Is it okay to give up on Revleft?

[ChroMattic]

Because… no matter what I say its like it doesn’t matter.

[E_R_Olovetto]

But, the Gulag is so nice this time of year.

[Nitroadict]

@ChroMattic

Because… no matter what I say its like it doesn’t matter.

You are on their turf. Even the most reasonable member there will not overcome the allure of agreeing with their collective, or following suit the more close-minded refusals to critical examination or questioning of the collective’s belief system.

Unless a few others like yourself go in to back you up, don’t bother. You will merely be made as a meta-troll example to reinforce their supposedly correct beliefs.

[Beefheart]

I figured not bothering with RevLeft was a given.

[ChroMattic]

I don’t know. You read Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard and everything seems so self evident you end up wanting to convince others of their validity and spread the “wealth” (of knowledge) so to speak. Its just sad that you can’t… or maybe I can’t.

[Beefheart]

Sure you can. You just have to find people willing to learn. The people at RevLeft are not out to do that in a debate with the likes of ourselves.

[JosephBright]

Don’t debate fundamentalists. Their minds are, for the most part, already made up and any efforts in convincing them are just a waste of both your talent and time. Find the people who would be most receptive to your ideas, and convince them instead.

[Esuric]

I just checked out RevLeft for the first time, and I must say, they are completely mad. Read this conversation:

• A: Ofcourse we all see a revolution as perhaps the best way to make our aims realised but do you see the revolution as being violent and destructive of most or all of the existing infrastructure, etc. or do you see it as seizing everything from the present government and our enemies? I personally see it as a more a peacefulish seizure of what we need o provide us with a stable base with what we need, followed by quite a violent war I’m which they would soon be beaten due to our substantional base provided by the quick revolution. So peaceful and seizing or violent and destructive? Or something else all together?
• B: “I can only see a new world built upon the ashes of this one” lulz. But for real, shit’s gonna get hairy. The bourgeoisie are not gonna give up that easily. People are gonna be locked up and killed. Guarantee it.
• C: All revolutions are violent, some will just be less violent than others. The more entrenched the system is and the more determined the old ruling class, the more radical the upheaval will have to be.
• D: The bourgeoisie may have a negative institutional role, but they are still people. They will not become criminals and go to jail, most times, to avoid paying an extra 10% tax. They also do, generally, follow laws. Some even believe they are good bourgeoisie, and advocate higher taxes.
• E: WE are not destructive, it’s the capitalists who destroy lives, goods, homes, jobs, families, national populations, natural wonders etc. to keep their obsolete system alive and running.. We are constructive, building a democratic social order. As Durruti said, no bourgeois prejudices should stand in our way, we should be ready to bulldoze and demolish any obstacle, but the products of capitalism as a whole are not an obstacle, socialism is in fact only possible because of capitalist development, so we should capture as much property as we can for the commune, to put it under workers’ control, therefore any collateral destruction of buildings/riches/specialists is to be avoided. The first symbol of the Red Army, designed by Trotsky, was a “swords into plowshares” image indicating that the workers’ and peasants’ army was an army of construction*,* not destruction. The masses won’t come to us because they want to light trash cans on fire, but they will come over to the revolution when they see the capitalists have lit the world on fire and we have the organization, strategy and tactics to put it out.

Is this social justice?

[Giant_Joe]

I wouldn’t bother with RevLeft. Anyone that hangs around there in all seriousness is beyond all hope. (Unless they are willing to change, but that comes from within, not from without)

@Esuric

I just checked out RevLeft for the first time, and I must say, they are completely mad. Read this conversation:

• A: Ofcourse we all see a revolution as perhaps the best way to make our aims realised but do you see the revolution as being violent and destructive of most or all of the existing infrastructure, etc. or do you see it as seizing everything from the present government and our enemies? I personally see it as a more a peacefulish seizure of what we need o provide us with a stable base with what we need, followed by quite a violent war I’m which they would soon be beaten due to our substantional base provided by the quick revolution. So peaceful and seizing or violent and destructive? Or something else all together?
• B: “I can only see a new world built upon the ashes of this one” lulz. But for real, shit’s gonna get hairy. The bourgeoisie are not gonna give up that easily. People are gonna be locked up and killed. Guarantee it.
• C: All revolutions are violent, some will just be less violent than others. The more entrenched the system is and the more determined the old ruling class, the more radical the upheaval will have to be.
• D: The bourgeoisie may have a negative institutional role, but they are still people. They will not become criminals and go to jail, most times, to avoid paying an extra 10% tax. They also do, generally, follow laws. Some even believe they are good bourgeoisie, and advocate higher taxes.
• E: WE are not destructive, it’s the capitalists who destroy lives, goods, homes, jobs, families, national populations, natural wonders etc. to keep their obsolete system alive and running.. We are constructive, building a democratic social order. As Durruti said, no bourgeois prejudices should stand in our way, we should be ready to bulldoze and demolish any obstacle, but the products of capitalism as a whole are not an obstacle, socialism is in fact only possible because of capitalist development, so we should capture as much property as we can for the commune, to put it under workers’ control, therefore any collateral destruction of buildings/riches/specialists is to be avoided. The first symbol of the Red Army, designed by Trotsky, was a “swords into plowshares” image indicating that the workers’ and peasants’ army was an army of construction*,* not destruction. The masses won’t come to us because they want to light trash cans on fire, but they will come over to the revolution when they see the capitalists have lit the world on fire and we have the organization, strategy and tactics to put it out.

Is this social justice? How is this not pure exploitation and unfettered coercion?

The more I tried to reason with Marxists, the more I realize that they just want war. War and violence is their solution to their problems. They could never be made to blame themselves for anything, under any circumstance. All that matters is that all bourgeoisie are dead, and that the proletariat can have a paradise where everything is allocated scientifically and rationally.

People being free to pursue their own interests without hurting anyone else isn’t their idea of social justice. Their idea of social justice is killing people and appropriating their wealth because they are more wealthy than proles.

All of their values for society can only be realized after a bloody conflict.

They just want to point the finger, kill people, and get off on controlling everyone else because their giant, power-worshipping egos are capable enough to manage society.

I used to be like them. Then I grew up. Some people just never stop being teenagers.

[Sage]

@JosephBright

Find the people who would be most receptive to your ideas, and convince them instead.

Yes, work on people on the margin: the undecided fence-sitters.

[bloomj31]

I mean yeah. It’s Revleft.

[Giant_Joe]

By the way… anyone know what ever happened to the forum member Leviathan? I could actually bear to read his posts. He did scuttle away when we asked him to prove how the socialist calculation problem doesn’t stand, or to show how ancaps support the state… but I didn’t mind his presence all that much.

I wonder if he’s gone ancap?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Giant_Joe

By the way… anyone know what ever happened to the forum member Leviathan? I could actually bear to read his posts. He did scuttle away when we asked him to prove how the socialist calculation problem doesn’t stand, or to show how ancaps support the state… but I didn’t mind his presence all that much.

I wonder if he’s gone ancap?

He was a ban dodger. He got permanently banned.

[Conza]

@Conza88

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036

@Truthisnonexistent

Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I’ve gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking “What’s wrong with “exploitation”?” “What’s wrong with “renting” yourself?” "Please show me a definition of “undesirable working hours”

@Mindtoaster

edit You know what, just fuck it.

All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Conza88

@Conza88

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036

@Truthisnonexistent

Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I’ve gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking “What’s wrong with “exploitation”?” “What’s wrong with “renting” yourself?” "Please show me a definition of “undesirable working hours”

@Mindtoaster

edit You know what, just fuck it.

All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way

Lol. I remember that.

[Nitroadict]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Conza88

@Conza88

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036

@Truthisnonexistent

Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I’ve gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking “What’s wrong with “exploitation”?” “What’s wrong with “renting” yourself?” "Please show me a definition of “undesirable working hours”

@Mindtoaster

edit You know what, just fuck it.

All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way

Lol. I remember that.

Don’t worry, owning or buying a gun is exploitation. If anyone is put up against a wall, it will be by potatoe guns.

[Conza]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Lol. I remember that.

I should have pasted the rest of it, before I got banned. (They hadn’t relegated me to the “ideology” forum yet, so I posted in that thread.. and blew teh covers lol)

[scineram]

Just make sure the state crushes them before they get violent.

[ChroMattic]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economicsi-t131157/index.html?p=1695819#post1695819

Can someone please just… explain how wrong EnviroWhacko is… please hes so deluded.

[Terrigan]

You make the same mistake that many others make: that the USSR and China are/were socialist/communist societies.
They were not. These and other states were NOT answerable to the people. These states were authoritarian or
totalitarian in constitution. In fact they are the exact opposite of socialist-communist. (Let us say “anti-socialist”
and “anti-communist.”) “Communism” is actually free-choice, an example would be Buddhist monks in a monastery.
The USSR was a collective, which required force, which is a complete antithesis of both socialism and communism.

This argument has always struck me as sophistry. “They have a coercive state, so they’re not communist!” …How do you make a state that is answerable to the people and all-powerful at the same time? If your society requires that everyone agree to live, work, and function collectively, what is done with those who refuse?

Is being lynched by a mob really better than nine grams in the back of the head?