Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:43 pm

Galt wrote:Image

#johnwilkesboothisanationalhero
I'll just stereotype away and assume you posted this in response to my post:

1: How did he enslave the whole union (honestly I don't even know what you are refering to)
2: Does this "enslavement" you are talking about in any way make the quote I posted less true or less important?

H20nly
Posts: 15843
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by H20nly » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:30 pm

Image


Galt
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by Galt » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:38 pm

TomViolenz wrote:
Galt wrote:Image

#johnwilkesboothisanationalhero
I'll just stereotype away and assume you posted this in response to my post:

1: How did he enslave the whole union (honestly I don't even know what you are refering to)
2: Does this "enslavement" you are talking about in any way make the quote I posted less true or less important?
1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:48 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:
I had posted a quite snarky response to your post last night, Abletons system seems to have swallowed it. I'm glad it did. I don't want to communicate on this level, not even with you.
But: Why don't you try to rescue the reputation as a political thinker that you seem to have of yourself, by addressing what it is I'm mistaken on, where my ignorance lies and point to some facts, or at least well thought out opinions, that may make me reconsider?! This one liner just furthers insignificant forum wars. Something you often complain about.
Yes, but I have already posted plenty on the subject. You have just ignored it, so what's the point? I would just be repeating myself. Also, you have been very rude at times for no reason, which further diminishes any motivation for me to engage with you.

If you want my frank opinion, as an experienced Marxist, trained by the best Marxist organisation in the world, your posts rate about 1/10 for political awareness.

I have explained to Myra over and over that he is wrong to throw words like 'fascism' and 'military dictatorship' around. Anybody who knows anything about politics would dismiss this as utter nonsense.

To make things even worse you join in, yet say that "the whole socialist capitalist crap discussion here is totally irrelevant", which makes any discussion with you impossible. 'Socialist capitalist discussion' is as relevant as apples are to apple pie. Fascism is a tool of capitalism, used to smash socialism. And what the hell is 'global fascism' supposed to be? Fascism is extreme nationalism. You talk about 'democracies' as if they are something concrete like shoes. 'Democracies don't do stuff like this' - what democracies don't do it? You mean something real or a concept? What you mean is 'democracies shouldn't do stuff like this'. I have already told you that a bourgeois democracy can also be called a bourgeois dictatorship. These definitions have been thrashed out over 150 years by the greatest political minds that ever existed. A democracy can be a dictatorship, I have already spelled out why it is accurate to use these two seemingly contradictory terms. No need to make up your own definition.
It all probably sounds very convincing in your head, but it does not to your readers. It's all just rehashed conjecture to me. In addition you talk down to me, like you imagine yourself sitting on a high horse (hint: you are not). I will not engage in a serious discussion with people, who can not conform to social convention enough, to treat the others opinion with respect.
For a definition of Fascism, I think my post quoting myrnovas picture is a pretty good guide. No socialist antagonist necessary to form it.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:28 pm

Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...
2: :roll:

Galt
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by Galt » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:36 pm

TomViolenz wrote:
Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...
2: :roll:
1. No, it's what I said.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:03 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:
Funk N. Furter wrote:
Yes, but I have already posted plenty on the subject. You have just ignored it, so what's the point? I would just be repeating myself. Also, you have been very rude at times for no reason, which further diminishes any motivation for me to engage with you.

If you want my frank opinion, as an experienced Marxist, trained by the best Marxist organisation in the world, your posts rate about 1/10 for political awareness.

I have explained to Myra over and over that he is wrong to throw words like 'fascism' and 'military dictatorship' around. Anybody who knows anything about politics would dismiss this as utter nonsense.

To make things even worse you join in, yet say that "the whole socialist capitalist crap discussion here is totally irrelevant", which makes any discussion with you impossible. 'Socialist capitalist discussion' is as relevant as apples are to apple pie. Fascism is a tool of capitalism, used to smash socialism. And what the hell is 'global fascism' supposed to be? Fascism is extreme nationalism. You talk about 'democracies' as if they are something concrete like shoes. 'Democracies don't do stuff like this' - what democracies don't do it? You mean something real or a concept? What you mean is 'democracies shouldn't do stuff like this'. I have already told you that a bourgeois democracy can also be called a bourgeois dictatorship. These definitions have been thrashed out over 150 years by the greatest political minds that ever existed. A democracy can be a dictatorship, I have already spelled out why it is accurate to use these two seemingly contradictory terms. No need to make up your own definition.
It all probably sounds very convincing in your head, but it does not to your readers. It's all just rehashed conjecture to me. In addition you talk down to me, like you imagine yourself sitting on a high horse (hint: you are not). I will not engage in a serious discussion with people, who can not conform to social convention enough, to treat the others opinion with respect.
For a definition of Fascism, I think my post quoting myrnovas picture is a pretty good guide. No socialist antagonist necessary to form it.
It's not just in my head though is it? It's a huge chunk of the world's population. Karl Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the last 1000 years by BBC viewers. Lenin and Trotsky ran the Russian revolution. It's not conjecture at all. None of it is conjecture. My definition of fascism is an accurate description and analysis of actual fascism. Fascism is the name Mussolini gave to his politics, later adopted by the Nazis. Mussolini wrote the document 'Doctrine of Facism'.http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... solini.htm

Here in this short document you will see that his central attack is against socialism, for example:

"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism..."

It is not conjecture that the Nazis were funded by big business, both German and American.

Trotkys writings during the rise of the Nazis can all be read here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/

Trotsky was the greatest writer on the subject. He warned of the dangers years ahead, when the Nazis were still small. For example in 1931 he wrote:

"The mistakes of the German Communist Party on the question of the plebiscite are among those which will become clearer as time passes, and will finally enter into the textbooks of revolutionary strategy as an example of what should not be done."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... 310825.htm

Again in 1931:

"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades."

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

Now it might have been conjecture in 1931, but he was proved horribly right, wasn't he? Now it's a fact that the first thing the Nazis did was to crush the German workers movement. By May 1933 they had their leaders in concentration camps.

There are no concentration camps for workers leaders in America.

Don't talk to me about respect. You're the one who said that Myyrnova and I are "both are annoying as hell and that every thread in the Lounge sooner, rather than later starts to be about them. Attention seekers that they are".

But I'm not interested in discussing that. I'm interested, maybe, in discussing your statements about 'global fascism' and so on. If I talk down to you, it's simply because I have 30 years experience with the best Marxist tendency in the world, and you are writing like a 15 year old boy who just discovered the internet.

Tell you what, you show me how fascism, an extreme form of nationalism, could be global.

You explain to me why you want to use the same term that historians use for the Nazis for America. America was fighting the fascists up to 1945. At what point did it become fascist itself? How come nobody else thinks that America is fascist, or a military dictatorship, or both, as you do?

Why are socialism and capitalism irrelevant? Fascism was a tool used by the capitalists to smash socialism, so why are they irrelevant?

You've had ample time throughout this thread to debate these issues, but you don't do you? Instead you prefer a blanket statement that avoids the actual debate.
Thank you for a more civil tone.
BTW: I did not ask for respect for me (as you stated correctly I don't have much for you either, because of the way you behaved towards me quite a while ago). but for my opinion. You gave this now, so thank you.

Definition of Fascism:
When I was in school (east germany) we learned of course that Fascism is the great adversary of Socialism, but not that this adversarial role is its defining factor. This is what you base your definition on though.
For my definition I invite you again to read my post above citing myrnova.
If something is missing please point it out.
As to your question of how this will turn global: Most of the elements mentioned above should be pretty apparent how they translate to the global scale.
You seem to think that nationalism is an important defining element, but I think that is defining this specific element way to narrowly. Nationalism was at the time just the way used to incite the masses against non dangerous oponents, now it's Muslims and terrorists. It does not really matter to the Fascist system, as long as it keeps the attention of the masses away from the dealings of the rulers and preps them to being used against their political foes. Yesterday it was Communist, Socialist, democrats... Tomorrow who knows.
But if you think that Fascism needs a nation state to function, you are wrongly pointing your attention away from a very real danger.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:19 pm

Galt wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:
Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...
2: :roll:
1. No, it's what I said.
But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.
Further, you know why the limitation of state rights needed to be instituted?! Because they used those state rights to justify Slavery and later segregation.
I don't want to lump you in with the bigots, but when you hear many people advocate for state rights, it is often in the vein of suppressing rights of minorities or illegal immigrants.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:
TomViolenz wrote: because of the way you behaved towards me quite a while ago
I have no idea what you are referring to. I treat everyone properly so I assume you either got the wrong end of the stick or imagined something.
It does really not matter. You are now simply a stranger on the internet that I happen to despise. I will not let this cloud my opinion of the discussions taking place here. So please don't let that stop you from responding to the contents of my posts.

rote fahne
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:26 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by rote fahne » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:40 pm

nice one. i myself use an action cam, without viewer.

Galt
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by Galt » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:51 pm

TomViolenz wrote:But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.
Further, you know why the limitation of state rights needed to be instituted?! Because they used those state rights to justify Slavery and later segregation.
I don't want to lump you in with the bigots, but when you hear many people advocate for state rights, it is often in the vein of suppressing rights of minorities or illegal immigrants.
A. Read more history—the right to sucession was a given until it was actually tested, just as it is currently a given in the EU (I'd be very curious to see what happens when states start dropping out of that union too).

B. Sure, you believe that people should only be allowed rights so long as they use them 'properly'. Unfortunately for you, this is simply not how rights work.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:55 pm

Funk N. Furter wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:
Definition of Fascism:
When I was in school (east germany) we learned of course that Fascism is the great adversary of Socialism, but not that this adversarial role is its defining factor.
You were taught wrong then. Hitler got into power by suppressing the workers movement. The last election was not a fair one. Workers parties were not allowed to campaign, and the terror had already started. After 'winning' the 1933 elections, the first thing the Nazis did was to round up the workers leaders and put them in concentration camps. The German workers were crushed. This was the historic role of the Nazis. They were doing the job German capitalism expected of them. This was what the Nazis had promised they would do, in private talks and secret letters to industrialists. German capitalism (and American) placed them in power for this purpose. After 1933, American capitalists increased their investments in Germany by 50%.

You say "but not that this adversarial role is its defining factor" but Mussolini said "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies..." Are you telling me you know what fascism is better than the man who invented it?
I don't think anything in your post refutes my definition. You are implying that only because the first time the Fascist system was implemented it was done in the manner your historic examples describe, that this is the way Fascism should be defined. I disagree. (Just think the thing from the other perspective: Socialism and Comunism were adversary ideologies to Fascism. That doesn't mean those different methods of distributing resources and political power can only exist if Fascism exists first).
BTW: The Mussolini quote seems to rather support my view, by stating that he thinks Fascism will also wipe out Democracy.

I have to state though: I'm not very interested in discussing the past (I stated earlier that I find this irrelevant). Fascism is what is the very real threat looming over all our fates. The western world is exposing themselves to do that quite openly lately. It's not so much the Snowden revelations themselves that opened MY eyes, but the reaction of all of the western governments afterwards.
China and Russia are already there, the Arab world has the same with a religious coating. How much more global do you need it?!

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by TomViolenz » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:01 pm

Galt wrote:
TomViolenz wrote:But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.
Further, you know why the limitation of state rights needed to be instituted?! Because they used those state rights to justify Slavery and later segregation.
I don't want to lump you in with the bigots, but when you hear many people advocate for state rights, it is often in the vein of suppressing rights of minorities or illegal immigrants.
A. Read more history—the right to sucession was a given until it was actually tested, just as it is currently a given in the EU (I'd be very curious to see what happens when states start dropping out of that union too).

B. Sure, you believe that people should only be allowed rights so long as they use them 'properly'. Unfortunately for you, this is simply not how rights work.
1: the EU is not a nation state (yet?) But how impossible it is made to seccede can be wittnessed with the whole Greece fiasko.
2: No I don't believe that and I have no problem actually with the right of states or regions to secced. I just wanted to say that
a: This is not how nation states usually work and
b: That I can't fault Lincoln for taking this right away from people who used it to oppress others.

H20nly
Posts: 15843
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: Musicians no longer socially relevant?

Post by H20nly » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:21 pm

Image

Image

Post Reply