Feminism: How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

This is a misapprehension of socialism, communism, Trotskyism and Marxism.

Socialism seeks the common ownership of all economic instruments - the means of production in an industrial society, wealth, property. It rejects the notion of any private holdings.

Communism seeks a classless, stateless society, with ownership in common over the means of production. Clinton cannot be both a statist, as she is often called on the forum, and a communist.

Marxism is a loose aggregation of poorly misapplied theories, but at the heart of it is a theoretical view of history, based in determinism and class relations, drawn from the work of Karl Marx, himself drawing from the dialectical notions of Hegel.

Trotskyism is decidedly not nationalist in outlook, but internationalist; in fact, one of the death-match ideological divisions between Trotsky and Stalin, with the latter (along with Bukharin) emphasizing "socialism in one country" and strengthening of the one soviet state, the USSR, over emphasizing a class-based, specifically proletarian revolution worldwide.

 

To say that a communist cannot be a statist is incorrect.

Clinton is in fact a communist and a trotskyite, as are most of the neolibs and neocons.

 

You didn't answer to the corrections, Guerilla, only reaffirmed your misapprehension. Like saying "I said so, so...I'm right."

Much like your issue with people calling what we have in America as capitalism (per other thread), your calling her a communist, and a trotskyist, is simply erroneous.

 

North, if we're going to discuss, it will have to be in good faith by both of us, otherwise, I'm not interested.

If communism is not statism, then what happened in China? The USSR? Vietnam?

 

I'm not interested either, Guerilla, in playing games. It seems you have different ground rules for different points of view. Per my earlier point:

I don't know. If capitalism isn't state collusion with industry, what happened to capitalism in America?

In other words, we've never had a free market capitalism in America:

And in other words, the world has never seen a communist society. What happened in the USSR is totalitarianism, anything but a stateless society.

That you continue to insist on proper definitions in one context, but not the other, is what I would call game playing - something I'm not interested in.

You either discuss honorably, or you do not. To argue Clinton is a Trotskyist communist is flatly ridiculous.

 

I think we're mixing capitalism and free market capitalism. They are not the same thing. You need capitalism to have a free market, but you don't need a free market to have capitalism.

Ok, things are starting to get a little too hot. This is precisely the sort of aggressive, hostile discussion I am trying to avoid.

Fine, Clinton is a Trotskyite Totalitarian. That sounds better anyway.

 

Guerilla, the problem is that you seem to consistently impute some nefarious purpose to a contention of facts, and then you are saying "things are getting a little hot" after the fact.

Your definitions of socialism, communism, Trotskyism and Marxism, and your labelling Clinton as a Trotskyist communist, all fell before the actual definitions of each of these. I pointed out why. Your response amounted to "you're wrong, and I'm right," then, you imputed bad faith to my point, a subtle but wrong line of debate.

Again, if you have an issue with:

Speak to it. Basic.

"Trotyskite Totalitarian" - is wrong, since Trotsky wasn't a nationalist (you've confused Stalinism with Trotskyism), and a totalitarian seeks absolute corporatist control - dictatorship - over all political and economic instruments and corporatist aggregations in society. In other words, you're carelessly tossing around labels that don't apply, and I would hazard you are doing so for emotional appeal, something you've accused others, myself included, of doing quite often.

 

Not at all. As I have proven to Earl, there are a few members of this forum, who direct 70% or more of their posts directly to addressing me.

While the attention does make me feel special, I'm not going to subscribe to the notion that I am under a positive obligation to defend every post, every contention, and write long winded replies to long winded inquiries.

By all means, you have every right to criticize, but you do not have a right to an answer, nor one which satisfies you completely.

That you continually demand one, implies an obligation by me to you, and I do not believe such an obligation is present.

Or in the words of our mutual friend Rebecca, "whatever".

 

If you don't care to answer, that's fine. I'm quite comfortable with my post disabusing you of your erroneous statements.

You did answer, however, with a non-answer:

Which is, in so many words, an answer of "I'm right....because...I'm right." A non-answer.

And now you indicate you aren't interested in answering. These continuous rounds of game playing and evasion are tiresome. Regretfully, as they usually become.

 

Guerilla: the only things I've seen from you in response to my comments are endless usage of large fonts and capitalization. The equivalent of screaming.

Its quite immature, imv.

I find these comments regarding classifying people similarly rediculous. They are an attempt to brand people into absurd concepts that twist normal and accepted usage and reflect the ideas of a tiny minority of political theorists who can't compete on a national political agenda and have resorted to attacking every element of American life.

Communists, trotskyites, socialists, etc are all extremist descriptions of mainstream American politicians who practise politics within boundaries that sgnificant portions of the population supprt. Could it have been that the mainstream of the American population sensed this amongst Ron Paul's supporters and so roundly rejected his appeal. Possibly.

The descriptions are the height of absurdity. They are the descriptions of a wierd minority extremist perspective that uses the political technique of negative branding that gained such popularity and development in the late 1960's and has carried through to this day.

Meanwhile, I'm all for the advances feminism has unveiled on the population. It has unleashed tremendous talent in society. It has made the world more complex and interesting. Occaisionally some extremist such as Alice Walker lives a life dominated by her politics and can't see other elements such as family. For the most part it has it has been a freeing experience providing more valid choices for more women.

 

Sure dude. That's my point. Some people on this forum, pretty much revolve a great many, if not nearly all of their posts around me.

Not at all. I believe that communists can be statists. Many communists seek to use the state apparatus to accomplish their socialist agenda of withering away the state. It's a difference of opinion, not a non-answer.

Actually, I do not enjoy the game. I'd like to discuss economics, philosophy and some current events. I'm interested in talking about Ron Paul. But there are two members of this forum who consistently post to me, almost absolutely only to me each day, and frequently jump into my convos with others. To be frank, if both members of the forum left, I would still continue to start the threads and engage in the same discussions I do. Their forum experience revolved around mine, not the other way around.

That said, a long time ago when I still respected you quite a bit, somehow I got off on the wrong foot, and things have been poor since. We obviously can't move past that (numerous failed attempts), so I'd rather just go with "whatever" than devolving into another round of the same tired game you mentioned.

Btw, Hilldog is an interesting creature.
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/15.html

Bottom of the barrel scum in my opinion.

 

What I would call your narcissism is showing, G. By my estimation, you are among the most prolific, and certainly among the most bombastic, posters on this forum. That you receive responses is a function of both. That you cannot handle the responses redounding to you beyond acolyte clapping, and will post non-answers along the lines of the above, or evade answers provided in good faith to the very questions you directly raise, is something you will have to deal with, or not. The Royal "We" are not fooled.

 

lmao

Yes, but even GTech never pursued me as single mindedly as the two forum posters (yourself and Earl) have.

Recently Earl advised me I need a break from the forum. When I challenged him to a competition, to see if I was his reason for being on the forum, he declined to participate, when he clearly had an opportunity to not only 1) shame me, 2) exile me for a period of time and 3) have one over on me for all time. Such is the price of self-delusion.

I am prolific. I talk econ, politics, philosophy etc. I don't just follow one poster around. I am bombastic, I don't take this all that seriously anymore.

In other words, you will continue to stalk me, and too bad for me if I don't like it.

Fair enough. We'll see about that.

 

Yes, yes, of course.

'Course, easier to keep playing games than to respond to points of credible contention over your misusage of "Trotskyist Communist Totalitarian" in describing Clinton. I understand, bro. I've long understood, actually.

 

Thank God. You finally understand. My work is done for today.

 

You're work was done quite a long time ago, Guerilla. It always is, when ideology over investigation provides surety.