Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 199

On January 21 2020 22:55 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:36 Loco wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.   On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you? Again Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them? Huh? Didn't you openly say more than once that you were in the habit of skipping over all my posts, implying that my contributions can only ever be worthless? Why are you now trying to give me lessons on understanding and empathy? I don't even go that far with GoTuNk. Did you ever show an ounce of remorse for saying these things or apologize to me? Well I told you - how Gotunk seems you to, you seem to me, dismissing ideas in a close minded way, never asking questions only forcibly trying to push your narrow understanding of the world Have I been doing exactly the same thing, dismissing your ideas and scarcely asking questions? Well yeah? Does that make me a hypocrite when I talk about empathy? Also yes! Well no, you've done much worse than dismiss specific ideas that I bring up, you've decided that it was worthwhile to announce to the community that everything I write is not worth reading. Also, if you hadn't been skipping my posts for so long (duh), you would have found out that I did ask questions to GoTuNk a number of times and usually he decided to evade them. People on this site have a history, believe it or not, and you are not in the best place to know that history. They are. You're just arrogantly introducing yourself into exchanges between people that you do not have the slightest clue about and make assumptions about them because it's low effort entertainment.

Agree with all of that
It's just really satisfying standing up to bullies to me
And well I suppose authority in general, I think you'd agree you do tend to act like both

You bring interesting points, I'd like to read more about that era of India but got a pile of other stuff I want to read prior to that, so I'm kind of forced to take your points as they are (since they make sense and I lack info to refute them). Clement Attlee's supposed quote doesn't mean much though for rather obvious reasons.

Regardless my point is that Pacifism can spark major activity and trends towards opposition against oppressors. Technically violence is bound to occur, its just a matter of who the initiator is. I gave Rosa Sparks as an example, cause she is the pivot point which turned the black civil rights movement in the US and she's probably one of the most non-violent people to ever walk this planet.

On January 21 2020 23:21 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:55 Loco wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:36 Loco wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.   On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you? Again Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them? Huh? Didn't you openly say more than once that you were in the habit of skipping over all my posts, implying that my contributions can only ever be worthless? Why are you now trying to give me lessons on understanding and empathy? I don't even go that far with GoTuNk. Did you ever show an ounce of remorse for saying these things or apologize to me? Well I told you - how Gotunk seems you to, you seem to me, dismissing ideas in a close minded way, never asking questions only forcibly trying to push your narrow understanding of the world Have I been doing exactly the same thing, dismissing your ideas and scarcely asking questions? Well yeah? Does that make me a hypocrite when I talk about empathy? Also yes! Well no, you've done much worse than dismiss specific ideas that I bring up, you've decided that it was worthwhile to announce to the community that everything I write is not worth reading. Also, if you hadn't been skipping my posts for so long (duh), you would have found out that I did ask questions to GoTuNk a number of times and usually he decided to evade them. People on this site have a history, believe it or not, and you are not in the best place to know that history. They are. You're just arrogantly introducing yourself into exchanges between people that you do not have the slightest clue about and make assumptions about them because it's low effort entertainment. Agree with all of that It's just really satisfying standing up to bullies to me And well I suppose authority in general, I think you'd agree you do tend to act like both

I argue for the dismantling of all hierarchies, which I view as being inherently authoritarian. I am arguing with people who defend those hierarchies. So no, I would certainly not agree.

I'm not bullying anyone as I don't have any power over anyone here. "Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate." I cannot use force here. If people engage with me they do so voluntarily. People who get bullied, by definition, are not voluntarily bullied. If you engage in debate/discussion, wherein there are no clear rules, boundaries and rewards, and no agreed upon winners or losers, then it is a form of consensual play.

On January 21 2020 23:25 Spitfiree wrote: Regardless my point is that Pacifism can spark major activity and trends towards opposition against oppressors.

Absolutely, and I said as much. Non-violent resistance is extremely important, the issue is when it is dogmatically assumed to be the best strategy on its own and in all situations.

For a recent example of this we can look at Extinction Rebellion, where we can see that non-violent resistance on its own has been fruitless. The cops can infiltrate them and know everything they do, so they're not a threat whatsoever to the state. Despite being nonviolent, they were misrepresented in the media and eventually categorized by the state as an extremist/terrorist organization (which happened recently UK). But still, you probably need a movement like that in this era as it opens up new opportunities, even if only in the shadow of their failures.

On January 21 2020 18:46 Loco wrote: Nazi Speech Matters! Interfering with the *~MarKeTPlaCe Of IdEaS~* is always bad, because speech is totally causally inert!

Not because they are inert but because once you stop freedom of speech then you will have an arbiter of speech that will peddle what it wants for irrefutable truth.


If you are going to spouse profundly authoritarian ideas at least don't get mad when people call you a tankie, but I guess in your mind that it's not the state that will beat you up and shut you up, it will be the mob so thats fine.

On January 21 2020 22:45 Loco wrote: I can define "rational" for you through an example. A belief in pseudoscientific theories

Pseudoscientific theories like the one claiming gender preferences genensis is social while the data proves the opposite in the well known scandinavian paradox? (which you have dodged like 5 times now in this thread)


How can someone as suppousedly well read as you can make arguments like "this political ideology is irrational and also evil, but mine is rational and also righreous" like a monk in the middle ages devouring tomes at candle light all his life yet you unable to get wiser in the slightest.

You remind me of all the pundits who are paid to defend the atrocities of Israel towards Palestinians. "Oh they have slingshots and they are attacking them; oh they were clearly all running towards the fence to destroy it and kill them, they were only defending themselves by having snipers shoot them in the head!" You have no conception of proportionality and power dynamics whatsoever.

Hypothetically, if I owned and hoarded 99% of the world's land and resources and some poor dude with nothing managed to get through my security to punch me in the face, your pathetic ethical framework would have you condemn them.

The theory of the marketplace of ideas is bullshit. Change my mind (with scientific evidence) and I'll send you a hundred bucks. Offer applies to anyone.

"Loco, how can you believe that holding 19th century pseudoscientific convictions is any different from not holding any such pseudoscientific convictions! Scientific racism and Aryan race theory is just as likely to be rational as whatever the fuck you believe in. I am very smart." - Baal 2020

Also Baal:

Nazism is just as evil as libertarian socialism. Look at all of this evidence that I have accumulated of the torture and murders of innocent people that have been committed by libertarian socialists: [provides nothing]

Never change my dude. Oh and I have no stake at all in that gender debate. I could not care any less one way or another. I am just aware that it's not a good idea to base one's beliefs on a single study in the social sciences, and I know that you can't read the science, and that Peterson is an expert in misrepresenting the science. (A climate change denier who is ideologically and financially motivated to misrepresent science?! Who would have thunk it!)

I've shown before that according to the very paper you quote, this is not the conclusion they arrived at, so there's that too.

On January 22 2020 06:05 Loco wrote: You remind me of all the pundits who are paid to defend the atrocities of Israel towards Palestinians. "Oh they have slingshots and they are attacking them; oh they were clearly all running towards the fence to destroy it and kill them, they were only defending themselves by having snipers shoot them in the head!" You have no conception of proportionality and power dynamics whatsoever.

Oh I remind you of some "insert absurd unrelated hyperbole", yeah nice argument.

Proportionality, so you think Nazism is the most dangerous idea, so much it must be banned from discourse, but I find the other more pallatable forms of collectivism far more dangerous because well, they are more popular so since I have the banhammer in this discourse, if I shared the way you think, to stop what we think are the most dangerous idea I should ban you shouldn't I

Also I'm curious please mark with an X what topics are allowed in your authoritarian utopia:

Opposing trans rights
Pro life talk
Opposing gay marriage and adoption
Talks about only being two genders
Genetic differences between races
Anti-migration
Climate change denial
Refusing to use prefered pronouns

Please enlighten us oh avatar of truth

Hypothetically, if I owned and hoarded 99% of the world's land and resources and some poor dude with nothing managed to get through my security to punch me in the face, your pathetic ethical framework would have you condemn them.

"If you were dying of thirst in the middle of the desert and I had a glass of water, and I sold it to you in exchange for your slavery you would defend it right? free market!!!"

Yeah you got me, abolish private property, democratize the workplace, eat the rich!!!!

After calling your argument child-like this is the stuff you bring to the ring son? come on.

The theory of the marketplace of ideas is bullshit. Change my mind (with scientific evidence) and I'll send you a hundred bucks. Offer applies to anyone.

Yeah proving subjective claims with science, and the judge happens to also be the defendan who awards the $100 lol.

Collectivism is bullshit, prove me wrong (with scientific evidence) and I'll send you one billion dollars... why do I feel you are actually going to try this fools errand.

On January 22 2020 07:08 Loco wrote: "Loco, how can you believe that holding 19th century pseudoscientific convictions is any different from not holding any such pseudoscientific convictions! Scientific racism and Aryan race theory is just as likely to be rational as whatever the fuck you believe in. I am very smart." - Baal 2020

Except that I pointed out to a specific pseudoscientific conviction you have, but you are right, nazis are retarded, but so are you.

Also Baal: Nazism is just as evil as libertarian socialism. Look at all of this evidence that I have accumulated of the torture and murders of innocent people that have been committed by libertarian socialists: [provides nothing]

Do I have to post pictures of russians caninbalizing peoplke again, nazis don't get to rebrand themselves as ethnonantionalist and distance themselves from the horrors of the war the same way you don't get to rebrand your bullshit communism branch because you tweak a few things from marx and get to ignore the over 100 million dead at your feet

Never change my dude. Oh and I have no stake at all in that gender debate. I could not care any less one way or another. I am just aware that it's not a good idea to base one's beliefs on a single study in the social sciences, and I know that you can't read the science, and that Peterson is an expert in misrepresenting the science. (A climate change denier who is ideologically and financially motivated to misrepresent science?! Who would have thunk it!)

Oh the good ol "I didnt want it anyway" tactic.

yeah yeah Peterson man bad lol

On January 21 2020 23:12 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:56 Stroggoz wrote: This guy peter gelderloos seriously misunderstands what nonviolence and pacificsm is, he doesn't actually quote many pacifists at all except for those like ghandi, mlk and nelson mandela. his 'sources', are often just personal anecdote. The claims he doesn't provide sources for are seriously unfounded, imo. Also, neocolonialism is surely better than the british colonalism over India; one of the most vile instances of imperialism ever. One shouldn't really expect all the problems to go away with decolonization, but it was a major success in many ways. If you can provide examples to back up your criticisms or an external critique of his book I'd be interested in reading them. There's a couple hundred of sources that aren't anecdotes. He acknowledges that it's better in some ways, but claims that it is not the victory that is touted by pacifists. And he's right that it's easier to gain liberation when you are fighting against an easily recognizable foreign oppressor and that now "any liberation movement would have to go up against the confounding dynamics of nationalism and ethnic/religious rivalry in order to abolish a domestic capitalism and government that are far more developed". India today is "Teetering on the Brink of Fascism". Their government is inspired by Nazism and European fascist movements of the 20th century.

I was reading through his book 'How nonviolence protects the state'. I'm not researched in the area of non-violence or pacifism, but some basic points:

His entire book is devoted to how non violence is: rascist, patriachial, inneffective, deluded, strategically inferior.

Take one pacifist, (became a non pacifist during ww2 actually). Bertrand Russell. was this guy rascist? Not by standards back then, but he opposed the vietnam war, and said the war was based on racism. Was he patriachial? No, perhaps somewhat sexist by today's standards but very progressive for his day. neither was he deluded or inneffective. Take A.J Muste, he was in favour of revolutionary pacifism, recognizing that violence is structurally embedded into institutions.

https://libcom.org/files/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state.pdf

" Besides the fact that the typical pacifist is quite clearly white and middle class, pacifism as an ideology comes from
a privileged context. It ignores that violence is already here; that violence is an unavoidable,
structurally integral part of the current social hierarchy; and that it is people of color who are
most affected by that violence. Pacifism assumes that white people who grew up in the suburbs
with all their basic needs met can counsel oppressed people, many of whom are people of color,
to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence".

every single claim here has no source to back it up, it's just a generalized view of pacifists he has. no specific quotes from actual pacifists. I do beleive a bunch of white people can give advice and strategical advise to oppressed groups, for one they have the resources to do political analysis, the priviledge to use the media. Take the Free West Papua movement, it's become an entirely pacifist movement over the last several decades, using the media to try and expose crimes against them as a main tactic. They learnt that this tactic worked in East Timor. And what use is violent struggle in that case? All it results in is backlashes, villages being massacred and widepsread rape, torture and sexual enslavement. Same can be said for Palestine. Anything that is remotely aggressive gets a 100,000 fold response in mass violence. So i don't see the point. Norman Finklestein, advocates non violence and has researched the conflict for most of his life. I don't see the problem in him being a 'white priveliged american' offering his analysis.

India began to develop after british colonialism, famines became a thing of the past and living standards rose sharply. I base this view on amartya sens research. I think the difference is very significant. I don't disagree with your views on India today, but there arn't any holocaust level famines happening. Although, i guess the risk of nuclear war with pakistan would cancel that out 100 fold.

Oh come on. He is obviously not saying that a person who is a pacifist is just as problematic as someone who is known for overt sexism and racism. The claim is that an unflinching pacifism in all circumstances doesn't challenge (or strengthens) a state that structurally serves racism and patriarchy. You can be uninformed or deluded and support an institution/organization that discriminates against minorities without you yourself discriminating against them directly in daily life.

Yeah there are no sources for that one paragraph because the entire book is basically dedicated to explaining these things in depth and with painstakingly detailed referencing. About one third of the book's text is referencing and an assemblage of smaller appendices. This is a short book that's not without its problems but it is a serious work of scholarship and should be tackled with some open-mindedness and respect. There are plenty of quotes from pacifists if you do read the book and not just the chapter titles and random skimming through.

He is not making the case that nonviolence is always ineffective, or that violence is always superior; he is advocating for a diversity of tactics, based on each and every situation and the agreed upon goals arrived at through consensus. He's also not saying that people in a position of privilege cannot contribute to these movements, but that there is a history of whitewashing by liberal pacifists and a dynamic of condescending to or insulting the people who know their struggle better than them. Again, there are examples of this in the book, and if you want a relevant current example of the problems with white liberal-dominated pacifist orgs, pay attention to Extinction Rebellion today. ( https://libcom.org/blog/extinction-rebellion-not-struggle-we-need-pt-1-19072019 , https://libcom.org/blog/xr-pt-2-31102019 )

On January 22 2020 08:43 Baalim wrote: Except that I pointed out to a specific pseudoscientific conviction you have, but you are right, nazis are retarded, but so are you.

Wow, so you don't even know the definition of pseudoscience. Bad science isn't the same as pseudoscience. The definition of pseudoscience is "statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." The claims of the "social constructivists" that you believe that I hold very deeply are not incompatible with the scientific method, they can be studied empirically, and that is the very reason you rely on this one study to attempt to debunk them. It would be pseudoscientific only if it could not be empirically researched/falsified.

Do I have to post pictures of russians caninbalizing peoplke again, nazis don't get to rebrand themselves as ethnonantionalist and distance themselves from the horrors of the war the same way you don't get to rebrand your bullshit communism branch because you tweak a few things from marx and get to ignore the over 100 million dead at your feet

Wow, bolding a comment that is the height of ignorance. Okay, how about you help me disentangle this. First, here are two quotes from Lenin:

"Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory."

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold."

Here Lenin openly admits that he structured the USSR as a state capitalist society. Which of course is true, that's what he did, and here's the wikipedia link that confirms it (as you know because you've linked it before). The long-term goal was said to be communism, but Lenin made no attempts to achieve this, if you know about the history of it. He was actively sabotaging the working class efforts of managing themselves and integrated them into the centralized bureaucratic apparatus. So what makes the atrocities committed under this ideology and economic planning only a result of communism and not at all a result of capitalism? You can't answer that question. (You are also repeating the 100 million number that has been widely discredited by historians because, again, you have no interest in the truth.)

Secondly, libertarian socialism isn't an off-shoot of Marxism, so it can't be a "rebranding" of it. This is the kind of claim that perfectly highlights your dishonesty and laziness in these debates. The works of libertarian socialists like Elysée Reclus, Louise Michel and Proudhon predate Marx's "Capital". Proudhon and Bakunin developed their theories independent to and in opposition to Marx and Engels. Proudhon's regarded as the father of libertarian socialism, and his well-known saying that "property is theft" was made in his 1840 book "What is Property" nearly 3 decades before the first volume of "Capital" came out in 1867.

The case that you are making is akin to saying that Stoicism is just an offshoot and rebranding of Epicureanism. It is clearly historically false and shows just how little you care about the pursuit of knowledge. The most absurd thing about it is that the Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists arrested, imprisoned and murdered the people that you claim are essentially the same as them. Emma Goldman writes in her book "My Two Years in Russia" the following:

"The systematic man-hunt of Anarchists in general, and of Anarcho-syndicalists in particular, with the result that every prison and jail in Soviet Russia is filled with our comrades, fully coincided in time and spirit with Lenin's speech at the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party. On that occasion Lenin announced that the most merciless war must be declared against what he termed "petty bourgeois Anarchist elements" which, according to him, are developing even within the Communist Party itself owing to the "anarcho-syndicalist tendencies of the Labour Opposition." On that very day that Lenin made the above statements numbers of Anarchists were arrested all over the country, without the least cause or explanation. No charges have been preferred against any one of the imprisoned comrades, though some of them have already been condemned to long terms without hearing or trial, and in their absence. The conditions of their imprisonment are exceptionally vile and brutal."

So if we go back to your claim, and anarchists (libertarian socialists) and the authoritarian Soviets in control of the "communist" (state capitalist) USSR were effectively the same people, what you are saying is that they were oppressing themselves, and imprisoning themselves. Or you are saying that, as you post the bodies of people who were murdered-- some of which no doubt shared my political views-- I would have killed them for having my own political views. Wow, that's so incredibly intelligent.

Oh the good ol "I didnt want it anyway" tactic. yeah yeah Peterson man bad lol

It's been my position from the very beginning that I was only critiquing your claims and misrepresentations. I was never putting forth a conviction of my own on that subject. In fact, I said I had little interest in the topic.

And yeah, Peterson is a fraud. That is a conviction that I now hold. Relying on his "expertise" on matters of evolution when he is not a biologist, and biologists have called him out for his misrepresentations, is frankly really dumb.

On January 22 2020 08:31 Baalim wrote: Yeah proving subjective claims with science, and the judge happens to also be the defendan who awards the $100 lol. Collectivism is bullshit, prove me wrong (with scientific evidence) and I'll send you one billion dollars... why do I feel you are actually going to try this fools errand.

It's not just a "subjective claim", whatever that means. It can be put as an hypothesis, and its assumptions can be challenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas

"The marketplace of ideas is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population."


"John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because "in a free and open encounter" truth would prevail.[7] President Thomas Jefferson argued that it is safe to tolerate "error of opinion [...] where reason is left free to combat it". Fredrick Siebert echoed the idea that free expression is self-correcting in Four Theories of the Press: "Let all with something to say be free to express themselves. The true and sound will survive. The false and unsound will be vanquished. Government should keep out of the battle and not weigh the odds in favor of one side or the other"


There are a number of experiments that can be done and that have be done to shed some light on whether or not these ideas stand up to scrutiny (such as those on cognitive biases and vulnerabilities as well as market failures). That you don't know about them or can't think about possible ones isn't too surprising.

"If you were dying of thirst in the middle of the desert and I had a glass of water, and I sold it to you in exchange for your slavery you would defend it right? free market!!!" Yeah you got me, abolish private property, democratize the workplace, eat the rich!!!! After calling your argument child-like this is the stuff you bring to the ring son? come on.

Wait, why are you writing that ironically? Isn't that what you believe and have argued for in the past? That someone who sells their labor to a capitalist is doing so voluntarily and therefore the exploitation is morally justified? What difference does it make whether the person is in a desert or not? As long as there are other capitalists around who compete for the dying person's servitude, you have absolutely nothing against this. In fact, you would just blame the person who sold their life away for having gotten a shitty bargain. You as a "smart capitalist" would say that you should always ask for something back based on how successful you are over time. So like, you'd bargain that after 1 year of licking the boot nicely enough, you drop from being a slave 100% of the time to 90% of the time, and it could end up being freedom from slavery after 10 years of licking the boot or whatever. I'm pretty sure you are logically committed to that position and that if you are being logically consistent you have to believe that everyone who disagrees is a dirty commie who wants to put every capitalist in a gulag.

I do think nonviolent approaches have shown themselves as possibly working, but it does hinge on the power/morality (largely interconnected) of the country responsible for the atrocities. I don't think tibetan monks setting themselves on fire has been all that successful (do correct me if I'm wrong) in altering chinese policies towards them, even if it has managed to spur a tiny amount of western attention. China is powerful enough to ignore international outcries, in fact it rather has so much influence on so many powerful western actors that they are able to stifle some of the critical voices. But I think in south africa non violent resistance was crucial for ending apartheid (I think this is one of the cases where international pressure was most successful in making a country end an abhorrent domestic policy - again, do correct me if I'm wrong.).

but good luck nonviolently protesting nazi germany

There are some good examples of violent resistance mentioned in the book, like the jews sabotaging auwshitz ovens to slow down the holocaust.

On the whole though i think the book is very badly researched (i did in fact read the whole thing), and badly argued. Like 90% of the claims are 'non violent' people say this, do this, ect with no sources provided. He often appears to equate pacifists with an extremely wide range of views, particularly those that you'd find from a 'bourgious liberal', by this i mean someone that doesn't pay attention to the violence of oppressed groups but focus's on the violence towards oppressors. This to me is extremely distinct from every pacifist writer i've read, it's a big strawman to equate the two. He quotes franz fanton and equates the algerian elite with pacifists. p38 He quotes MLK's criticism of some white liberals, falsely equating them with pacifists. p21

Literally claims that pacifists white wash history in every single victory they claim, like the vietnam war movement. Which pacifists does he cite here? None. From my reading of vietnam war protestors like Chomsky, he said the vietnamese disliked the violent
protestors, and it was counterproductive. https://chomsky.info/06012016/

Some other examples of his claims that are unsourced, just seem like ridiculous claims to offhand attribute to pacifists.

+ Show Spoiler +

i looked up some criticsms, found one that deals with a lot of the logic failure. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08gm2.html

There are some seriously bad arguments in the later part of the book that non violence is not very effective when it trys to educate people, because of corporate propaganda. This doesn't make sense, the whole point of educating is to get beyond the corporate propaganda. This actually worked well in East Timor, ending the genocide and moving towards a state that is simply robbed of it's natural resources instead of being completely massacred. A massive improvement.

I myself am not a pacifist and never have been, but i think that overwhelmingly non violence works, and i find a lot of the pro violence advocates to be self destructive to left movements, so that's why i critique the book. The main goal of leftists imo, should be to educate people. When it comes to protests, that's just a product of long term education, exposing the lies of the media, economists, ect.

On January 22 2020 21:06 Loco wrote: The claim is that an unflinching pacifism in all circumstances doesn't challenge (or strengthens) a state that structurally serves racism and patriarchy.

If that's his claim it's all based on strawmen. can you name any in the book with those views, that he critiques?

the criticism of the UK extinction rebellion seems fair.

Good thing the marketplace of ideas is going to take care of this anytime now

On January 23 2020 02:54 Stroggoz wrote: There are some good examples of violent resistance mentioned in the book, like the jews sabotaging auwshitz ovens to slow down the holocaust. On the whole though i think the book is very badly researched (i did in fact read the whole thing), and badly argued. Like 90% of the claims are 'non violent' people say this, do this, ect with no sources provided. He often appears to equate pacifists with an extremely wide range of views, particularly those that you'd find from a 'bourgious liberal', by this i mean someone that doesn't pay attention to the violence of oppressed groups but focus's on the violence towards oppressors. This to me is extremely distinct from every pacifist writer i've read, it's a big strawman to equate the two. He quotes franz fanton and equates the algerian elite with pacifists. p38 He quotes MLK's criticism of some white liberals, falsely equating them with pacifists. p21 Literally claims that pacifists white wash history in every single victory they claim, like the vietnam war movement. Which pacifists does he cite here? None. From my reading of vietnam war protestors like Chomsky, he said the vietnamese disliked the violent protestors, and it was counterproductive. https://chomsky.info/06012016/ Some other examples of his claims that are unsourced, just seem like ridiculous claims to offhand attribute to pacifists. + Show Spoiler + "Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy." p20 Nonviolence implies that it is better for someone to be raped than to pull the mechanical pencil out of her pocket and plunge it into her assailant’s jugular (because doing so would supposedly contribute to some cycle of violence and encourage future rapes). p46 i looked up some criticsms, found one that deals with a lot of the logic failure. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08gm2.html There are some seriously bad arguments in the later part of the book that non violence is not very effective when it trys to educate people, because of corporate propaganda. This doesn't make sense, the whole point of educating is to get beyond the corporate propaganda. This actually worked well in East Timor, ending the genocide and moving towards a state that is simply robbed of it's natural resources instead of being completely massacred. A massive improvement. I myself am not a pacifist and never have been, but i think that overwhelmingly non violence works, and i find a lot of the pro violence advocates to be self destructive to left movements, so that's why i critique the book. The main goal of leftists imo, should be to educate people. When it comes to protests, that's just a product of long term education, exposing the lies of the media, economists, ect. Show nested quote + On January 22 2020 21:06 Loco wrote: The claim is that an unflinching pacifism in all circumstances doesn't challenge (or strengthens) a state that structurally serves racism and patriarchy. If that's his claim it's all based on strawmen. can you name any in the book with those views, that he critiques? the criticism of the UK extinction rebellion seems fair.

Ok so there is a lot to say about all of this and I don't the time right now to give a detailed answer that would be satisfactory to me. Let me instead say that a lot of your criticisms were made in this particular critique of the book on libcom, and Peter Gelderloos responds to them in the comments. I invite you to go read his (PG's) response. It sounds like you would be more likely to find value in his larger and more detailed work, "The Failure of Nonviolence". In the response, Peter explains that, " 'How Nonviolence Protects the State' is not a philosophical dissertation but a polemic arising from debates in the actual movement." It's very important to realize this and it probably explains a lot of why our reaction to the book are different. I am used to hearing those "unfounded and unsourced arguments" that you mention, in the movement, and again I use XR as a perfect example of the views that he is critiquing and which have a lot of influence in activist circles.

The TL;DR for me is that people should cultivate a distaste for violence so that it can be used responsibly, rather than having a principled commitment to nonviolence by fear that it can never be used responsibly. I'll read the Brian Martin paper you linked and let you know if I have any thoughts on it after, thanks for linking that.

I want to say also that although I make the case that a lot of the proponents of nonviolence that we ever hear about and those that have a voice in the mainstream media are misleading people, I know there is a lot to learn from nonviolent literature, and I am also personally opposed to the fetishisation of violence. On the latter topic, and because Baal often uses it as a dishonest attack against me, I completely disavow the guillotine talk among radical leftists (usually MLs). This is a good article on why I think that talk is misguided: "Against the Logic of the Guillotine.":

"So we repudiate the logic of the guillotine. We don’t want to exterminate our enemies. We don’t think the way to create harmony is to subtract everyone who does not share our ideology from the world. Our vision is a world in which many worlds fit, as Subcomandante Marcos put it—a world in which the only thing that is impossible is to dominate and oppress.

Anarchism is a proposal for everyone regarding how we might go about improving our lives—workers and unemployed people, people of all ethnicities and genders and nationalities or lack thereof, paupers and billionaires alike. The anarchist proposal is not in the interests of one currently existing group against another: it is not a way to enrich the poor at the expense of the rich, or to empower one ethnicity, nationality, or religion at others’ expense. That entire way of thinking is part of what we are trying to escape. All of the “interests” that supposedly characterize different categories of people are products of the prevailing order and must be transformed along with it, not preserved or pandered to.

From our perspective, even the topmost positions of wealth and power that are available in the existing order are worthless. Nothing that capitalism and the state have to offer are of any value to us. We propose anarchist revolution on the grounds that it could finally fulfill longings that the prevailing social order will never satisfy: the desire to be able to provide for oneself and one’s loved ones without doing so at anyone else’s expense, the wish to be valued for one’s creativity and character rather than for how much profit one can generate, the longing to structure one’s life around what is profoundly joyous rather than according to the imperatives of competition.

We propose that everyone now living could get along—if not well, then at least better—if we were not forced to compete for power and resources in the zero-sum games of politics and economics. "

[...]

"As for our immediate adversaries—the specific human beings who are determined to maintain the prevailing order at all costs—we aspire to defeat them, not to exterminate them. However selfish and rapacious they appear, at least some of their values are similar to ours, and most of their errors—like our own—arise from their fears and weaknesses. In many cases, they oppose the proposals of the Left precisely because of what is internally inconsistent in them—for example, the idea of bringing about the fellowship of humanity by means of violent coercion.

Even when we are engaged in pitched physical struggle with our adversaries, we ought to maintain a profound faith in their potential, for we hope to live in different relations with them one day. As aspiring revolutionaries, this hope is our most precious resource, the foundation of everything we do. If revolutionary change is to spread throughout society and across the world, those we fight today will have to be fighting alongside us tomorrow. We do not preach conversion by the sword, nor do we imagine that we will persuade our adversaries in some abstract marketplace of ideas; rather, we aim to interrupt the ways that capitalism and the state currently reproduce themselves while demonstrating the virtues of our alternative inclusively and contagiously. There are no shortcuts when it comes to lasting change."

https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-sa...HD8VNpbw9uQcqbSdiJF7mmels_UfI7PfA8o-U

Too good not to share lol

On January 24 2020 19:47 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2020 02:54 Stroggoz wrote: There are some good examples of violent resistance mentioned in the book, like the jews sabotaging auwshitz ovens to slow down the holocaust. On the whole though i think the book is very badly researched (i did in fact read the whole thing), and badly argued. Like 90% of the claims are 'non violent' people say this, do this, ect with no sources provided. He often appears to equate pacifists with an extremely wide range of views, particularly those that you'd find from a 'bourgious liberal', by this i mean someone that doesn't pay attention to the violence of oppressed groups but focus's on the violence towards oppressors. This to me is extremely distinct from every pacifist writer i've read, it's a big strawman to equate the two. He quotes franz fanton and equates the algerian elite with pacifists. p38 He quotes MLK's criticism of some white liberals, falsely equating them with pacifists. p21 Literally claims that pacifists white wash history in every single victory they claim, like the vietnam war movement. Which pacifists does he cite here? None. From my reading of vietnam war protestors like Chomsky, he said the vietnamese disliked the violent protestors, and it was counterproductive. https://chomsky.info/06012016/ Some other examples of his claims that are unsourced, just seem like ridiculous claims to offhand attribute to pacifists. + Show Spoiler + "Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy." p20 Nonviolence implies that it is better for someone to be raped than to pull the mechanical pencil out of her pocket and plunge it into her assailant’s jugular (because doing so would supposedly contribute to some cycle of violence and encourage future rapes). p46 i looked up some criticsms, found one that deals with a lot of the logic failure. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08gm2.html There are some seriously bad arguments in the later part of the book that non violence is not very effective when it trys to educate people, because of corporate propaganda. This doesn't make sense, the whole point of educating is to get beyond the corporate propaganda. This actually worked well in East Timor, ending the genocide and moving towards a state that is simply robbed of it's natural resources instead of being completely massacred. A massive improvement. I myself am not a pacifist and never have been, but i think that overwhelmingly non violence works, and i find a lot of the pro violence advocates to be self destructive to left movements, so that's why i critique the book. The main goal of leftists imo, should be to educate people. When it comes to protests, that's just a product of long term education, exposing the lies of the media, economists, ect.   On January 22 2020 21:06 Loco wrote: The claim is that an unflinching pacifism in all circumstances doesn't challenge (or strengthens) a state that structurally serves racism and patriarchy. If that's his claim it's all based on strawmen. can you name any in the book with those views, that he critiques? the criticism of the UK extinction rebellion seems fair. Ok so there is a lot to say about all of this and I don't the time right now to give a detailed answer that would be satisfactory to me. Let me instead say that a lot of your criticisms were made in this particular critique of the book on libcom, and Peter Gelderloos responds to them in the comments. I invite you to go read his (PG's) response. It sounds like you would be more likely to find value in his larger and more detailed work, "The Failure of Nonviolence". In the response, Peter explains that, " 'How Nonviolence Protects the State' is not a philosophical dissertation but a polemic arising from debates in the actual movement." It's very important to realize this and it probably explains a lot of why our reaction to the book are different. I am used to hearing those "unfounded and unsourced arguments" that you mention, in the movement, and again I use XR as a perfect example of the views that he is critiquing and which have a lot of influence in activist circles. The TL;DR for me is that people should cultivate a distaste for violence so that it can be used responsibly, rather than having a principled commitment to nonviolence by fear that it can never be used responsibly. I'll read the Brian Martin paper you linked and let you know if I have any thoughts on it after, thanks for linking that. I want to say also that although I make the case that a lot of the proponents of nonviolence that we ever hear about and those that have a voice in the mainstream media are misleading people, I know there is a lot to learn from nonviolent literature, and I am also personally opposed to the fetishisation of violence. On the latter topic, and because Baal often uses it as a dishonest attack against me, I completely disavow the guillotine talk among radical leftists (usually MLs). This is a good article on why I think that talk is misguided: "Against the Logic of the Guillotine.": "So we repudiate the logic of the guillotine. We don’t want to exterminate our enemies. We don’t think the way to create harmony is to subtract everyone who does not share our ideology from the world. Our vision is a world in which many worlds fit, as Subcomandante Marcos put it—a world in which the only thing that is impossible is to dominate and oppress. Anarchism is a proposal for everyone regarding how we might go about improving our lives—workers and unemployed people, people of all ethnicities and genders and nationalities or lack thereof, paupers and billionaires alike. The anarchist proposal is not in the interests of one currently existing group against another: it is not a way to enrich the poor at the expense of the rich, or to empower one ethnicity, nationality, or religion at others’ expense. That entire way of thinking is part of what we are trying to escape. All of the “interests” that supposedly characterize different categories of people are products of the prevailing order and must be transformed along with it, not preserved or pandered to. From our perspective, even the topmost positions of wealth and power that are available in the existing order are worthless. Nothing that capitalism and the state have to offer are of any value to us. We propose anarchist revolution on the grounds that it could finally fulfill longings that the prevailing social order will never satisfy: the desire to be able to provide for oneself and one’s loved ones without doing so at anyone else’s expense, the wish to be valued for one’s creativity and character rather than for how much profit one can generate, the longing to structure one’s life around what is profoundly joyous rather than according to the imperatives of competition. We propose that everyone now living could get along—if not well, then at least better—if we were not forced to compete for power and resources in the zero-sum games of politics and economics. " [...] "As for our immediate adversaries—the specific human beings who are determined to maintain the prevailing order at all costs—we aspire to defeat them, not to exterminate them. However selfish and rapacious they appear, at least some of their values are similar to ours, and most of their errors—like our own—arise from their fears and weaknesses. In many cases, they oppose the proposals of the Left precisely because of what is internally inconsistent in them—for example, the idea of bringing about the fellowship of humanity by means of violent coercion. Even when we are engaged in pitched physical struggle with our adversaries, we ought to maintain a profound faith in their potential, for we hope to live in different relations with them one day. As aspiring revolutionaries, this hope is our most precious resource, the foundation of everything we do. If revolutionary change is to spread throughout society and across the world, those we fight today will have to be fighting alongside us tomorrow. We do not preach conversion by the sword, nor do we imagine that we will persuade our adversaries in some abstract marketplace of ideas; rather, we aim to interrupt the ways that capitalism and the state currently reproduce themselves while demonstrating the virtues of our alternative inclusively and contagiously. There are no shortcuts when it comes to lasting change."

So, what are appropriate levels of violence?

MLK having armed "security" seems legit. If I am showing up to a protest where Nazis have pistols and revolvers I want some mother fuckers on my side skilled and confident with assault rifles.

Are we talking killing cops if necessary? A problem with that is the terrorist label gets slapped on whatever movement that is and the corporate propaganda machine takes over. I don't think any movement wins by physical violence towards cops or the military or governemnt officials or government buildings. The machine is too strong for that?

I am not picturing appropriate levels of violence versus the State or corporations.

We need to break the hold of corporate propaganda, consumerism, spiritual malady, hierarchal strangleholds and I agree with Stroggoz that the only way that happens is through education.

We have to make it "cool".... well, not "cool" because that always seems to be "top down" but the norm for people to be judged by their "creativity and character and not how much profit they can produce." Structuring ones' life around what is profoundly joyous is another paradigm shift that I feel like I am already there but I don't know how to break through to other people. And I'm not there because I still spend a large portion of my days at a megacorp that exploits my labor where there is no profound joy to be found. I think everyone inherently knows these things deep down. They knew it as kids but many of us lose it in adulthood. I really don't want to kill anyone. I want no one to die. Some of the quoted of that article seems a bit utopian to me. Many of these capitalists are not going to be so easily converted. You know this. If the system is working for them they will be willfully blind to what doesn't suit them. Maybe not in all cases especially considering climate change but how do convince some mother fucker like Jamie Dimon that libertarian socialism is the way to go? Maybe I can convince my brother of some things (which I have) but he's got a steep mortgage to pay, a bourgeois wife, and a child's bourgeois future to think about. I also have pretty minimal contact with my brother. It's not like I can be his tutor in matters of anarchism nor would he agree to that. My sister on the other hand is already down. There is no coaxing involved. How is the movement going to pick up enough steam though? It just feels like there aren't enough people educated on the subject and not enough people willing to educate themselves on the subject. It is not even really all that acceptable especially to shoe horn anarchy into most "polite" conversation that occurs typically in normal socializing. Although, I have found some reception for it when people ask me about my snail tattoo. People get fired up when they hear about the Zapatistas and Subcomandante Marcos. That fire is there with anyone with any sort of spirit. And I would argue that that fire is there with most people. It's why movies like Star Wars are so popular. But, fear, corporate propaganda, materialism, competition, the system/hierarchies beat people down into submission. The poor and oppressed is who we should target. They mas o menos have nothing to lose. We fucking know the system isn't working and is deeply problematic. So, how do we go about educating, agitating, and organizing? I already feel a deep sense of solidarity with my suffering brothers and sisters. I feel a solidarity with all human beings, all sentient beings. Man, we get a heartbeat and consciousness and it's all so fragile and mysterious and we all feel that. Existential insecurity. But it can be better. Only if we try. Scratch that. Only if we do. Do out of Love. Love for thy neighbor. Love for all children of Earth.