You Have A Lot of Fucking Nerve, Man

The BBQ Pit
21

Marx Boy:

I did read your brochure.

Maybe we can argue about that. I found it to contain blatant falsehoods. For example both consumer confidence and employment are much higher than they were 15 years ago. There is absolutely nothing to back up the mah=jority of assertions the brochure makes. For example, by what criteria have they determinined that today’s youth will have a lower standard of living than their parents? By any reasonable measure, that’s just not true.

Can we truly blame the malaise of today’s youth on Capitalism? Why do we think Socialism will change this, homophobia, or anything else? It seems to me that it’s the job of youth to be disgruntled, and if anything today’s youth seem pretty tame compared to what used to exist.

While it’s true that wages are down, benefits are up, and the restructuring of America’s retirement programs puts the the power the ownership and the responsibility for the workers’ welfare in their own hands!

Basically, the pamphlet is just a bunch of propaganda. It’s entirely unprovable generalization, or patent falsehood. It’s also capitalism at work! Just 8 bucks will get me a subscription!

In all sincerity Marxboy, you seem smarter than that little excuse for a chick tract. Why?

22

You make good points there. Note that much of that pamphlet was personal agenda of the group (Homophobia, Racism, etc.)

Wages are in fact down 20%, although I do agree that for the most part this generation does have as good or better a standard of living than their parents. I’ll call that… an anomoly.

The economy, like it or not is experiencing a recession. Ask any economist, ebb and flow is the nature of Capitalism. Problem is, every time the economy comes back, the money is distributed to a smaller and smaller group. You have to believe that eventually the have-nots will overthrow those with the money, when it’s concentrated enough.

When he laid out his dialectical process, Marx understood that this was an eventual thing, but he also maintained that it was an unstoppable force of history. Socialism that is not organic, and does not follow the dialectical process is unlikely to succeed. This, I feel is largely why Soviet Communism didn’t work. They essentially went from feudalism to Communism, and then they had essentially capitalist system inside the communism.

::“The Internationale” Swells In The Background::

Democratic Socialism all the way. No secret police, no suppression of free speech, no bullshit. Power in unity. Strength in the collective, let the state serve the people.

And BTW, there is no cost to being a member. There is an $8 annual cost (whoah!) to subscribe to the magazine, and I think that’s fair. I do wish that they made it clearer that that cost isn’t to join, and you don’t have to subscribe (I don’t) YFIS makes no money outside this, and they use it to sponsor their people going to protests and other socialist causes. It’s all good.

Propaganda? Sure. It’s just there to find people who share goals with our group, and let them know that we’re around.

A Jack Chick Tract? Nah. It is dogmatic in its suggestion that Socialism can solve all problems easily, but it is expected that you would go to the site and read the archive of writings by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.

I hope that I inspired some people to do so.

MarxBoy

23

That whole bunch of crap about the wealthy controlling the media and what you are allowed to see is a bunch of unadulterated horseshit. All three networks are owned by publically traded companies. Two of these, G.E. and Disney are perhaps the most widely held stocks in the world. Anybody with $50.00 can own a voting piece of one of these companies.

The way programming is determinded is about as egalitarian as it gets. If lots of people watch it, they make money. There are laws that are closely followed (so as not to jeopardize FCC licensing) that prevents tampering with news agencies, and mandates fair disclosure. For example, CNBC cannot give information on G.E., good or bad, without identifying the fact they are owned by G.E.

The track record for free communications and information exchange under Capitalism is exemplary, especially compared to what has actually occured with Socialism.

24

Marxboy:

You need to take a cue from Olentzero, and stop being so polite and well-mannered. It makes it hard to work up a good head of steam. :wink:

But seriously, if you recopgnize the deficiencies in that brochure, and the falsehoods, then why would you distribute it?
I’m pretty conservative, but generally I disassociate myself from the likes of Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh.

25

[Cranky Old Lady voice]:

Marxboy, what happened to you WAS vaguely annoying. But remember, in a lot of countries today—and in the U.S. not so long ago—you could be jailed, deported or lynched for handing out those same pamphlets. I’d say a curt phone call is pretty pale ale, all things considered.

And this is coming from someone whose grampa was an actual Trotskyite, back when there WAS a Trotsky.

26

I should clarify: people were meant to read the writings on the webpage and hopefully come to the conclusion that Socialism COULD help.

Scylla, I know that traditionally Marxist regimes have repressed free speech. Also understand that what was going on in Russia after Lenin, and what goes on in China is not Communism. That’s Totalitarianism/Fascism. It’s wierd how the far left and the far right can so easily meet, it’s like a ring.

Here’s a fun activity you can do at home: Listen to/read/watch a variety of news reports on a topic that you know a lot about or are close to. Anything where you know significantly more than the average Joe. See how accurate your media outlets are. If they’re never accurate on things you know about, why assume they’re accurate on things you don’t? The media rips some innocent people open, and makes heroes out of assholes. Isn’t almost always the conservative one that gets the good treatment?

Example, albeit a bad one: Columbine!

The media doesn’t want to take on the NRA, so instead it goes after Marilyn Manson. I don’t like him, and neither did Dylan and Erik, but I recognize his right to do his thing. He was an easy target, and he was ripped to shreds, his tour was stopped midway, etc.

Business as usual for Charleston Heston during this time. Mind you, I’m not for major gun control. I can’t imagine a worse scenario than one in which only the government has guns. ::shudder::

MarxBoy

27

Whoa there Bricker! Granted, you qualified this statement as a bit off the wall, but implementation of socialism certainly isn’t the only cause of violence in the name of a changing of the guard. Now, its percentages may be higher, and the death toll bigger, but you can’t be exclusionary.

[sub]Is “exclusionary” a word?[/sub]

28

For once, I have to agree with Scylla.

As I’ve had to re-read the Communist Manifesto twice this term for class(two different classes), I’ve been astounded by the misogyny of the document. I don’t see this addressed by socialists or communists when they discuss the manifesto.

That women exist to have babies in a collectivist nanny pose while not having the mother/child bond, not to mention the compulsory heterosexuality that ignores gays and lesbians, it has amazed me that someone between the socialists and the communists haven’t written an updated version of the manifesto that is more egalitarian.

29

Hastur said:

And if that’s not a sign of the apocalypse, I don’t know what is. :wink:

30

Marxboy, I have to say, you’re a pretty cool poster and all…but the website I saw was full of very pretty simplifications and missing some hard facts.

For example: Lenin was not a nice guy. He was pretty violent, nasty and basically an asshole. (Yes, Olentzero, we’ve gone here before-God Save the Tsar!). LOL. He was the one who set up the gulags, the CheKa and the Red Terror campaigns. And from what I’ve heard, Trotsky wasn’t so hot either.

Communism sounds nice on paper, but in actual practice, it’s a disaster-especially in Russia. You should talk to my professor sometime. I could give you his e-mail if you like. He lived in Russia, and his grandfather, or maybe great grandfather was one of the Kulaks who had their lands taken away by Lenin and later Stalin.

Funny, as most people know, I’m a pretty hard bleeding liberal leftist bitch, but even I don’t think communism/socialism can work-much as I abhor laissez faire capitalism and the culture that making money is the end all and be all.

The thing that irked me the most about Marx and Lenin and such was their tirades against the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie. Lenin was the son of a NOBLEMAN. He wasn’t a worker or a proletariat at all.

Oh, and what Hastur said.

31

Issue number one, Stalin: Stalin was an evil, mass murdering, psychotic bad guy. Anyone who is a current Communist will tell you that Stalin was not one of us. Lenin did use violence and secret police to achieve his goals, and that was wrong. Lots of people have done horrible things in the name of Christianity, too, and some are still remembered quite well. (cough cough CALVIN cough)

Issue 2, Pamphlets: I handed out the pamphlets because I thought overall they were a good representation of what this group is about, and it would catch the attention of anyone who was likely to be interested in falling in with us. I only recognized one flaw (called it an anomoly) and one design shortcoming (the fact that it appears there is a membership charge). Also, it was May Day, and I had a sense of Socialist duty to get something out there. These were slick, effective and free (providing I snuck in to the staff lounge and made all my copies there).

Issue 3, The Manifesto: I agree with the basic ideas of the manifesto, and I see the Dialectical process as being unavoidably true. I don’t exactly share the Marx/Engels view of society. I don’t see it being exactly like that. I am still more Bolshevik than revisionist, but remember that Lenin wrote a whole set of rules for “Russian Communism” that were different than those set out by Marx. He was a purist by most standards, and I consider myself to be somewhere in between.

Anything else?

BTW, when I mentioned my Columbine thing, I remembered reading a fairly intelligent article that Manson wrote for Rolling Stone at the time. I looked it up, you can read it here

32

Issue number one, Stalin: Stalin was an evil, mass murdering, psychotic bad guy. Anyone who is a current Communist will tell you that Stalin was not one of us. Lenin did use violence and secret police to achieve his goals, and that was wrong. Lots of people have done horrible things in the name of Christianity, too, and some are still remembered quite well. (cough cough CALVIN cough)

Issue 2, Pamphlets: I handed out the pamphlets because I thought overall they were a good representation of what this group is about, and it would catch the attention of anyone who was likely to be interested in falling in with us. I only recognized one flaw (called it an anomoly) and one design shortcoming (the fact that it appears there is a membership charge). Also, it was May Day, and I had a sense of Socialist duty to get something out there. These were slick, effective and free (providing I snuck in to the staff lounge and made all my copies there).

Issue 3, The Manifesto: I agree with the basic ideas of the manifesto, and I see the Dialectical process as being unavoidably true. I don’t exactly share the Marx/Engels view of society. I don’t see it being exactly like that. I am still more Bolshevik than revisionist, but remember that Lenin wrote a whole set of rules for “Russian Communism” that were different than those set out by Marx. He was a purist by most standards, and I consider myself to be somewhere in between.

Anything else?

BTW, when I mentioned my Columbine thing, I remembered reading a fairly intelligent article that Manson wrote for Rolling Stone at the time. I looked it up, you can read it here

33

You are kidding, right? Of course the people who compose the media are just as equal as you under socialism. In fact, it is the “will of the people”, voted in through dollars, that determines what the media does. You succesfully show that people like to be lied to (and are willing to pay for it).

No country’s media has ever been praised by the viewing/listening public. To attack a semi-capitalist country’s media as expounding the evils of capitalism doesn’t seem justified to me. Might as well use Hitler against socialism.

that is assuming, of course, that you are using the evils of media to outline the evils of capitalism. The post was sort of lacking in transition there.

I do not like socialism. My first brush with liking capitalism was when I got a job and realized how many people do jack shit and get paid for it because there are others to take up the slack (which wouldn’t happen so much under a free economy, IMO). But, alas, human nature defeats every political system, I’m afraid. No matter how nice they sound, in the end you are going to have to make someone agree with your ways or its off to the prison system.

As such, IMO, most any atrocity that may be leveled against one type of economic/political system may, in fact, be aimed at almost any other given the appropriate context/ exchange of terms.

34

I haven’t made a detailed study of media ownership, but just from my own observations, public, government-funded CBC Radio’s coverage of (say) the Quebec summit was a hellova lot more balanced than the corporate media outlet’s. And local alternative weekly Hour magazine’s (owned by tiny Voir Communications) coverage was fairer, or at least less dismissive, than that of the otherwise comparable Montreal Mirror (owned by enormous Quebecor).

aynrandlover, what on earth do you mean, “the will of the people voted in through dollars”? The will of the people doesn’t determine anything on a corporate media network. The will of the advertisers does. It doesn’t take Einstein to see that if Monsanto is the major sponsor of Action News, Action News is probably not going to be to rapid to criticize Monsanto.

35

GAAAAHH!! I hate this! Why do people always bring Hitler in to socialist discussions?

Hitler was a FASCIST. I understand that Socialist was in the name of his party, but National Socialist is an oxymoron. It makes no damned sense. He was a fascist fuckhead, never even close to being Socialist.

Peh.

MarxBoy

36

Marx
Perhaps the context of the sentence was not clear. I was commenting that to attack capitalism through the media was the equivalent of attacking socialism through Hitler. In other words, a no-no. A bad argument.

I’m not sure I would say he was “not even close to being a socialist” though. That seems just as much in error. Like all economic systems their implementation through politics may leave something to be desired from one person to another.

Matt
Somehow I don’t think, were he still alive and had the funds to do so, that Anton Szander Lavey would be so welcomed to advertise as, say, Walt Disney. A station is partially reflected by the advertisements they bring in. Big money spenders on advertising come in when the stations are popular; hence, people are watching the shows, the advertisers come in, we buy the products, etc. Jack in the box probably had plenty of commercials airing during the food scandal.

But advertising isn’t strictly about money either, of course. It is pretty political in nature. Some stations never air pro life commercials or pro-choice commercials. Some air both.

I was in England for about a week, and though I watched television I cannot remember for the life of me whether anything but other television shows were advertised for.

At any rate, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that some people would prefer certain media styles over others, much like people like certain stations over others or certian shows over others. Again, I don’t see how attacking a public-pleasing media has anything to do with the economic system present in any country.

37

I don’t know what I expect from someone with the name aynrandlover (sort of the SDMB antithesis of MarxBoy), but I know it’s not relaxed acceptance of Marxist ideas. That’s cool, whatever works for you.

I do take issue with you dismissing my comments about Hitler being totally non-socialist. The man was a fascist, and the two are more or less on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Extreme left and right are not compatable, although it is dangerously easy to slide from one to the other. Stalin perhaps started off Socialist, but he was certainly a dicator. Hitler was never EVER a socialist.

MarxBoy

38

Hey hey hey. I’m liking what I’m seein’ here…

$8 a go, I betcha I could move about 25,000 of those per year. That’s $200K. Figure volunteers for the editorial and sales, even better…hmm…pure profit.

Ooo yes! And with that kinda circulation I betcha I could move another $200K in ad revenue. Gotta be some firm wants to sell to the young socialists of america…

Hey, I think this particular marketing guy is seeing the light!

Or am I missing something?

39

Chance, they don’t move anywhere near that volume. YFIS is in infant stages. They use what they make to maintain their website, which is a great library of Socialist thought, publish their magazine, and sponsor the causes of their members.

40

Hey, there, just a joke.

But I betcha I could move that many. A little direct mail, some manipulative ads and BANG, all the cool kids are socialists.

FTR, though. You shouldn’t take crap for passing out flyers. Think of it as a badge of honor. Could be worse. Some places they’d break a nightstick over your head.