A General Discussion of Decadence Theory

292 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 9 2007 05:29

It is not acceptable that Jaycee responds like this, and alibaadani should know better than to encourage it.
Devrim

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Nov 9 2007 10:04

I agree we need to avoid further cussing and such (and encouragement thereof). Jaycee has explained why he lost his temper, and the 'native Americans' is a subject close to his heart. As it happens, he has recently written a 10,000 word essay on the genocide of the native Americans, making extensive use of Rosa Luxemburg's work; and of all marxists, perhaps Rosa was the most passioinate about the need to "call capitalism to account for its crimes against the primitive peoples" as she put it in the Junius pamphlet.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 9 2007 12:11

i always appreciate redtwister's posts. jaycee - he's not saying that you are reponsible at all for genocide smile

Quote:
rather ambiguous, looking around for what does and does not constitute ‘meaningful’ development
Quote:
capital’s progressiveness: the inescapability of reform, the impossibility of its overthrow, the progressive character of non-proletarian politics (national liberation, unions, participation in elections) and generally its ability to develop the means of production progressively an no crisis was inescapable, while the descendant phase is marked by capital’s reactionary aspect

tho i don't think that phases per se are a problem.

Quote:
to a moralism which decries the cultural decadence of declining capital, as too do the fascists and religious reactionaries.

is a very damning thing to say about any group. the icc's morlaism [for want of a better word] seems useful in debate tho so it's not all bad. imho there's prrof enough of that on thsu thread. thanks for that reference baboon cool

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Nov 9 2007 12:21

I imagine ICCers at demos bearing placards saying "REVOLT. THE DECOMPOSITION OF SOCIETY IS NIGH!"

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Nov 9 2007 17:20

Been a bit busy for the last few days and this thread has runaway from me.

1) Mikus, I don't think it was a logical fallacy to make points about the nature of capitalism's possible collapse. Both Dave C and Capricorn had made posts that implied, if nothing else, that there were only two alternatives: eternal survival of the system or revolutionary upheaval. If that wasn't what they meant, they've had the chance to clarify it. This is part of the natural process of debate, there's no need to accuse opponents of being disingenuous with every third sentence.

2) On the slave trade and other assorted horrors of early capitalism. It seems that jaycee has caught the flak for this but I suspect I may have been the origin of this misunderstanding. In no way do I "support" the slave trade, or the decimation of the peasantry in Europe by enclosure, or the forcing of the serfs from their estates, or any of the repugnant actions involved in primitive accumulation. All these things were condemned by the revolutionaries of the time and should be condemned today.

This doesn't change the fact that as far as capitalism was concerned these things were what allowed the system to grow, flourish and lay the bases for a future communist society. In that sense they bore a perspective for the future of humanity. Despite its horror, as Capricorn said earlier, capitalism was better than feudalism. The slave trade in particular was a stimulus to the system in its early days, although it became a barrier to its development which is why the more advanced fractions of the bourgeoisie campaigned to get rid of it.

(This last point is important. The bourgeoisie in those periods did contain fractions who were truly revolted by the suffering of their system and these fractions were able to push the system in a more human direction. True, they also acted in their own interest - Vol 1 of Capital demonstrates the stimulus the Factory Acts had on the development of the system - but there was also a genuine moral content to their struggle.)

But the massacres of the 20th Century, on a far more massive scale, have provided no benefit to anyone, not even the bourgeoisie itself. The economies of Europe were utterly pulverised in the two World Wars - only America escaped unscathed and it was largely the US that enabled the world economy to recover thanks to the intervention of the Marshall Plan. This was the last time such a conflict would provide any stimulus whatsoever for the capitalist system. After a 3rd World War there would have been no recovery. Even without the devastation of open war the "survivors" of the Cold War were unable to provide the slightest effective aid to the collapsed Eastern bloc in the 90s, despite initial talk of a "new Marshall Plan". Their non-action was dressed up as "shock therapy", but this was nothing but a cover for the fact that they were practically bankrupt themselves and were too busy propping up their own economies to lend a hand to Russia. Today, this weakness is even more pronounced. The total paralysis in Iraq and Afghanistan is not simply political but also springs from the fact that rebuilding even these pygmy economies is now beyond the capacity of the bourgeoisie.

There is thus a clear difference between the process of primitive accumulation and the predations of the youthful bourgeoisie which, if nothing else, had a certain logic and rationality to them from the bourgeois point of view despite their awful human cost and the calamities of capitalism in this epoch which threaten even the system itself with destruction and certainly offer no prospect for a better future for humanity however fleeting.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Nov 10 2007 08:51
Quote:
Both Dave C and Capricorn had made posts that implied, if nothing else, that there were only two alternatives: eternal survival of the system or revolutionary upheaval.

Sorry, Demigorgon, but I don't recall saying that capitalism could continue eternally (eternity is a long time). In fact I said it couldn't. But it would be fair to say that I do think that capitalism can continue for a few years yet (quite a few years, actually, even to the end of this century unfortunately).
So,yes, you can take me as saying that, for the foreseeable future, the alternatives are: the continuation of capitalism or the achievement of communism.
As far as I can see, you want to introduce a third possibility: "barbarism". In fact, to make the alternative to be: descent into barbarism or the achievement of communism.
It's a point of view but, to sustain it, I think you need to go into more detail about the economy of this new type of society which won't be capitalist: what will be its basis? how will work and production be organised? Who will organise it? what will be the incentive to produce? how will the products be distributed?, etc.
From the ICC postings, I get the impression that by "barbarism" you have in mind the situation in the Congo, Somalia or Iraq, that what currently exists there will come to us in Europe and North America.
This is the same perspective as held by a number of Greens who also preach such doom and gloom if (some say as, since they think it’s too late now to stop it) global warming gets out of control, envisaging the break-up ("decomposition" in ICCspeak) of society into rival bands fighting over control of land to grow food on.
Frankly, I don't agree. I think capitalism more or less as we know it now (class ownership of the means of production, production for profit, the wages system, the money economy, etc) is much more likely to continue than your doomsday scenario.
Also, you should bear in mind that revolutions are not carried out in response to fear, but out of hope. You won't get anywhere by trying to frighten people into acting to bring in communism. In fact, you're more likely to encourage them to rally behind some strong leader or warlord so they stand a better chance of surviving in "barbarism".

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 11 2007 05:45
Demogorgon303 wrote:
1) Mikus, I don't think it was a logical fallacy to make points about the nature of capitalism's possible collapse. Both Dave C and Capricorn had made posts that implied, if nothing else, that there were only two alternatives: eternal survival of the system or revolutionary upheaval. If that wasn't what they meant, they've had the chance to clarify it. This is part of the natural process of debate, there's no need to accuse opponents of being disingenuous with every third sentence.

You're right, normally this wouldn't be a major issue, but I have never run into opponents so intent on cutting down straw-men (excepting Red Hughs, of course). I have been accused of having "anarchist positions" (by Baboon), of saying that capitalism is full of "youth and vigour" (Alf), of trying to "hide the positions [ I ] seek to defend" (Baboon), of saying "that there's been no effective change for the last hundred, three hundred... years" (Baboon), of having "pacifist" views (Baboon), of having a "Hindu / Buddhist conception of an eternal cycle of suffering finally escaped by enlightenment" (?!?!) (Demogorgon) and so forth. None of those things are true. When you and your group make that many charges, it is clearly not a matter of honest debate where you guys just happen to miss the mark sometimes, but a matter of trying to smear your opponents in whatever way you can. And then the obsession with "polite" discussion while your boy Alibadani comes on here after doing too much weight lifting and listening to too much Immortal Technique and flies into a rage? It's really a joke.

Anyway, I will take Alibadani's advice and be done with this unless some new arguments on your people's part come up. I think nearly everyone on these boards who have read the debates with the exception of you guys has seen that neither your Luxemburgianism nor your decadence theory are even very coherent, let alone plausible theories.

Plus, I don't want Alibadani to have a heart attack.

Chau,

Mike

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 19:00

Capricorn, when we say the alternative is socialism or barbarism, we DO NOT mean that capitalist relations will not be the dominant social relation. They certainly will be because it is these very relations that are dragging humanity towards ever greater barbarity since the beginning of the 20th century. This decent into decadence has been accelerate by the fact that the two historical class (bourgeoisie and proletariat) have been caught in an impasse since the 1980's. Thus the contradictions of CAPITALISM have been left to rot the whole of society. When we say that the barbarity of Iraq etc will become increasing common and knock on the doors Europe, we are basing this on historical reality. Two world wars had Europe as their main battlefield and in the 1990's the terrible barbarity of the Balkan wars, at the very door step of Western Europe tore. What had been a pretty developed capitalist country was literally torn apart and unleashed years of barbaric slaughter and barbaric behavior. Tens of thousands of workers in Western Europe looked on in absolute horror as a country where they had holidayed sank into levels of killings and inhumanity not seen in Europe since WW2.
It is not a question of threatening people with the idea of barbarity, but of saying what the reality of capitalism is for much of humanity and what it is increasing becoming for the rest. When we discuss with people when selling, at work etc it is not hard to convince people about increasing barbarity, the very difficult bit is to convince them that this barbarity is the direct product of a dying capitalist system.
For a more detail explanation of the concept of decomposition comrades can read our Theses on Decomposition. You may agree or disagree but at least we will be able to discuss what we actually mean and not what people think we are saying http://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 19:02

Along with alf I agree that it is unacceptable to allow insults to become part of our discussions, no matter who makes them or how angry they may be.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 19:04

Mikus, why are you still saying that Demo is part of the ICC, when he and we have made very clear that he is not a member. It adds nothing but confusion to the discussion.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 19:11
ernie wrote:
Mikus, why are you still saying that Demo is part of the ICC, when he and we have made very clear that he is not a member. It adds nothing but confusion to the discussion.

Sorry I said "you and your group." I should have said "you and the group you support". Sorry if that was unclear. In any case, my point still stands.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 12 2007 19:58

why did i have a post deleted from here confused i do maintain that there's little real argument from either side. that's a valid opinion!

eta also i have a question for the icc

correct me if i'm wrong [?] but you see revolution occuring through a shift in ethics [very sorry of this is a straw man].
and you see the working classes as the revolutionary class, not the middle classes. that is surely correct!
so it more or less follows that middle class people are less likely to acquire realy morality or ethics!

i find that an incredible idea that's all, just wanted to ask what i have misunderstood.

yours

lem

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 20:13

Mikus, we are not smearing you or anyone, we are trying to make political points and trying to show what the political implications of your position tends towards. You may not agree, but to say it is a smear implies dishonest intentions on our part and that of those who support us on this discussion. We do not doubt your honesty or intentions in this discussion, which has been to try and persuade us that our conception of decadence is incoherent and that Luxemburg's analysis in the Accumulation of Capital and the Anti-Critique is wrong. We certainly disagree with you and are trying to convince you that our theory is not incoherent. We and those who support our analysis on this forum are also seeking to also persuade you that your position has certain political implications. This as far as we can see is politically honest. It would be dishonest to disagree with your analysis and the potential political implications, but not to try to convince you of this. Discussion is not a matter of point scoring or simply defending ones own position but of trying to convince people of ones position. Thus, there no smearing involved but a political concern.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 20:29
ernie wrote:
Mikus, we are not smearing you or anyone, we are trying to make political points and trying to show what the political implications of your position tends towards. You may not agree, but to say it is a smear implies dishonest intentions on our part and that of those who support us on this discussion. We do not doubt your honesty or intentions in this discussion, which has been to try and persuade us that our conception of decadence is incoherent and that Luxemburg's analysis in the Accumulation of Capital and the Anti-Critique is wrong. We certainly disagree with you and are trying to convince you that our theory is not incoherent. We and those who support our analysis on this forum are also seeking to also persuade you that your position has certain political implications. This as far as we can see is politically honest. It would be dishonest to disagree with your analysis and the potential political implications, but not to try to convince you of this. Discussion is not a matter of point scoring or simply defending ones own position but of trying to convince people of ones position. Thus, there no smearing involved but a political concern.

Except you guys never even attempted to show the actual connections. You simply claimed that I must believe those things, and Baboon even went so far as to claim that I was hiding my true opinions, which is absurd. Yet you haven't said a word about that.

I said a million times that I don't think capitalism will go on forever, and that if it does go on long enough it will likely result in the destruction of the human race. Yet I still keep getting this nonsense from you, your group, and your group's supporters that I think that capitalism will go on forever, or that it is still "progressive", (and there is a lot of bullshit that I didn't quote in the last message, by the way). That is called smearing. To say that the implication of my position, which is that capitalism will not go on forever (but nevertheless is not imminently doomed, nor in a state of "decay", whatever the fuck that means), is that capitalism will go on forever, is the height of either stupidity or dishonesty. I'm assuming the latter.

It is both mildly amusing, and mildly saddening, that neither you, your group, nor its supporters will say a word about the blatant straw men used by your group but will still get upset when the language gets just a little too heated for you. The continual attack on straw men is a far greater hindrance to real discussion and debate than using impolite language.

And to throw one of those irrelevant characterizations of your opinions back at your group, since at this point I might as well, I will just say that both your debating tactics and the actual positions your group take are very close to those of Bukharin and Stalin. Perhaps, if I learn your debating tactics well enough, I can say that the political implications of your position are millions of dead workers and peasants, far more barbarous than even the first world war.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 20:30

Lem we see the revolution as being founded upon the development of class consciousness. Yes there is an ethical framework to class consciousness: the question of solidarity, a determination to end the exploitation of man by man, the rejection of violence within the class, etc (have you read the text we have written on ethics: Marxism and Ethics part 1 http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/marxism-and-ethics and part two http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/marxism-and-ethics-pt2, this is probably not the place to start a discussion on this question but we are more than willing to start one on another thread). As for the middle class clearly as a class it is not going to develop communist class consciousness, though individuals from this class or any other can certainly develop such consciousness by throwing in their lot with the proletarian struggle to liberate humanity.

It would be interesting to know why your post was deleted, it would also be very interesting to know what you mean by

Quote:
i do maintain that there's little real argument from either side

In what why have we not made any real arguments for our position? We would like to know in order that we can make what you consider to be real arguments.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 12 2007 20:32

how about everyone stops debating debating styles then. it's a bloody navel gazing car crash otherwise imo.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 12 2007 20:36

ernie, lem: the original post just said:

Quote:
there's little real argument from either side

lem is on a continual final warning for posting mutliple one-line posts all over the place, short of banning him, we delete some of these occasionally.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 12 2007 20:36

right i had actually read those. i just find the idea at the end of the post you just quoted from, amazing.

as to what would convince me: barbarity imo doesn't prove decadence theory. i would expect/like some "tight" [-whatever that means] reasoning from generally accepted propositions, like e.g. the existence of class, the possibility of communism, or the barbarity of capitalism. or failing that i dunno more quotes from marx could sway me in either direction, myself.

eta

Mike Harman wrote:
ernie, lem: the original post just said:
Quote:
there's little real argument from either side

lem is on a continual final warning for posting mutliple one-line posts all over the place, short of banning him, we delete some of these occasionally.

i was actually unaware that short posts was a problem. sorry catch.

erm... yeah thing is i just know there's a reasonable discussion here/a right answer. but the 2-3 pages i've read is getting caught up in the wrong kind of details imo. i think mikus should start a new thread if he wants to criticise debating tactics again. IMHO

eta2 oh who am i kidding i haven't read the thread through and should shut up sad laugh out loud

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 20:40
ernie wrote:
We do not doubt your honesty or intentions in this discussion, which has been to try and persuade us that our conception of decadence is incoherent and that Luxemburg's analysis in the Accumulation of Capital and the Anti-Critique is wrong. We certainly disagree with you and are trying to convince you that our theory is not incoherent.

I should also point out two things:

1. A supporter of your group (baboon) did seem to distrust my "honesty" and "intentions" in this discussion, going so far as to claim that I was lying about my actual political positions. Yet not a word of rebuke from your group. And not only that, but you act as if it never happened.

2. Your group (and its supporters) stopped trying to convince anyone that Luxemburg's economic theory was correct. Saying over and over again that she was right, for some bizarre reason only known to your group, and actually making an argument on that score are two entirely different things. Demogorgon was the only person even making a reasonable effort in Luxemburg's defense and he all but conceded that he was wrong in the other thread, yet he still comes on here and acts as if the whole thing never happened (as does the rest of your group, and its supporters) and as if capitalism were heading to its inevitable doom in the near future. As I said before, I'm still waiting for either an admission that his (and Luxemburg's) money argument was wrong, or a defense of the notion that one dollar only realizes one dollar of value in a single economic period. (If he chooses the latter option, I will promptly trade someone a $10 new item I have with a $10 new item they have, and get the other person to post on here confirming the transaction. Perhaps I can even take some pictures. Thus $0 will realize $20 of commodities, which will disprove the frankly absurd idea.) Somehow I don't think he will do either.

Mike

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 20:42
Mike Harman wrote:
ernie, lem: the original post just said:
Quote:
there's little real argument from either side

lem is on a continual final warning for posting mutliple one-line posts all over the place, short of banning him, we delete some of these occasionally.

Catch, you forgot to quote the part where lem admitted that he hadn't even followed the thread.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 12 2007 20:45

Mikus, OK it is clear that

Quote:
I said a million times that I don't think capitalism will go on forever, and that if it does go on long enough it will likely result in the destruction of the human race

I do not think that we have said that you believe that capitalism will go on for ever, but the implication of what you have been saying is that capitalism still has some time to go before it brings about the destruction of humanity. And given that you think our position on decadence is incoherent, we are trying to work out where you think capitalism is in its historical trajectory, though if I am right you do not think this is the correct way of addressing the question. If we are not understand your argument then please continue to try and explain it to us.

.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 12 2007 20:48

actually i find it pretty bloody uninspiring that no-one can provide a summary. that's a valiud point neutral

erm... of course fair play to everyone else they do actually have something to contribute.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 12 2007 20:56
mikus wrote:
Plus, I don't want Alibadani to have a heart attack.

The easiest way to get a heart attack is to exercise, obviously.

After insulting baboon so many times, I think you can take being called a bitch every once in a while Mike.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 21:08
ernie wrote:
I do not think that we have said that you believe that capitalism will go on for ever

Go to Baboon's post on pg. 5. There you will find: ". But to say that this system can go on for ever, that there's been no effective change for the last hundred, three hundred, whatever number you like years, is equally a defence of the system in that the implication is that it can go on for ever."

Now please admit you were wrong.

ernie wrote:
And given that you think our position on decadence is incoherent, we are trying to work out where you think capitalism is in its historical trajectory, though if I am right you do not think this is the correct way of addressing the question. If we are not understand your argument then please continue to try and explain it to us.

As I said before, I'm not interested in debating that issue any more. If you still want to defend your debating tactics, however, I'll be happy to show why they violate nearly ever rule learned in any class (whether sociology, logic, politics, English, philosophy, or economics) that discusses logical fallacies.

Mike

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 21:09
alibadani wrote:
mikus wrote:
Plus, I don't want Alibadani to have a heart attack.

The easiest way to get a heart attack is to exercise, obviously.

After insulting baboon so many times, I think you can take being called a bitch every once in a while Mike.

I'm just worried that you are going to burn my house down and empty the clip en mi abuela.

And actually I couldn't care less about cussing or being called a bitch. I wanted to see the group you support would hold you to the same standards as others. They didn't.

You freaking out about my insults while screaming bloody murder is pretty fucking funny though.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 12 2007 21:43

I don't go around insulting people, but I don't apologize for calling a douchebag a douchebag. Responding to a douchebag is not the same as bieng one.

mikus wrote:
You freaking out about my insults while screaming bloody murder is pretty fucking funny though.

Please Mike, you need to grow some cajones hombre. Calling you an asshole is simply stating an undeniable fact. You on the other hand have invented an angry lifter to cyber-bully, because you can't take what you dish out.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 12 2007 21:56
alibadani wrote:
I don't go around insulting people, but I don't apologize for calling a douchebag a douchebag. Responding to a douchebag is not the same as bieng one.
mikus wrote:
You freaking out about my insults while screaming bloody murder is pretty fucking funny though.

Please Mike, you need to grow some cajones hombre. Calling you an asshole is simply stating an undeniable fact. You on the other hand have invented an angry lifter to cyber-bully, because you can't take what you dish out.

Sorry man, you are making barely any more sense than baboon at this point. What are you on about? WTF does it mean to invent an angry lifter to cyber-bully? Are you disputing the claim that you are angry, or a lifter? Did I make that up? (I admit, the steroids thing was a joke. But I can just imagine you shooting up, lifting weights, listening to Immortal Technique, and then coming on here with the rage.)

And why do you think I'm so upset at you calling me an asshole? I really don't care. The truly undeniable fact is that insulting someone for insulting someone else is funny. Like "stop fucking cussing, asshole." Objectively, necessarily, inevitably funny.

And when did I say that responding to a douchebag is the same as being one? (And are you even saying that I said or implied that?) You are hanging out around the ICC too much my friend. Now you're attacking strawmen in regard to my position on douchebags.

You will be pleased to know that I have no current position on douchebags. Perhaps you guys can convince me of the correct line on that question in order to place myself in the proletarian camp. I'm sick of being in the camp of the mere micro-Marxists.

Mike

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 12 2007 22:05

that was very well crafted mikus.

but seriously, can't we all agree that all of you are wrong tongue

dumdum need more to say... i myself am interested in whether the transformation problem [which sadly i don't understand] might mean alot of marxist crisis theory is off. it makes massive intuitive sense to me that that would be the case.

and enough about almost reducing progressive politics to expanding the means of production. it means nothing except an easy way to get marxism off the ground so to speak. surely??

eta i sat pol phil 101 at Leeds a few years back, and the lecturer based marxism around freedom, rather than expanding production. that sits much more comfortabley with me, as a start.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 13 2007 06:15
mikus wrote:
And when did I say that responding to a douchebag is the same as being one?

You claimed that the ICC was not holding me up to the same standards as others. That claim presupposes that I and "others" committed the same caliber of offense, so to speak. You're a douchebag, I'm simply calling you what you are, and advising you, using admittedly colorful language, to do what you claim to want to do anyway. It would be hard to judge me and you by the same standards because we are on totally different moral planes.

mikus wrote:
WTF does it mean to invent an angry lifter to cyber-bully? Are you disputing the claim that you are angry, or a lifter? Did I make that up?

It's nice to see you have a good imagination, and that you checked out my profile. BUt you do realise that one doesn't have to be angry to tell you to go to hell. You bore me way more than you anger me, but your silly little imagination is beginning to amuse me a little.

mikus wrote:
And why do you think I'm so upset at you calling me an asshole? I really don't care.

Ha! Maybe the third time you tell me you don't care, I'll buy it.

mikus wrote:
Like "stop fucking cussing, asshole." Objectively, necessarily, inevitably funny.

Did I ask you to stop cussing? When did I do that? The problem is that you are not here to discuss with anyone. You aren't the least bit interested in a discussion on decadence. Your "interest" is kin to the interest one might have in someone who claims to be half-alien.

That's what I have a problem with. It's not about cussing hombre. Its not about being called an idiot or whatever. It's the fact that you see yourself as so vastly superior to those creeps, idiots and muscleheads on this thread who agree with Luxemburg. Others on here disagree with the ICC. I sense that others here assume that the "decadentists" are at least capable of reason, that they can eventually be convinced of the weaknesses of Luxemburgism, that they are somewhat capable of properly defending it. I'll be nice and say that I don't sense that from you at all.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 13 2007 08:25
alibadani wrote:
You claimed that the ICC was not holding me up to the same standards as others. That claim presupposes that I and "others" committed the same caliber of offense, so to speak.

So insulting people is allowed if the people in question already insulted someone else.

Is one allowed to insult someone if they've been engaging in continuous straw-man arguments, and after this has been pointed out to them? I was rebuked for this, yet when Jaycee angrily responded with "fuck you" to Chris Wright's rather polite post, you applauded him. Now, I personally don't care, and I don't even think it was entirely out of line either since I do think that Chris Wright mischaracterized his argument quite a bit (I think Chris probably got Jaycee confused with Demogorgon, who I do think downplayed the massacres of the supposedly pre-decadent capitalism, even without intending to), and Jaycee didn't only write "fuck you", but also responded with some substance.

(I should add once again, for clarity: I really liked Jaycee's post that came after I asked for more clarification, where he explained what he meant by necessity and the diminishing possibility of communism. I think I would put the issues almost identically. I just don't see how what he said can go with what the rest of the ICC'ers (and their supporters) have been saying. And even if I were wrong and it were identical to their other claims, I would say that it is a bit of a stretch to call those two or three statements a "theory" and give them a name.)

alibadani wrote:
. You aren't the least bit interested in a discussion on decadence.

You have to be joking. I spent about 8 pages deconstructing the nonsensical Luxemburgian theory, and then another 7 or so criticizing the decadence theory. If you think I didn't take the issues "seriously" then you are out of your mind. Sure, I made fun of baboon, but so what? Does that erase all the other arguments I made? In any case, I obviously took the ICC theories seriously enough to show why they made little sense. If you want to go defend Luxemburg's theory or decadence theory then go ahead but I doubt you have very much to add, given that you haven't already done so. You seem much more concerned about whether or not people are being nice to your idols than about whether or not your idols are correct. If you can fill the wholes in Demogorgon's arguments from the Luxemburg thread, I'm sure both you and him and the ICC would be very happy to hear your contribution. Now, you can crawl back in your hole and dismiss this whole thing as me being an asshole and not making any actual arguments, but that is your loss since the arguments on the Luxemburg page in particular are very clear. (On this thread things turned around in circles moreso than on the Luxemburg thread, however, as is shown by the fact that we still don't even have a clear definition of decadence.) If you claim that there is no substance to what I wrote, there is little I can do besides point you back to the Luxemburg thread and have you answer the questions that the group you support wasn't able to. If you want to discuss decadence in more detail, then I have a few unanswered questions I can point you back to as well. Perhaps you have some answers that the ICC doesn't.

alibadani wrote:
Your "interest" is kin to the interest one might have in someone who claims to be half-alien...That's what I have a problem with. It's not about cussing hombre. Its not about being called an idiot or whatever. It's the fact that you see yourself as so vastly superior to those creeps, idiots and muscleheads on this thread who agree with Luxemburg.

The fact that I went into the Luxemburg thread thinking her ideas (on economics) were garbage is entirely irrelevant. Do I have to go into every argument absolutely undecided? Should I forget about everything I've read and everyone who I've debated previously? It's not like the ICC'ers have given some kind of new pro-Luxemburg arguments. They gave the same ones I've seen a million times and which anyone who reads the literature (or Luxemburg herself) will see a million times. The responses to them are fairly simple. So in a sense, yes, you are right, I think Luxemburgians are generally either naive (which I have no problem with), or about as convincing as those who claim that they are half-alien (and who maintain that they are half-alien despite all evidence to the contrary). I started out assuming that they were naive and that they would make their arguments and then be convinced of their falsity, and ended up convinced that they are dogmatic beyond the capability of most ordinary people. Sorry, but that's the best I can do for you.

And no, I don't think the general consensus is that the ICC can defend their theories reasonably. One of the continual complaints you hear about the ICC is that they are completely dogmatic and that their discussions involve them constantly asserting their positions over and over again.

alibadani wrote:
Did I ask you to stop cussing? When did I do that?

You are demonstrating your inability to read yet again. When did I claim that you asked me to stop cussing? I used the word "like". I.e. There is a similarity to what it is like when one cusses at someone for cussing. I'm fully aware that you didn't do this. Go here for a more in-depth explanation.

Mike

PS I still don't care that you called me an asshole.