Will the 1% kill the rest of us off?

[Bakery Hill]

If those examples aren't leftist, then leftism does not actually exist.

Pretty sure leftism is an ideal that is predicated from the subject while the shit you listed were objective events. The two in no way effect each other's existence, that is a shitty non sequitr.

So you have your own bizarre idiosyncratic definition of leftism? Nice.

No, leftism entails the abolition of hierarchy. Fairly certain predicating superiority from things such as the nation (something hierarchical to begin with) you identify yourself with and then proceeding to think and act in accordance to such superiority results in the establishment of hierarchy.

I've seen a lot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but this is pretty a-grade stuff. It's as simple as this. Leninism, Titoism, the Black Panthers, Chavez, Sinn Fein and the Sandinistas are leftists, whether you like them or not. This is pretty much universally accepted across the political spectrum. I don't know why this argument is being had.

[Republican Corentia]

What the fuck is with people and their deliberate bastardization of words academics and scholars have explicitly provided the defintions of?

[Camicon]

What the fuck is with people and their deliberate bastardization of words academics and scholars have explicitly provided the defintions of?

Because those words refer to essentially contested, often-times nebulous, concepts.

[Bakery Hill]

What the fuck is with people and their deliberate bastardization of words academics and scholars have explicitly provided the defintions of?

Because those words refer to essentially contested, often-times nebulous, concepts.

I reckon leftist is a type of tree personally.

[Camicon]

Because those words refer to essentially contested, often-times nebulous, concepts.

I reckon leftist is a type of tree personally.

Yeah, the Leftist Coniferous. I've got one in my backyard.

[Bakery Hill]

I reckon leftist is a type of tree personally.

Yeah, the Leftist Coniferous. I've got one in my backyard.

Coniferous? That's not leftist dude. Only palms and some succulents are leftists.

Typical fucking revisionism.

[The Rom Jay]

Pretty sure leftism is an ideal that is predicated from the subject while the shit you listed were objective events. The two in no way effect each other's existence, that is a shitty non sequitr.

No, leftism entails the abolition of hierarchy. Fairly certain predicating superiority from things such as the nation (something hierarchical to begin with) you identify yourself with and then proceeding to think and act in accordance to such superiority results in the establishment of hierarchy.

I've seen a lot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but this is pretty a-grade stuff. It's as simple as this. Leninism, Titoism, the Black Panthers, Chavez, Sinn Fein and the Sandinistas are leftists, whether you like them or not. This is pretty much universally accepted across the political spectrum. I don't know why this argument is being had.

It's not a question of like or dislike it's simply a matter of what is. While the individuals and groups you listed considered themselves leftists and others do too this is not indicative of fact or truth, the popularity and general acceptance of an idea or a lack thereof is not indicative of the validity of the idea, it simply fallacious to assert otherwise.

[Bakery Hill]

I've seen a lot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but this is pretty a-grade stuff. It's as simple as this. Leninism, Titoism, the Black Panthers, Chavez, Sinn Fein and the Sandinistas are leftists, whether you like them or not. This is pretty much universally accepted across the political spectrum. I don't know why this argument is being had.

It's not a question of like or dislike it's simply a matter of what is. While the individuals and groups you listed considered themselves leftists and others do too this is not indicative of fact or truth, the popularity and general acceptance of an idea or a lack thereof is not indicative of the validity of the idea, it simply fallacious to assert otherwise.

Meaning comes from consensus, that's why it can change over time. There is no holy truth. To think you hold it, and the ignorant multitude do not, is more than a little arrogant.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Marx advocated only for the abolition of private property, he never advocated for the abolition of personal property

Which shows his true intentions on its own. "Personal property" is a subset of "private property" so this concession is an admission that the whole programme is nonsensical and impossible. So Marx was an idiot, right? No, his plan never was to "abolish private property" but rather to transfer it all into the hands of a tiny clique of revolutionists who would become a new aristocracy, the richest and most powerful in all of history. "Personal property" is the scraps promised to the bottom feeders Marx hoped to recruit as his army to do this. In reality, the bottom feeders were never really worth anything, and all the successful communist revolutions were carried out by professional revolutionists drawn disproportionately from the upper and middle classes, just like the owners of big industrial enterprises in a market system.

[Camicon]

Yeah, the Leftist Coniferous. I've got one in my backyard.

Coniferous? That's not leftist dude. Only palms and some succulents are leftists.

Typical fucking revisionism.

The Leftist Coniferous is native to BC. Everything shifts to the left in Canada, you know that.

[Neo Balka]

When the 38% rebels because the 40% Violated the Boilshite treaty, then and only then will the 1% finally key in the various codes for the US Nuclear arsenal and throw the world into a nuclear hellscape from which there is no escape.

[Kubra]

The newspaper closed in 1849? during an actual revolution?? It's quite time with that in mind, innit?

Your original story was that Marx never said anything bloodthirsty.

Your new story is that it was reasonable for Marx to say bloodthirsty things.

OK.

Shall we call the day-to-day reports of napoleon to paris and paris to napoleon during the italian campaign vile and bloodthirsty? How about Clausewitz's vom kriege? These examples, after all, pertain to violence.
That's all you're doing: presenting speech on violence as violent speech. You've merely seized on the first (and likely only) example you can think of without anything greater than a surface reading.
You know, summer won't last forever, september's coming up soon and if you can't properly read primary source material your grades are going to suffer.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Your original story was that Marx never said anything bloodthirsty.

Your new story is that it was reasonable for Marx to say bloodthirsty things.

OK.

Shall we call the day-to-day reports of napoleon to paris and paris to napoleon during the italian campaign vile and bloodthirsty? How about Clausewitz's vom kriege? These examples, after all, pertain to violence.
That's all you're doing: presenting speech on violence as violent speech. You've merely seized on the first (and likely only) example you can think of without anything greater than a surface reading.
You know, summer won't last forever, september's coming up soon and if you can't properly read primary source material your grades are going to suffer.

Well yeah obviously Napoleon, contender for world's greatest ever warlord, was bloodthirsty. What kind of argument is that? Marx didn't just comment on violence as Clausewitz arguably did and military historians do but advocated it against (what he predicted to be) his defenceless and prostrate enemies. Making him indeed worse in spirit than Napoleon who fought somewhat honourably.

[Kubra]

Shall we call the day-to-day reports of napoleon to paris and paris to napoleon during the italian campaign vile and bloodthirsty? How about Clausewitz's vom kriege? These examples, after all, pertain to violence.
That's all you're doing: presenting speech on violence as violent speech. You've merely seized on the first (and likely only) example you can think of without anything greater than a surface reading.
You know, summer won't last forever, september's coming up soon and if you can't properly read primary source material your grades are going to suffer.

Well yeah obviously Napoleon, contender for world's greatest ever warlord, was bloodthirsty. What kind of argument is that? Marx didn't just comment on violence as Clausewitz arguably did and military historians do but advocated it against (what he predicted to be) his defenceless and prostrate enemies. Making him indeed worse in spirit than Napoleon who fought somewhat honourably.

he wasn't even so much as a consul during the italian campaign. I suppose you'd call his dinner menu bloodthirsty, on account of it being food served to napoleon. Nevermind then, Wellington's day-to-day reports during the peninsular war. Imagine how boring those would be. I assume they are not bloodthirsty, on account of they are from wellington and not napoleon, though of much the same substance.

>his defenceless and prostrate enemies
The Prussian army? Defenseless and prostrate? The rhenish Committee for Public Safety? Well that's a bit of a lark, innit?
Marx's little line on the matter is quite clear: what is done to them today is a debt to be paid. I suppose this is quite an alarming and bloodthirsty line to british sorts, given the scope of that debt.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Marx mocked his enemies for being merciful, and said that when he is in power he will not let them go into exile, but murder them all after defeating them.

Marx was a bloodthristy wannabe tyrant.

[Kubra]

Marx mocked his enemies for being merciful, and said that when he is in power he will not let them go into exile, but murder them all after defeating them.

Marx was a bloodthristy wannabe tyrant.

>mocked his enemies for being merciful
No, he mocked them for being dumb, what with charging their latest issues with everything done already by their earlier issues in the first place.
Marx was a mere editor, and so got exile. The baden revolutionaries, for having done a little more than edit a paper, were given firing squads.
I suppose Marx's sentiment then ought to have been "well, I mean, it wasn't me who was shot, these prussian junkers are alright after all"?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Mercy being considered by Marx to be dumbness.

Not incorrectly. The Prussians absolutely should have given Marx a firing squad.

Note that I am not saying Marx was wrong. I am saying that he was bloodthirsty. Sometimes being bloodthirsty is correct strategy. If Marxists had been no good at strategy, they'd never have taken over so many countries.

[Kubra]

Mercy being considered by Marx to be dumbness.

Not incorrectly. The Prussians absolutely should have given Marx a firing squad.

Note that I am not saying Marx was wrong. I am saying that he was bloodthirsty. Sometimes being bloodthirsty is correct strategy. If Marxists had been no good at strategy, they'd never have taken over so many countries.

No, dumbness being calling the later issues as too much when all the issues were about the same.

>they should have given a newspaper editor the firing squad
So was calling Marx a bloodthirsty wannabe tyrant a pejorative or a declaration of solidarity between you and him?

Wait, wasn't it a bad thing for Marx to be bloodthirsty and and tyrant and all that you charge him with? Now all of a sudden it is correct, and something one can dispense with as they please?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Marx didn't say "it's unreasonable to murder and exile people and I will punish you for it", he said "it's dumb not to murder all opponents immediately and I, not being dumb, will do precisely that".

Both Marx and I would use violence to suppress political enemies, but my political goals aren't to steal everything in the world and enslave all other people (apart from perhaps a handful of necessary co-revolutionists) in the world.

[Gauthier]

Coniferous? That's not leftist dude. Only palms and some succulents are leftists.

Typical fucking revisionism.

The Leftist Coniferous is native to BC. Everything shifts to the left in Canada, you know that.

Does it drop cones when you play Monopoly under it?

[Kubra]

Marx didn't say "it's unreasonable to murder and exile people and I will punish you for it", he said "it's dumb not to murder all opponents immediately and I, not being dumb, will do precisely that".

Both Marx and I would use violence to suppress political enemies, but my political goals aren't to steal everything in the world and enslave all other people (apart from perhaps a handful of necessary co-revolutionists) in the world.

No, he said:
"Did we not speak plainly and clearly enough for those dullards who failed to see the "red" thread running through all our comments and reports on the European movement?"
this is the only line in which out-and-out mockery occurs, and it's pretty merited, I'd say.
As for the charges of violence, here is what I assume the offending line to be:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable."
Given that the context is the possibility of a seige of cologne and probably a few more summary executions, your charge does not seem to hold water.

Ah, I see, so the principle is "it's only bad if people I disagree with do it." Marx's crime is not being a "wannabe bloodthirsty tyrant", but being Marx instead of a loyal subject of HRH Queen Victoria I.

[Camicon]

The Leftist Coniferous is native to BC. Everything shifts to the left in Canada, you know that.

Does it drop cones when you play Monopoly under it?

The squirrels throw twigs while chattering "bourgeois pigs!". Gotta shoot a few with the ol' BB gun if you want any peace.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Marx didn't say "it's unreasonable to murder and exile people and I will punish you for it", he said "it's dumb not to murder all opponents immediately and I, not being dumb, will do precisely that".

Both Marx and I would use violence to suppress political enemies, but my political goals aren't to steal everything in the world and enslave all other people (apart from perhaps a handful of necessary co-revolutionists) in the world.

No, he said:
"Did we not speak plainly and clearly enough for those dullards who failed to see the "red" thread running through all our comments and reports on the European movement?"
this is the only line in which out-and-out mockery occurs, and it's pretty merited, I'd say.
As for the charges of violence, here is what I assume the offending line to be:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable."
Given that the context is the possibility of a seige of cologne and probably a few more summary executions, your charge does not seem to hold water.

IDK how else to interpret "When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." than the way I have done. Marx was in favour of revolutionary terror. He even quotes himself to prove his consistency, in a previous edition of NRZ:

"there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."

Ah, I see, so the principle is "it's only bad if people I disagree with do it." Marx's crime is not being a "wannabe bloodthirsty tyrant", but being Marx instead of a loyal subject of HRH Queen Victoria I.

Yes. Where have I advanced the Christian principle that killing people is intrinsically wrong? I am with Marx - who denied morality entirely - on this, that it is not intrinsically wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

So you have your own bizarre idiosyncratic definition of leftism? Nice.

No, leftism entails the abolition of hierarchy. Fairly certain predicating superiority from things such as the nation (something hierarchical to begin with) you identify yourself with and then proceeding to think and act in accordance to such superiority results in the establishment of hierarchy.

No, abolition of hierarchy is fairly specific to anarchist schools of thought. Most anarchic systems are left-wing in nature but "leftism" blatantly does not adhere to the notion of "abolition of hierarchy". Authoritarian socialism exists, which clearly isn't about the "abolition of hierarchy", and I just got back from a Labour Party meeting, and the layers of bureaucracy in that are very, very not in pursuit of "abolition of hierarchy".

[Frank Zipper]

One area where I would expect to see a sudden change in the very near future is with natural language processing suddenly making call centre jobs redundant. Siri, Amazon Echo, and Cortana show how close this is to becoming a reality. It would have a large political impact in India and the Philippines.