People like authority i think

Wasn't that what you were suggesting when you said

Or am I misinterpreting you again?

You seem to find it difficult to do anything else (you're certainly not very good at debating the issue in hand). Of course, what I was suggesting was that as Vygotsky specialised in people with special educational needs, he might have more patience than myself and would possibly not end up writing "fucking arseholes" (although I have to say that this is pure conjecture on my part).

Is my webcam turned on?

No! So, what exactly is it that makes me look like a cock? Asking people to be less insulting on a bulletin board aimed at comradely debate? Well, that must mean the moderators are a bunch of cocks too. Putting forward a rational argument? Well, you're certainly not a cock then. Defending myself from misinterpretation? Hmmm...what a right-on anarchist you must be. Dick. Nice cliquey use of "here we were...".

...makes you look like incapable of debate beyond dogma

Am I capable of making a response based on logic? Why! I didn't realise that that was a prerequisite on this thread, Jack.

Right, now that's settled, how about getting back to the original debate?

I'll take that as a no.

ho hum let's all be nice to each other eh?

we would be if we were talking in person...

You've clicked on the wrong link or something haven't you?

Anyway, I'm supporting Jack and Redyred 'cos there's more of them. Come on lads! give it a hundred and ten percent and don't go to sleep at the back.

Me too. Come on you blues!

Al, I know what you mean. There I was, hoping for a bit of debate when a crowd of hoodied students, all wet behind the ears and with lots of time on their hands because fresher week hasn't started yet, join in with an epidemic of "I-know-what-I'm-on-about- because-I-is-an-anarchist-and you-is-nothing-but-a-leninist-bore" and the debate gets stifled. Of course, you were one of them, so I'd like to say I'm sad to see you leave, but...

...of course, you bloody well won't. And you should know better, at least you've got a job.

Ummm...I think your perspective is somewhat erroneous. I don't think I've turned this thread into one about bullying bigdave. If anything, I've turned it into one where people misinterpret whatever I say or avoid answering it altogether! I'm not going to have a look at all seven pages (you know how I feel about reading), but I think I've mentioned "Bullying"...errr...once (possibly twice).

Did I jump in, slagging everyone off as middle class students? It was a long time ago, but I don't think that's very accurate either....oh...wait a minute, I didn't actually do it, it was "implicit bollox". I think you would do well to remember that what you infer is not always implied.

I certainly have not! Why? Because you haven't really tried to put forward any ideas in answer to the question that this thread is supposed to be about. I imagine that if you did believe the wc were too thick, you wouldn't be stupid enough to say it on this forum. I didn't read that in bigdave's post. Perhaps he'd like to clarify for both of us if that is a fair interpretation. COme to think of it, isn't this what I've been accused of believing?!?!?!

As for a childish wanker playing the victim, all I can say is that I don't feel like a victim. Yet again, you might be inferring something that isn't there. I've been defending myself against misinterpretation but not because I feel hard done by, but because otherwise I'd be arguing things that I didn't believe in. It's frustrating to find comrades engaged in such typical internet behaviour, but no more than that.

I'm glad you found my pisstake funny, personally I think my posts are a howl and I wouldn't take the majority of them too seriously. And of course it was baseless, I don't know you from Adam (nor Eager Jack, nor captainmission, nor Confused Redyred). Anything I say to you about you is going to be pretty baseless. Thus, don't read too much into it.

Wouldn't it be nice, now we've had this little kickaround in No-Man's-Land if we could actually get back to the debate. The idea being that debating might help people clarify their ideas (god knows it's difficult to find the opportunity to do this at work --or in the SU Bar) and actually question their beliefs. If you think someone is dour and drab, a little bit of advice of fairly basic social etiquette, there's no need to tell them. If you think that someone is a leninist infiltrator, perhaps it would contribute more to the debate if you said something like, "But isn't that essentially a leninist argument?" rather than "Fuck off you cunting leninist assassin arsehole."

So, pax anarcha then? [sings] Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? WHy can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends?

mmmm authority, i'm sure people love it really.....

I mean to me thats the equivalent of the right wing arguement that the people of iraq crave authority and that that makes them turn to islamists or the coalition government as those are both authortarian forces.

I'm sure if was an iraqi right now what i would want is a decent job, safety, troops off the streets, electricity in the cables and food on the table. Those are material interests. People don't crave authority, they crave material wealth and security.

Personally i think authority is largely a means to an end, not as much of an end in itself.

peace

john

Is my webcam on?

Implying the rest of us don't? Bloody hell, I must have imagined that 24 hours I just got back from, all the shit I had to wipe up not to mention being shouted at by my twat of a boss. For someone so paranoid about being misunderstood, you sure love the conclusion jumping.

why then do people turn to islamist groups or political groups if not in the search for leadership or a ready made interpretaition of the world.

your right when u say what the iraqis want - and i can understand why you call them material interests - but at such a base level i would call them the means of survival - when people want the latest gadgets and other unnessary things then they are craving material wealth - and the capitalist system produces far too many of them for my liking.

authority as a means to an end - can you give a fuller explaination of this concept

Well i don't know if this goes for everyone but as far as the situation in iraq goes i would guess many iraqis feel that the islamists are offering an independent iraq. I mean if i were an iraqi and i had no basic amenities then surely i would be looking for desperate solutions to my material problems before worrying about ideological concerns. If i've got three kids to feed i'm going to be worried about food, electricity and jobs not the ins and outs of islamic world views.

I mean we can talk all you want about the Workers Party of Iraq and its all very noble but realistically the largest collected group seen to be offering physical opposition to US forces is political islam. An islamic government modelled on iran would reconnect electricity and give people more jobs as an independent capitalist state, the US army won't do either of those things obviously.

I know there are differences between Excess -wanting a £2 million pound yacht or something and Material wealth-house, decent job, safety, tv or whatever.

However, as a general rule people don't want to live in poverty. I don't think people just want to survive, people always want more, not that thats neccesarily a bad thing. I mean you need to demand more than capitalism can ever give you, not less.

I mean thats always the question, is there a level of material wealth at which everyone would be satisfied, personally i don't beleive there is.

I was suddenly hoping it wouldn't come to that, as its a big can of worms. What i meant was that people care about wealth and security before power. So power is used as a means to gain wealth, and not the other way round.

But then that might be a heap of bollocks in a lot of cases.

john

Absolutely John. Pretty much the only people who really crave authority over themselves are masochists. Generally, if people talk about wanting to see a few more police on the streets, it's cos they think it'll protect them from crime, not because they want to be personally repressed.

Because prior to what has happened in Iraq, the islamist groups and political groups were the ones who provided leadership within the community and I guess people have been socialised into believing that they are still the ones to turn to. Added to that, the cultural distaste of Arabs against the USA plus the fact that the USA and the UK are directly responsible for the deaths of over a million people due to sanctions. Why didn't they take power themselves? Because this has not been about them or their interests. They played no real part in the toppling of their president and they have had next to no say about the future of their country. Indeed, with all these things being imposed on them, the subtext was clearly, "Leave it to the experts, we'll take care of everything." In short, nothing was done to foster alternative ways of thinking. The Iraqi people were forbidden from playing an active role in their "liberation".

I agree with you, John, about authority as a means to an end (which is pretty much like the kiss of death to your argument ). This is always the way. The person who wields authority does so for self-serving ends: either it gives them a buzz to push other people about; it reaffirms their own perceived sense of importance and power; it brings them financial returns etc. This is as true of the dictator who shits on a golden loo as it is of the screw who locks your door at night as it is, dare I say it, of those people on internet BBs who make the most of their anonymity to be unnecessarily aggressive. Authority --or at least perceived authority--is always a means to an end.

I disagree with the person who gave this forum its title inasmuch as I don't think that people like authority - they like the benefits it brings: security, freedom from having to get involved; freedom from having to think; power; structure and position within society and many more things. Even anarchists are not anti-authority: the most committed anarchist will accept that one must wield authority over oneself (although redyred might not have been thinking of that when he labelled those people masochists!) and a lot of anarchists are prepared to accept the community wielding authority over the individual.

Authority is necessary within social interaction and it brings a great deal of benefits. WHat we [/i]must call into question is who has the authority and what forms does it take.

that's a leeetle bit different though isn't it? Control over your own destiny and putting the needs of the masses before the needs of the individual are arguably forms of authority, it's been a given on this thread that we're talking about the oppressive authority (yes go on argue over the exact literal meaning of that phrase if you must, you know what I mean though). And yes, pretty much by definition anyone who wants to be personally restricted as an end in itself (rather than them seeing it as necessary to prevent crime etc) is a masochist.

Stop wetting yer knickers, wee man. The argument's over. Now we're debating again. As I said in the previous post, I doubt that's what you were thinking when you made the masochist point.

?????

And they called me a leninist!

Sorry, but this is too easy. I'm trying to resist, but...

Inside the mind of Olentxero:

"First, to assert my tough guy status with this cheap insult" (Which assumes A. I'm male and B. I feel insulted by having my masculinity questioned).

"Everyone who disagrees with me can shut up, then it looks like I've won"

"Someone said something countering an idea I put forward. You can't do that! This is a debate!"

"Now, if I take a really selective definition of my own words and say it was what I meant all along, I can prove anyone wrong AND with the extra bonus of telling them they misinterpretted me! Wooh!"

Oh and the needs of the masses coming before the needs of the individual was my rewording of:

.

That is, assuming of course, you were talking about the community over-ruling the individual in the interests of common good, rather than just for the hell of it. But of course that's just my interpretation.

Redyred, Why do you think arguing is about winning? A "really selective definition of my own words"

might provide an alternative view of what a debate is about.

A challenge for you redyred: point out any selective definition of my words that isn't in keeping with the context and the meaning of the original post and you can "win".

Look, I know the internet is not the best medium to get one's message across, but you really do seem to have some difficulty in understanding other people. A couple of posts ago, you muttered something trite about masochists being the only people who crave authority for themselves. I pointed out later that even the best anarchist will want authority over him or herself but granted that this was probably not what you had meant. In other words, ya fecking imbecile, I was making it clear that this wasn't having a pop at you. I'm hardly going to try and reinterpret my own words, am I ya daft tosser! They are printed above these ones...you wouldn't have to be a fucking brain of britain to point out any inconsistencies. Surprisingly, you fail to do even this! To be honest, although you wrote

,

the truth of the matter is that everytime you think you understand what I'm on about, you react in such an assinine way that it's your contribution that makes it look like I'm "winning". You have consistently failed to interpet any of my posts correctly. You have consistently failed to enage with any of the points I have raised in the debate. You have consistently shown yourself to be pretty inept. You don't even seem to understand what masochism is all about.

So, if it's all about "winning", I could probably take your last post to pieces and strip it to bits. That's what you get when you're such a duff twat, you decide that somebody is a wanker and then close your ears and eyes to what they are saying. You obviously saw my name and then, like Pavlov's pooches, you started slabbering at the chops without realising that I was as close to agreeing with you as I have been yet!

A word to the wise (splutter splutter): when something looks that easy, you're probably better off resisting...

Now then, little redyred was mouthing off platitudes about "oppressive authority". So, when isn't authority oppressive? Or is that too "wanky" for us to think about? Do we all just think that our definition of "non-oppressive authority" will be shared by "the masses"?

So, here's one to dream about tonight, red: which is worse, the oppressive authority of the masses of the future or the oppressive authority of the masses today (who want immigrants kicked out, want the cops to have a much freer hand and would probably be up for anything that boosted the bulldog spirit)?

It's easy to see why redyred is unlikely to progress much further than the cleaner-up of shit. How long to retirement, old chap?

Agreed.

Also, I would argue that there is a big difference between leaders and rulers. I personally could accept being led by somebody I respected and who represented my views. However, I resent being ruled over.

say what?!

There is no such thing as the oppressive authority of the masses today. There is authority which is supposedly used ''on behalf of the masses'', which is the authority of the bourgeoisie. But we all know that isn't the authority of the masses.

The authority of the bourgeoisie serves their interests, thats the whole point. It isn't authority for authorities sake, it is the rule of the gun used to maintain the profit margins of the ruling class.

Thus collective proletarian authority, would serve the interests of the proletariat. Its not like people actually want a violent revolution, it isn't a end in itself, people don't actually love violence, unless your some wanky anarcho-individualist gun nut or a ''peoples war'' maoist loon. Armed revolution would be a means to establishing better material conditions for the proletariat through their economic emancipation.

Proletarian authority, the authority of the picket line and the union these are for the most part democratically based, or based on majority rule. The absolute most basic principle point of any current of grassroots socialism is that if power rested in the hands of the working class it would serve the material interests of the working class.

john

ps I don't see how racism represents the supposed ''authority of the masses'' that you claim currently exists. That seems like an extremely crude liberal interpretation.

My use of the word "animal" to try to describe some components of our consciousness seems to provoke a reaction in itself. I am not saying "animal" is any better than "human". I'm not saying I'm superior to anyone or "enlightened". All I'm saying is that parts of our consciousness have to do with survival, these elements being very dominant when activated. I suppose one way of putting is that your "selfish" thought patterns are parts of the animal consciousness. The media use this to sell shit. The rich who run the world use this to keep us de-educated and docile - to some, "class struggle" is literarily shouting at similarly-minded people and trying to "win" arguments for the sake of winning.

Now, this may be people's "right" but the "people" don't stop at our borders. All over the world, people are dying from the exploitation they suffer. This exploitation can only be fought if the relatively small number of voters in the "West" find a way to fight back against the rulership of the rich. At this time, the voters vote in Bush and Blair. If my son had just died of dysentry building a slave railroad in Burma, I'd be a bit pissed off that the voters in the countries with the international power to change things just insisted that it was their right to remain ignorant and powerless.

Captain Sadness, I said that you seemed to want to pepetuate ignorance because you were arguing against the passing on of information to another, regardless of the information itself (hence the time-telling analogy). I see the media and education systems and religions as means of indoctrinating and controlling people - this has to be fought but it can't be until the "masses" understand some of how its done. Put down the Sun, switch off the TV. Start to think for yourself.

Not while 'Diagnosis Murder' is on!

There, my one hundredth post on enrager. As banal and stupid as the previous ninety nine.

John

I couldn't agree with you more. That's what happens when I try and be a smart alec.

You don't get anywhere without them on your side, they make and break the power brokers