: Lark [establishing a high tone]: Now I know your a fithy Troskyist...Try, why dont you, to avoid the real issues and redirect attention towards the demeanor of the debators...
: You say, fuck all parties (collective action), the revolution is made by the individual. How is that attitude different from the view the revolution is made by a minority?---something you inaccurately attribute to Trotsky and myself.
Well if that was not the attitude of Trotsky it certainly was the attitude of Lenin, Bolshevik meaning minority, when I suggest the revolution is made by the individual I am suggesting that every individual has a duty to active inclusion and participation in social change and construction. If you renege on your responsibilities and duties and delegate powers to some vanguard or leadership you are assisting the creation of a new class of rulers.
: Stoller: When I see comments such as marriage is about procreation and with that in mind homosexuals would never be deserving of the same benefits as heterosexuals, then, yes, I would say that you're pretty far to the right.
I dont think that benefits should be designed or granted to any social groups or association that would give them a special status, I do however have different opinions about marriage from those who would reduce it to a mere association between sexually engaged individuals.
: : That's typically arrogant, your trying to rewrite the political spectrum to suit yourself...
: No sir, on the issue of gay rights, it is an ESTABLISHED FACT that questioning gay benefits---in any way---is definitely to the right. Pick up a Nation or a Mother Jones for corroboration.
Quesitoning in anyway? I feel the Stalinist in you is showing through, I resent the insinuation of empathy with the right wing movement too, my views about homosexuality are a product of a left wing litmus test which considers matters, such as, sociability and functionalism, I fail to see why other left-wingers think likewise but I dont suggest they are not complying with the correct patterns of thought like some thought policeman.
: Face it, Lark: you are a crass homophobe which coupled with your enthusiasm for eugenics is PRETTY SCARY.
I am a crass homophobe? I find that hard to believe homophobia implies hatred or fear, I feel neither for homosexuals, my problems with homo-culture are the product of resisting anti- or a-social behaviour and aggressive amoral hedonism.
As for eugenics, what are you a luddite? Science knows no race, colour or creed so why do you reject it?
What is the point of such a comment Stroller other than to insinuate that I'm some kind of a nazi fifth columnist, if you want to do that fine, but dont carry on like your capable of a real debate.
: : Make reference to that all you want the fact is that you are a vanguardist you own loyalty to the vanguard before yourself and your 'class'.
: That's dodging the point about the quote, but I'm more than willing to address your claim that I am a vanguardist.
I dodging what quote? It doesnt matter wether the quote was taken out of context or not, Trotsky etc. where all part of the elitist school of socialism, socialism for the people not by the people.
: As I said in this post, I believe that no political party can accept members who deny the central tenets of the party. For example, would the Green party want a member representing them who said that the rain forest should be turned into a parking lot? Should a communist party accept members who deny the existence of classes and class struggle? Should intentional communities, such as the 'vanguardist' Twin Oaks, accept members who make homophobic comments on a regular basis?
Well if you are some kind of intolerant elitist who wishes to construct some kind of church grounded in doctrinare purity, not without conflict but with that conflict savagely repressed then you would seek to build a party in this fashion.
What is more unnerving is that you would seek to build a social order in this mold.
: How can a party represent its aims honestly if it accepts members who consistently misrepresent the party's aims?
No I guess it doesnt but it goes back to the choice:
'Socialism by the people', which will entail conflicts of opinions, views and proposed strategies.
Or
'Socalism for the people', which is a brutalising regime, whether it is a centralised state or an all pervading majoritarian bourgousie 'democracy', which attempts to social change through dictat and decree.
: For example, if party X believes in violent confrontation with the capitalist class to achieve communist aims, wouldn't it be DISHONEST to have members recruited by members who said otherwise?
Would the people who believe otherwise not simply avoid joining the party? It's a different matter if your the minority or the citizenry under the kind of violent elite you propose.
: Honesty and continuity are necessary, in my opinion, to represent the party. Unity of ideological principles is equally necessary, in my opinion, for a party to accomplish anything. I can respect your disagreement with this perspective but, tell me, why would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics? Wouldn't such a party of ideological disunity be little more than a debating club?
This is very significant, it demonstrates that you have no understanding of debate or the nature of conflict and disagreement at all.
What you propose to do with your proud pronouncements about 'unity' is resolve conflict, conflict resolution is impossible, conflict is as inherent as the aging process, the only situation in which there is no conflict is one in which there is only one individual.
What you propose by 'unity' is the domination of a single opinion, a social order based on this is a pathetic and feeble one, where conflict is never aired and managed and consensuses created but where it festers underneath the surface waiting to explode apart the order at any given time.
: Stoller: You have denied class differences here.
That depends on what you mean by class differences, I havent denied class war or the attack on the masses by the classes.
: : If you continue to dispute my position, which is that there is a class war being waged against working people, the working poor and the idle poor and that the opposition is going to have be a social group commited to a classless society drawn from a wide range of social classes, then explain, without reference to Marx, the on mass co-opting of the working class into capitalism.
: Your position on classes has SUDDENLY CHANGED. If you represented a political party, how would I know what the hell you REALLY think?
What are you talking about Stroller this has always been my position, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I wouldnt be thinking in terms of inflexible ideological lore or doctrine that's for sure.
: : 'immature ravings' that is a SLANDER...
: Is it? Consider this post where, responding to someone who sent me a flattering post, you accuse him of being a 'strollerite clone.' Consider this post where you conclude in no discernible context: 'can't we all be friends? Well not Stroller but everybody else...' Consider flaming jibes such as 'brutalistic murder ballads.' Consider outright taunts devoid of purpose, consider sleazy allusions to Hitler... Etc., etc.
Where did I learn that from, your posts for a start...
: : By the way I'm not big on interpreting Marx, I'm not one of these Political Jesuits like you I'm a freethinker...
: You are such a free thinker that your political views are as tensible as wet bubble gum. Your posts are a wild mosaic of libertarian / anarchist clichès, an amorphous mass of centrist liberal vacillation made consistent only by a steady undercurrent of anti-gay prejudice.
More insinuation, slander and accusations of teachery, I'm a consistant class war socialist who owes no loyalty to doctrine, prevailing opinion or preconceved quasi-religious social archetectural blueprints.
: : No it's not stressful at all but your singular cowardice...
: Haven't you realized yet that I never discuss you, I only discuss your politics?
