lord of flies

In the future, try looking up words so you don't look stupid. For example, you could look up the words "direct action."

The authority of an objective view of reality? Figuring out who is rich and who is poor is not that difficult: people who own or manage the means of production (CEOs, investors, etc.) are "rich." Those who are forced to continually work for an indefinite period of time (or their whole live) or fail to function within society (have access to food, water, shelter, etc) are "poor." The taking of the surplus value of the labor of the worker by the corporation is "being ****ed." As a form of "extra-democratic method," direct action has a long history that you have chosen to rewrite (as liberals are want to do). Of course only those methods of trying for political change that don't actually work are "okay." Was the civil rights movement unjustified because it was built on direct action? Was the long fight for women's suffrage evil? The national liberation struggle in the various colonies of the western imperialist powers? Mai 68? Kent State? Poor People's Campaign? EDSA? Oh, who am I kidding, of course they were...

Class antagonism, unlike racial antagonism, Actually Exists. The rich are really ****ing over the poor, whereas the immigrants are not. It is the difference between any valid struggle and an invalid one: what is struggled against? The state is struggled against in the socialist struggle because it perpetuates a system of class relations which is wrong and evil. For the bourgeois democrat struggling against the monarchy two centuries ago, the reason is precisely the same (the monarchist state perpetuates the feudal class system).

I guess it's a good thing I didn't cite the US Civil War (abolition of slavery was after the civil war began, btw). Was the Romanian Revolution unjustified too?

Jeez, you could at least read the original post. 90% of direct action is nonviolent. Oh no, a few thousand people died in the pursuit of a progressive cause. Try again.

Let's play some family guy clips while we play. Jesus Christ, do not do this. What the ****ing hell? Even I know you should never do this.

There is a tl;dr summary at the bottom. Also, I post via proxy. "Mwhahaha."

The capitalist system, as an economic, political and social system, cannot be destroyed from within. To put it another way, participation in "bourgeois" parliamentarianism cannot truly reform the creature. The entire economic, political and social system of modern capitalism is focused on the livelihood of a microscopic minority of monopolists. One can look far and wide for the ways this is true. Since many (most?) posters here are from the United States, here are a few examples from the last few years in USA internal politics: the bank bailout, the recent health care reform (a massive handout to insurance companies) and the continued and increased persecution of illegal immigrants (e.g. SB1070) in order to create a permanent underclass of workers for capitalists to exploit. Why do corporations exercise disproportionate power over the political structure of the country? It would be easy to say that it is because of the United States system of massive campaign donations, but this is simply a way to shift the blame onto something that can be reformed. In 2000 and 2002, the number of political offices in Vermont which could be obtained by the use of public financing jumped sharply. However, the current tax rates on corporations in Vermont, which vary from 6 to 8.5 percent based on tax bracket (and were identical in 2009 and 2008), have actually gone down from 2000, when they were from 7 to 9.75 percent based on tax bracket. As this example illustrates, the use of campaign funding by political candidates has little-to-nothing to do with their behavior in office. Politicians in the United States are almost completely representatives of the interests of the modern capitalist monopolists. There are a few obvious reasons: the large number of politicians who are millionaires (in 2008, a total of 244 Senators and Representatives had an estimated net worth above one million dollars, and there may be even more), the strength and support of corporate lobbyists in comparison to labor, minority, anti-war and other progressive interests, etc. The most important reason, however, is simple: the United States has an economy which, like the economy of any other developed capitalist country, is virtually completely reliant on the monopoly capitalists, barring major upheaval. The politicians of our country, like any other developed capitalist country, outright strike out the possibility of such a major upheaval. Because of this, the capitalists must be dealt with in a "fair" and "reasonable" manner. The politicians view it as absolutely necessary to maintain a "reasonable" (i.e. free market capitalist) economy, to the point that a change can be viewed as a catastrophic destruction of the system. Any good leader confronted with the catastrophic destruction of his nation, state or people would balk at willingly taking it on, even if popular consensus was against him. Without a traditional democratic methodology by which to seek correction for the economic situation by which we have been enslaved and subjugated, we must resort to the means by which a hundred other movements have succeeded and thrived: direct action. The use of direct action, even when explicitly nonviolent, constitutes an implicit and violent threat to the state, as can be seen by the sometimes extreme reaction of the state to peaceful protests (e.g. Kent State shootings, the May Day Melee). With the addition of this implicit force, the insane fears of the capitalists' representatives in the state are stoked, but against fear of public agitation. It is the only way by which political change can really be achieved. To put it simply: the system which supports the modern capitalist state is supported by the monopoly capitalists. Thus, expecting the so-called "rulers" (i.e. politicians) to act seriously against the interests of the monopoly capitalists is ridiculous. The only way to make them willing to engage in what they view as undermining the supports of the state is to make an even greater threat against the supports of the state: direct action.

Yes. I am an alt shared by Krezack, Walsingham, 213374U, Sand, and TrueNeutral. Everyone on that list is complicit in my behavior and should be banned if I wind up getting banned.

@ everyone who thinks "international finance capital" means "western imperialism": congrats, you're even more mired in 19th century thinking than me. the bourgeoisie has gradually edged out huge numbers non-bourgeoisie ruling elements across the planet, whether they be feudal lords, reactionary kings or theocrats. they have replaced, systematically and unhesitatingly, every one of these wannabe capitalists that they could get their sticky little fingers around. Bourgeois culture is not the culture of a nation or people, it is the culture of the investor. the internationalism of the bourgeoisie can only be defeated by the internationalism of the proletariat: that is, by the systematic rejection of the concepts of cultural reaction, i.e. the hatred of other peoples.

Hmm, no actually, that's not how Maoism works. The point of Maoism is to do two things:a) build up strength, collect support via providing services, laws, protection, etc to the rural poor, while making promises that they can keep when they come to power (i.e. land reform) b) attack the government (in particular police/military structures) in order to reduce its power and provoke a response. For the sort of governments that Maoists attack, the government will attack wildly and erratically because they're regressive totalitarian ****heads (e.g. Operation Romeo, Operation Kilo Sera II). This produces a natural system wherein the public's opinion of the Maoist rises (they're protecting us, helping us out, etc) while their opinion of the government simultaneously drops. The focus on public support allows Maoist rebels to easily "fade into the wilderness" when police come to **** them up, and the police inevitably do what police in backwards states do, granting the Maoists renewed support. Also, Krezack, please don't badmouth the Naxalites. They're just defending their ancestral homes.

The Germans and their gold aided Lenin in the commission of his goal, since the two had goals which happened to line up in 1917. They did not make him believe in national self-determination.

The rule of international finance capital strikes the Chinese people once more, this time by pushing the citizens of China to the point of committing acts of violence against their nation's children. But let's blame communism and "those wacky asians" instead.

This is what I was referring to when I said Sis would be the "Tali" of this game.

The Maoist People's War was yet another attempt by the people of Nepal to achieve democracy, and the first one to truly and unhesitatingly work. The Maoists want representation in the new government which they helped to build. They lawfully gained a huge number of votes and have nearly a majority all on their own; international election monitors don't deny that they gained this without the use of force. You have no intention of referencing what you've mentioned because it exists solely in your mind. ~There are a lot better ways to achieve personal power than communism~

Maoism is a revolutionary strategy appropriate for a country which still has a peasantry. Obviously it's not going to occur in the first world and your pointing this out is ridiculous. In the first world a successful revolution will almost certainly look more like Mai 68, the post-Kent State movement in the USA, etc. Do you have an actual argument against Prachanda and the CPN(M) or are you just rolling around in your own filth?

itt white first worldists don't realize that Maoism is a (highly effective) revolutionary strategy and that modern Maoists don't suck off Mao about the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward any more than capitalists suck off George Washington about lynching Tories.

The People's War in Nepal overthrew a backwards reactionary absolute monarchy which massacred its own people in a counter-insurgency "strategy" ripped right out of Chiang Kai-Shek's playbook, randomly arrested homosexuals, and maintained an untouchable caste which had to drink out of the river. It replaced it with a modern democratic state that is moving forward on a progressive course much faster than many first world states. Seems like it worked out alright to me.

Nepal general strike ends, struggle continues

Patriotism is a flag. ~America~

Loyalty to your boss = professionalism in covert ops. Try looking at the second picture just a little harder.

Sis. Attractive. Unattainable. Competent. These are the words that describe Sis. But there is something more ethereal about her, more transcendent. She is a soldier, a mercenary... yet she lacks that sort of sense of someone who has been there and done that, the sense of the unapproachable, far too experienced woman. At the same time, she doesn't come off as inexperienced or inept: she is competent and knows it. She lives in the moment, fights hard and (probably) loves hard. She's got a movement style that suggests some degree of "punk" or "thug," and is also a professional bodyguard and mercenary. She is a beautiful contradiction: young yet experienced, thuggish yet professional. She doesn't have the haughty air of Sie, who exudes sexuality and feels less like a mercenary and more like some psychopath who runs around killing people. From all the videos shown, Sis is a professional, never belly-aching about orders or fraternizing with the enemy, unlike a certain German. Also, she's from Texas. Also, what the ****. You named one character Sis and another Sie? Jesus wept, Obsidian.

lmao @ the idea that national self-determination was some idea that Lenin came up with in 1917 to win power. Firstly, and foremost: the split between Lenin and Stalin that lead to what is now known as "Lenin's Testament," a collection of documents detailing his wishes for the future of the Soviet Union was caused, in large part, by Stalin's russo-chauvinistic involvement in the Georgian Affair; in this document he criticized both Great Russian chauvinism and Stalin. If Lenin did not care about national self-determination, he would not have held to these principles when he was already in (an admittedly fading, but to other communists) position of power. Secondly, he was pro-nationalities all the way back in 1902, when he wrote in the Draft Programme for the RSDLP "For these reasons the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party advances ... a republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure ... recognition of the right to self-determination for all nations forming part of the state" In fact, the greatest heartland of support for Bolshevism was the urban centers of Russia. In the entire country (i.e. all of the Russian Empire, not simply the RSFSR) it was the second most popular political party going just by bourgeois politics. If you're looking for the policy that Lenin adopted in order to gain power, that would be his support for the peasant communes. Though, of course, Lenin held that the peasantry formed a fellow progressive class alongside the proletariat, so ceding to the progressive demands of the peasantry was also completely in line with his ideological bent.

If you want to have a fight over Katyn, go ahead and start one. This tiresome sniping impresses no one. I'm pretty sure someone brought up SB-1070 (in some veiled reference about "a state enforcing the unenforced federal laws with respect to immigration"). I'm not re-reading the thread to find out who because Obsidian runs like crap on my computer. Whoever it was: **** you.

Somebody needs to read some Lenin. *sigh* Lenin's great distinguishing feature, in contradistinction to contemporary Marxists like Luxemburg, was his firm belief in national self-determination: that is, the right of all nations to secession and to their own culture.