be oppressive of the individual because no one would be able to escape it (kind of like what we have with statism/capitalism today). Democracy at a level where people can vote over issues which concern the property of other people is oppressive because individuals in such a system can't be autonomous. Any anarchist has to concede that any individual has to have the option of opting out of any project or decision. For example, a democratically run factory is perfectly fine and good, but if I do not like working there I should be able to leave and start my own way of life elsewhere. I could have a business of my own and others could join me in that enterprise as well. Then I would be able to dispose of the product of my labour myself. This is a necessary safeguard against democracy becoming oppressive. So democracy on the macroeconomic level would not work for me, it would create a scenario where a 'system' is put into place from which I can't escape and which dictates to me what I can and cannot do with my personal possessions and labour.

I am also very worried about the importance you place on economics when looking at relations between people (you're almost as bad as right-libertarians in this regard). The fact is that economics is based on axioms which are posed as objective descriptions of reality. For the individualist this is an impossibility. It is self-evident that for me, as an individual, all evaluations (moral, economic, social, aesthetic) are subjective evaluations. This is why I would not endorse any 'system', whether it is communism, socialism, capitalism, mutualism, or whatever else you can think of. I can only deal with my own relations and the relations of other people have little value to me.
Therefore as much as you recommend I read Marx, I would recommend you become acquainted with Stirner and Nietzsche instead of always relegating the views of egoists and individualists to the level of sociopaths and materialists.

Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Just to add a little more humour, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfloLPtaPrc) takes us deeper into the mind of sir ComradeAppleton, a child who never grows up.

It's interesting that you would look at the individualist as a child who never grows up. Again, from the individualist perspective you are the idealist youth - never quite grown to reach manhood. In Nietzsche's view you would be the creature of spirit who forgot the earth... and did the Saint not tell Zarathustra that he has become a child again?

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Sep 23 2012 16:11
ComradeAppleton wrote:
I am also very worried about the importance you place on economics when looking at relations between people

From the tool that keeps harping on about having "MY OWN BUSINESS".

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 23 2012 19:25

This is going nowhere again.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 23 2012 21:06
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 23 2012 21:07
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 23 2012 21:08
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 23 2012 22:35
ComradeAppleton wrote:
In Nietzsche's view you would be the creature of spirit who forgot the earth... and did the Saint not tell Zarathustra that he has become a child again?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is one of the worst things I've ever read, and I've read some shit in my time! It's the kind of thing endlessly pawed over by teary-eyed teenage Goths, as they alternately stifle their sobs in a pillow and wail about the bleakness of existence, while wanking into a sock. It's essentially a badly written Bible for nihilists. Honestly, the only positive memory I have of it, is that of eating a pistachio ice-cream while I read it in the car, whilst trapped on the Isle of Wight in the rain.

Reading it is a lot like having Nietzsche piss hot syphilis directly into your eye sockets. Much of Nietzsche's oeuvre was actually written by filling a shotgun with words and repeatedly firing it in the general direction of a printing press. True story! Reading a William S. Burroughs' cut-up novel is more rewarding. If Capital was War and Peace, then Thus Spoke Zarathustra would be an early rough draft of the Da Vinci Code. And so on...

That said, On the Genealogy of Morality, is not only the best thing (and most lucid) Nietzsche wrote, but easily holds up well alongside anything Marx wrote, as a piece of pure philosophy. It's fantastic, and essentially a crude class analysis of Judeo-Christian morality. I'm throwing a clue your way, Comrade Appleblossom, it's an historical analysis of the evolution of Judeo-Christian morality. That said, I don't agree with all of it, and it's not without it's flaws... but then again, what is?

Also, this:

(Click it for biggy.)

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 23 2012 22:38
ComradeAppleton wrote:
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

Well, at least we can agree on two things... I gave you one pity-up for that, and two more for each of these:

ComradeAppleton again wrote:
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

ComradeAppleton once again wrote:
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

Did you post those in advance for the next two times we go around the mindfuck loop!?

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Sep 23 2012 23:42
ComradeAppleton wrote:
I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

Ayn Rand wrote:
But why should you care what people will say? All you have to do is please yourself.

omen wrote:
ComradeAppleton again wrote:
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

ComradeAppleton once again wrote:
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This is going nowhere again.

I agree. Which is why I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality. It is impossible to persuade someone who is tribal in his very spirit that he is what he is.
But, as is every my motto, to each his own.

Did you post those in advance for the next two times we go around the mindfuck loop!?

Ayn Rand wrote:
If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.

Like a loyal minion in his (or her) master’s interest.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Sep 23 2012 23:45
ComradeAppleton wrote:
...I have always thought that individualism was more a matter of temperament than of rationality.

I think CA may be a metaphor for individualism. Rather than accepting that his position is indefensible in the face of reasonable arguments provided by THE COLLECTIVE, he turns the knife on himself and admits that his position is not based on rationality all that much. Making him the only person able to (dis)prove himself wrong (or is it right? Who gives a fuck? It can be both at the same time, we're not dealing with reason anymore), thereby asserting his individuality.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 24 2012 00:24
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Ayn Rand wrote:
But why should you care what people will say? All you have to do is please yourself.

I didn't do this, but it's definitely worth posting:

Although now I regret it, as it makes my artwork look amateurish. cry

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 24 2012 10:39

Unfortunately comparing me to Ayn Rand is pretty silly - she was an idealist after all. But in her crude systematic way she did write a few things worth reading. Point taken. Also your cartoon of Atlas Shrugged is pretty stupid since Rand had nothing against hard work and physical labour for oneself as long as the product of the worker's labour was not stolen from them by exploiters. In Galt's Gulch her entrepreneurial elites preferred to live poorly as farmers and artisans than to live richly as part of the exploitative framework outside. I've always admired that arrangement.

Certainly she makde more sense than Marx anyway. For all his babble and thousands of pages of absolutely meaningless nonsense I haven't found one good fragment. With the possible exception of some observations about the nature of religion which aren't really anything far ahead of something David Hume would write. Even all his incomplete theories of capital and surplus value were toppled easily enough by free market advocates such as Henry Seymour.

As for omen making fun of Nietzsche, I agree he isn't the easiest to read and interpret. But he is a poet, and since your mind must be a Marxist machine, there is little you can draw from him unless you are told directly what he means. Nietzsche announces to us the creator, the creative self who does not have to bow his/her head to anyone or anything. That is his message and contribution.
When it comes to any historical analysis it certainly can be interesting, but it is also irrelevant to present times and actions. Nietzsche's very motto is that man has to cease to be created, and create instead. He has to overcome 'human-ness' itself (an echo of a line from Stirner I have quoted here before about the fall of humanity).

Indeed this discussion will keep going for eternal circles I guess, because everyone here is not only happy to be created by others, but your very philosophy is dependent on the fact that we are all products of history and society and must remain thus. For all your talk or organization and revolution there is not an iota of rebellion in you.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Sep 24 2012 12:00
ComradeAppleton wrote:
As for omen making fun of Nietzsche, I agree he isn't the easiest to read and interpret. But he is a poet, and since your mind must be a Marxist machine, there is little you can draw from him[...]

Heh! I'm generally not overly fond of reading Marx, but nice of you to out me as a Marxist!

And I guess I can't really appreciate Nietzsche's stunning poety, due to my insistence on reading less talented Marxist authors such as Shelley, Sylvia Plath, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, and so on. And I guess I can't grapple his difficult to interpret prose style, due to my reading such Janet-and-John authors as James fucking Joyce, Samuel Beckett, William S. Burroughs (the cut-ups as well!), Thomas Pynchon, etc.

Really, you are a clueless tool, Comrade...

ComradeAppleton wrote:
When it comes to any historical analysis it certainly can be interesting, but it is also irrelevant to present times and actions.

I refer the learned gentlemen to this post.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...]but your very philosophy is dependent on the fact that we are all products of history and society and must remain thus.

What would you know about "our" philosophy? You started this thread because you said you didn't understand our philosophy, and you've completely misrepresented and misunderstood it at every turn. Including that very sentence of yours just quoted: libertarian communists generally reject decadence theories of capitalism, and prefer to organize and agitate now for its overthrow, rather than waiting for history to somehow sort it all out for us, like some Marxists would have it.

ComradeAppleton wrote:
For all your talk or organization and revolution there is not an iota of rebellion in you.

So, while us ultra-conservative communists would be quite happy to violently overthrow capitalism and the state, Comrade "Fuck the System!" Appleton wants to dream away the state in favour of a utopian, petit bourgeoisie form of capitalism, *cough*, I mean anarchism. I have to admit, you've got me there...

ETA: To celebrate the 300th post, I baked you an anarchy cake:

But you can't have any because I baked it and it's my property, damnit!

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Sep 24 2012 12:07

As I said, in order to be an individual you must feel yourself an individual. And you clearly do not. Our understanding of the word 'anarchist' is also different, because to me it is simply the destruction of any dominating system, while to you it is the destruction of capitalism and institution of communism in its place. But your definitions do not matter to me.
I have tried my best to awaken any spirit of independent thought in you, but all you have issued in reply is insults and insinuations. I do not really mind those either because clearly you haven't understood anything that has been said to you, so any other reply would be out of place.

Clearly you are the tool - the tool of ideology and of men better than yourself at sophistic expression of their ideas. You 'agitate' for the overthrow of capitalism but all you have to replace it with is another system of imposed control. Dictatorship is not a good alternative to dictatorship.

In the course of this conversation I think I have understood your philosophy quite clearly. Vailed behind your rhetoric of 'democracy' and 'worker organization' is a beast much worse and more totalitarian than the capitalism we live under today.

Since I have had enough reading insults, do not bother replying further smile There is nothing more I can learn from you.