Serious topic - ask the expert: Marxism

[Galt]

The fact that you think this is a way you can talk to people makes you MUCH worse than Galt, because he actually agrees to treat people with respect when pressed!

This is some bollocks! I look to treat everybody with respect, or rather with the exact degree of respect that they command. Of course, I can't pretend I always meet my exceedingly high standards...

Sorry, I make the same mistake and believe somewhat that you are the other people that people accuse you of being. If this is not true, it must seem really unfair to you!

Unfair? Try completely surreal. This forum has forced me to question everything I have apparently been mistaking for reality.

[steko]

So again, Galt: you say you' re not d.reamonn/Jack McCock/Steve Ballmer/???

Seriously?

<cough>

[scott nathaniel]

I'm not sure what the last expression means, but yeah, that movie was pretty spot on.

(Btw: I hope none of you believe that this sort of surveilance is only beneficial to the rulers in a socialist system...we are headed this way now! )

The last expression means that the imagination was so constricted in that society that the final result, the writer's plays, seemed like slabs of concrete. It seemed as if---fuck I can't believe I'm going to use this analogy-- as if everyone were a brick in the wall, literally- stiff, rigid, inflexible, austere, dead. I understand the notion of each person contributing to the common good, carrying one's weight--but to turn a writer into a doorknob--fuck that.

I don't remember every detail of that movie and it's hard to know how someone from across the world would understand it, but the art scene along with the churches and the enviromental groups were the nucleus of the change that was to come. So what might seem rigid to you, might in reality have been very brave with many people nodding furiously in the audience (We actually have some socially relevant musicians here ) because people knew how to read between the lines! (They had to!)

Good Point. I do recall that the writer was sincere and that he tried to inject a notion of this sincerity into his work. It's difficult for one from the US to understand the nuances of a lot of European movies and art. Our puppetmasters have a more profound control over the population here. It seems in East Germany, for example, that the authority was present and conspicuous. Here, it is the opposite. The control is nuanced and subtle but still, perhaps even more, as far reaching as any other authoritarian state. But, this is really myrnova's area of expertise, so I concede the topic to her.

[steko]

Agreed that funken can be a bloody wanker. Funny how Finn's Trotsky comment has ruined his week!

[TomViolenz]

This is some bollocks! I look to treat everybody with respect, or rather with the exact degree of respect that they command. Of course, I can't pretend I always meet my exceedingly high standards...

Sorry, I make the same mistake and believe somewhat that you are the other people that people accuse you of being. If this is not true, it must seem really unfair to you!

Unfair? Try completely surreal. This forum has forced me to question everything I have apparently been mistaking for reality.

You should probably look up the posts by the people you are accused of being, just to see what you are up against

[steko]

And on goes the ball-licking ...

[TomViolenz]

The last expression means that the imagination was so constricted in that society that the final result, the writer's plays, seemed like slabs of concrete. It seemed as if---fuck I can't believe I'm going to use this analogy-- as if everyone were a brick in the wall, literally- stiff, rigid, inflexible, austere, dead. I understand the notion of each person contributing to the common good, carrying one's weight--but to turn a writer into a doorknob--fuck that.

I don't remember every detail of that movie and it's hard to know how someone from across the world would understand it, but the art scene along with the churches and the enviromental groups were the nucleus of the change that was to come. So what might seem rigid to you, might in reality have been very brave with many people nodding furiously in the audience (We actually have some socially relevant musicians here ) because people knew how to read between the lines! (They had to!)

Good Point. I do recall that the writer was sincere and that he tried to inject a notion of this sincerity into his work. It's difficult for one from the US to understand the nuances of a lot of European movies and art. Our puppetmasters have a more profound control over the population here. It seems in East Germany, for example, that the authority was present and conspicuous. Here, it is the opposite. The control is nuanced and subtle but still, perhaps even more, as far reaching as any other authoritarian state. But, this is really myrnova's area of expertise, so I concede the topic to her.

Just some numbers for emphasis: There were 17 Million people living in East Germany. 700 000 of them worked in one way or another for the Stasi.

And often not by free will either: Let's say a Stasi officer says to a woman, well we caught your son listening to Punk music, he is going to Stasi jail. Woman: Oh noooooo!!!! Stasi officer, we are really not bad people you know, we can help your son, but what can you tell us about your neigbours...

[scott nathaniel]

Just some numbers for emphasis: There were 17 Million people living in East Germany. 700 000 of them worked in one way or another for the Stasi.
And often not by free will either: Let's say a Stasi officer says to a woman, well we caught your son listening to Punk music, he is going to Stasi jail. Woman: Oh noooooo!!!! Stasi officer, we are really not bad people you know, we can help your son, but what can you tell us about your neigbours...

There are over 300 million here, and, according to myrnova, we all pray to hamburglar, and to a certain extent, myrnova is correct.
If East Germany had around 4% of the population involved with the Stasi, then 4% percent of the population here could indicate that we have about 12 million hamburglars snooping for the NSA.

[TomViolenz]

Just some numbers for emphasis: There were 17 Million people living in East Germany. 700 000 of them worked in one way or another for the Stasi.
And often not by free will either: Let's say a Stasi officer says to a woman, well we caught your son listening to Punk music, he is going to Stasi jail. Woman: Oh noooooo!!!! Stasi officer, we are really not bad people you know, we can help your son, but what can you tell us about your neigbours...

There are over 300 million here, and, according to myrnova, we all pray to hamburglar, and to a certain extent, myrnova is correct.
If East Germany had around 4% of the population involved with the Stasi, then 4% percent of the population here could indicate that we have about 12 million hamburglars snooping for the NSA.

The real problem today is though, the NSA does not need the same amount of manpower anymore, they can achieve much more, with much less!

[scott nathaniel]

The real problem today is though, the NSA does not need the same amount of manpower anymore, they can achieve much more, with much less!

True. Their job has been render significantly easier by the man-handling of data based companies and the complete ignorance and indifference of the general population. The virtues and ills of socialism aside, we'd first have to disengage our attention away from these tech-hooks. Ain't gonna happen. I consider myself to be an enlightened-patchouli-laced-guruesque-one-in-the-know, and I still can't resist the urge to post in this forum. First, self-control, then socialism. My cynicism does not allow me to accept that things will play out in the necessary order.

[TomViolenz]

The real problem today is though, the NSA does not need the same amount of manpower anymore, they can achieve much more, with much less!

True. Their job has been render significantly easier by the man-handling of data based companies and the complete ignorance and indifference of the general population. The virtues and ills of socialism aside, we'd first have to disengage our attention away from these tech-hooks. Ain't gonna happen. I consider myself to be an enlightened-patchouli-laced-guruesque-one-in-the-know, and I still can't resist the urge to post in this forum. First, self-control, then socialism. My cynicism does not allow me to accept that things will play out in the necessary order.

Yeah, I don't have much hope
I sometimes fear that 2013 is the new 1933
(It will play out differently for sure, but this will not end well...)

[TomViolenz]

Same to you, only you are worse. It's not your battle. I have said nothing wrong, nothing out of order. Many people say far worse on here, for far less of a reason, INCLUDING YOU. I have attacked what he said as nonsense. So? That is what any person serious about politics would do when confronted with ridiculous and uniformed opinion masquerading as know-it-all. I found his posts highly annoying, but I kept my replies on topic. I attacked the post, NOT THE POSTER.

I guess that's why he just left, he just couldn't handle the way you only attacked his post...
The only thing I still find surprising about you is, that there are still people defending you, even if it is only to make cheap jokes...

[stringtapper]

There was no invective or abuse though.

Wrong. You are always abusive to others in these political "discussions."

If you can't see how your interactions are socially inappropriate then my assessment of you as having some degree of autism is most likely correct.

There is no reason to call what someone is saying "nonsense" when they are making reasonable statements and not trolling. There are more congenial ways to voice your disagreement with others.

This is why I don't get into political discussions at all. Because people like you have superiority complexes, think you know everything, and have no qualms with abusing anyone who even seems like they might disagree with you.

Would you really say the kinds of things you write to a person if they were standing in front of you in a pub?

I don't think you would.

If you were standing in front of me in a bar here in Texas I guarantee you wouldn't.

[TomViolenz]

You are talking sheer unadulterated nonsense. etc etc etc

*sigh*

This is why I tend to stay out of the politics discussions

I am perfectly happy to concede that I don't know everything and I am very happy to learn from others

But I fail to see how one can have a useful discussion when any disagreement provokes invective and abuse

Others may enjoy coming back with invective in return, sarcasm, etc.

I just get bored. I think I will go tweak some knobs & stick to the Music production thread.

Enjoy the discussion, folks.

Your post on the Trotsky thread:

He was a brilliant writer (his history of the russian revolution is a riveting read )and man of great integrity.

He was also a creature of his time: when it was easy to imagine that society could be rationally transformed if you could just get the theory and strategy right.

It was a kind of politics that was hugely authoritarian; in the end there was very little difference between Trotsky's thought and Lenin's; both of them had very simplistic notions about the role of a vanguard party who could decide for all of society what was right.

After his murder by Stalin he became the patron saint of lost causes.

My impression over the years that attracted a particularly arrogant and lost kind of revolution-nerd. People who despised everyone else's politics, but who had no idea of how politics really worked, no shred of humility, and very little commitment to democratic process.

Worst of all, they have kept Marxist thought stuck in the 19th century. With their commitment to 'Marxism-Leninism' (Moxam-Lennam, as I call it for short) they have tended to resist critical thinking on the theoretical left and have thus pretty much insured that they are irrelevant

There is still a lot of relevance today in Marxist thought. But not in the Trotskyist / Leninist version of it...

As a Trotskyist I regard that pile of uninformed nonsense as a personal attack, but of course you never insult anyone do you?

Well if the shoe fits...?!
I thought you were all about speaking the hard truth?! Or is that only when you get to tell others YOUR hard truth?

[Galt]

Yeah right! And my name's Great Aunt Fanny.

Hello Fanny.