Question for Teabaggers, Why Obama?

abandonconflict said:

and you speak of intellectual laziness

Read a fucking book before you opine, especially that thing with Orwell, it just makes this too easy for me.

Click to expand...

uhh huh, right, when George Orwell says he is an "anarchist" and a "socialist" in the 1920's then he means he is a "Black Bloc Bomb Thrower" and an "Authoritarian Marxist" 90 years later. cuz those words mean the same thing now that they did back then.

Orwell was an ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN not a preening fool who thinks he will be one of the Chosen Few when the chomskyites take power
Orwell was an ANTI-FASCIST not a dimwit who thinks fascism is about hating jews rather than state socialism
Orwell was an ANTI-COMMUNIST not a dullard who thinks communism is distinct from marxism
Orwell was an ANTI-MARXIST when the language of marxism had not yet stolen communism and socialism from the common use of those like himself, Spooner, and Thoreau reducing complicated ideas into slogans for the proles


it's amazing how Rob Roy (noted Spoonerite) can talk about Spooner's visions for a "communist socialist stateless" society without the references to marxism, even though spooner was a contributing member of the first and second Comintern, and helped to create what eventually became Marxism.

you of course dont see it, but Spooner's ideas were distinct from Marxism which was eventually adopted by the Comintern as THE Communism THE Socialism and THE Anarchism from that time on.

when you embrace the ideals of marxism, and celebrate the plans of the Comintern and it's constitutent organizations you become everything you claim to oppose, and all your protestations to the contrary are undone every time you post a picture of marx, or adumb bitch holding a sign with a slogan from the Workers World Party.

Rob Roy makes it clear he opposes authoritarian governments, you however do not do that. you try to hide your plans behind fictional labels and bullshit re-definitions of established marxist rhetoric, hoping that the figleaf of nonsense will conceal your boner for Stalinism.

Protip: everybody who reads your words can see the stiffy you're sporting for mao, pol pot fidel and che guevarra.

Dr Kynes said:

uhh huh, right, when George Orwell says he is an "anarchist" and a "socialist" in the 1920's then he means he is a "Black Bloc Bomb Thrower" and an "Authoritarian Marxist" 90 years later. cuz those words mean the same thing now that they did back then.

Click to expand...

You haven't read a single book he wrote, but you maybe read someone's thoughts on 1984 and Animal Farm.

See what you did here though? Connected the dots to paint me a Marxist who reads Orwell as Marxism. Look at the political compass grid I just posted, that is a correct grid, there are different configurations out there and different words used to denote axis, but this one is correct and everything in the bottom left area is anarchist leaning. Socialism ranges from authoritarian to libertarian, just as capitalism does.

Orwell was an Anarchist. You would know this if you had read Homage to Catalonia.

abandonconflict said:

I have actually reported you repeatedly, for harassment, for months for derailing every thread in which I post. You have been following me, really harassing me, trying your best to paint me a Marxist, it is just you. Please stop it. I have explained repeatedly to you.

Cannabineer joined the discussion once, Ginwilly did this time, Nonthiest posts commie symbolism in memes to troll me, but you bring it up, everytime.

Click to expand...

uhh huh... yeah, any who challenge your assertions are being mean to you.

and your silly graph proves youre not a marxist because all marxists always tell the truth when answering questions about their political schemes...

you are a crybaby unable to explain how your "philosophy" differs from that found in the communist maanifesto, and unwilling to say where you got the stupid ideas that fill your empty head like so much polystyrene stuffing.

you quote marxists, post pictures of mark, repost marxispt propaganda, use marxist rhetoric, your signature STILL contains a quote from bertie russel, noted marxist, and you still cant figure out how marxism keeps coming up...

next youll claim youre really a Zappatista, not a Marxist.

facepalm.jpg.

Dr Kynes said:

facepalm.jpg.

Click to expand...

You're just mad because the president is black.

abandonconflict said:

You haven't read a single book he wrote, but you maybe read someone's thoughts on 1984 and Animal Farm.

See what you did here though? Connected the dots to paint me a Marxist who reads Orwell as Marxism. Look at the political compass grid I just posted, that is a correct grid, there are different configurations out there and different words used to denote axis, but this one is correct and everything in the bottom left area is anarchist leaning. Socialism ranges from authoritarian to libertarian, just as capitalism does.

Orwell was an Anarchist. You would know this if you had read Homage to Catalonia.

Click to expand...

in the 19th and early 20th centuries, "anarchy" and "anarchism" were a trendy stance for anyone who was opposed to the current regime in whatever nation they happened to reside in, which is why the marxist revolutionary who threw a bomb at archduke ferdinand in bosnia was called an anarchist, the communist agitators sacco and vanzetti are called anarchists, the crazy nutbar who shot Theodore Roosevelt is called an anarchist, and the list goes on.

Orwell was an "anarchist' as the word was used then, which would today be "Dissident" or "Agitator" or "Teabagger" or "Dissatisfied Voter" or "Protestor" depending on how he voices his dissent.
Orwell was also a "socialist" as the word was used at the time, meaning his primary concern was for the good of society not individual persons per se. example: bob wants to let his dog shit on the village green, but the village elders insist he pick up the shit, since SOCIETY benefits from a crap-free village green, even if bob doesnt care much for having to handle his dog's turds. thats socialism before the third Comintern.


in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, if you have a plan to overthrow a government and replace it with another you were called an anarchist,
in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's anyone plotting to overth4ow a government and replace it with another was caalled a revolutionary,
NOW anyone plotting to overthrow a government or social system and replace it with another is now called an insurgent


if you plan to overthrow a government and either have no interest or no preference for what replaces it you are now called an anarchist.
if you plan to overthrow a government and replace it with a nesting series of interlocking authoritarian bodies who controll everything as the representatives of a single party based on the ideals of Marx you are a communist.
if you plan to overthrow a government and replace it with poorly though out ill-conceived schemes based on the musings of noam chomsky then youre still a marxist, just a very poor one

of course you have already been told all this, yet you persist in using anarchist, socialist, liberal, and libertarian in a manner which ensures they have no meaning. that way your secret language ensures you are always right, at least in your own mind.

No Kynes.

You don't get to make up your own definition for anarchism and say that is what Orwell meant. His impact on the English language was greater than yours.

abandonconflict said:

No Kynes.

You don't get to make up your own definition for anarchism and say that is what Orwell meant. His impact on the English language was greater than yours.

Click to expand...

really,

an·ar·chist

noun \ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-\



Definition of ANARCHIST

1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order


do you see what the anarchist proposes to replace the government with?

no. because he has no plan to replace the government with a new form. his is either indifferent to the replacement's character, or intends that the replacement "social structure" be "anarchy" which is defined as follows:

an·ar·chy

noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\


Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature &#8212; Israel Shenker>


so me and the good people at merriam webster say youre full of shit.

you desire the overthrow of the current social system, but you DO have a preference for what replaces it which means you are NOT an anarchist.

your preferred replacement for the current system is in fact utopian communism which means you are by definition a marxist.

unfortunately for you, you are a shitty marxist and thus wind up spouting stalinist bolshevism instead of pure communism, and thus your failure is complete.

Clearly the Koch brothers are anarchists then.

This is what I take anarchism to mean, feel free to criticize it.

&#8220;That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met.

I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.&#8221; ~Noam Chomsky

I accept Noam's definition. Some authority is valid, such as climatologists, who can argue from a position of authority regarding global warming.

abandonconflict said:

I accept Noam's definition. Some authority is valid, such as climatologists, who can argue from a position of authority regarding global warming.

Click to expand...

Authority is OK as long as you agree with it?

kelly4 said:

Authority is OK as long as you agree with it?

Click to expand...

Don't question my authority.

In case this went over your head, I'm calling you an idiot. I'm not saying authority is ok so long as it is agreeable, I'm saying one can argue from a position of authority. In this way, authority is valid. Authority is not valid by virtue of a title that grants them rulership.

abandonconflict said:

Don't question my authority.

In case this went over your head, I'm calling you an idiot. I'm not saying authority is ok so long as it is agreeable, I'm saying one can argue from a position of authority. In this way, authority is valid. Authority is not valid by virtue of a title that grants them rulership.

Click to expand...

I wish the rulership would shut you up.

You know where there's no "oppressive regimes"? The moon.

Go there.

Harrekin said:

I wish the rulership would shut you up.

You know where there's no "oppressive regimes"? The moon.

Go there.

Click to expand...

So you prefer lies and wish the gov't would do a better job protecting you from truth? If you wish for the state to kill dissidents, that is what you wish, whether I am truthful or not.

Figured you would be a rabid statist though, if the state didn't exist, who would protect your property?

abandonconflict said:

Don't question my authority.

In case this went over your head, I'm calling you an idiot. I'm not saying authority is ok so long as it is agreeable, I'm saying one can argue from a position of authority. In this way, authority is valid. Authority is not valid by virtue of a title that grants them rulership.

Click to expand...

Why do you like authority so much?

kelly4 said:

Why do you like authority so much?

Click to expand...

Why do you like the rulership so much?

abandonconflict said:

Why do you like the rulership so much?

Click to expand...

Peanut butter.

kelly4 said:

Peanut butter.

Click to expand...

Leave your dog alone.

kelly4 said:

Authority is OK as long as you agree with it?

Click to expand...

I think this is true for all of us. Especially if I'M the authority, then i really agree.

Why the fuck has this thread's name changed?!

abandonconflict said:

Clearly the Koch brothers are anarchists then.

Click to expand...

no. they are not. you would love to drag them into every discussion since you believe they are the perfect foils, but they have an agenda and do NOT hide it. they are outspoken in their sup;port for various ideas.

you however prefer to deal in nebulous vague mutterings and when asked for clarification you puff up your chest and cry that everybody else is too stupid to just take your word for it.

you have PROVEN that you have no clue what marxism is about, in any of it's myriuad forms, and you have further proven that youi cannot elucidate your own presumed "philosophy" and have futher proven that you have no concept of how a lawful and voluntary contract between two persons can be executed, and have enven gone so far as to demonstrate that you simply can not comprehend how anyone could dare hold an opinion which you disapprove.

so yeah. youre crrazy as a shithouse rat, and about as well educated.

and you still dont know shit about George Orwell.

Animal Farm and 1984 were scathing indictments of BOLSHEVISM (distinct from popular use of the word socialism in the day) Orwell was very much a classic liberal and leaned to the left side but he was not a marxist, marx however did take the word orwell used for himself (socialism) and fold it into his ideology shortly before stalin wiped his ass with it and created bolshevism.

fuck it. your not even worth arguing with, since you are clinically retarded.