_


  • Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« "Little Eichmanns" [Updated] | Main | Iraqis A Political "Football" -- Frank Smyth »

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Comments

Richard Aubrey

Gan, I think the workers dropped this idea when they discovered that the state can take their property, too.
The bar for who is a capitalist pig and kulak keeps dropping until anybody with two cows is subject to capital punishment.
You seem to forget that the experiment has been tried and not everybody is ignorant of the result.

gan nima

richard you don't seem to read english well, the claim that martin luther king rejected left philosophy can only be made by the ignorant. gan nima

reg

Note on Niebuhr - his work was an explicit rejection of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxies - and indeed any "left utopianism" and as early as 1932 he foresaw Ghandism as a potentially pragmatic model for the struggle of African Americans. He was allied with leaders of industrial unionism in the U.S. like Walter Reuther, who were anti-Communist, and was a founder of Americans for Democratic Action with Eleanor Roosevelt after WWII. Any implication of Niebuhr in political models that Aubrey references or as a Leninist "fellow-traveler" are based on ignorance of his theology and political philosophy. Martin Luther King Jr. - who shared Niebuhrs belief that social-democratic politics need to be pragmatically agressive and not just wishful thinking to be effective - was certainly Niebuhr's greatest "disciple". I just want to stop any bullshit about either King or Niebuhr advocating for Communism...that's a strawman. As is the idea that "the Left" hates King (one of the nuttiest propositions floated here yet). But I don't buy that Trotskyite re-tread attempt to position King or Niebuhr as validating their theories of "revolution" any more than I buy the crackpot right bullshit I read here from the usual suspects.

Richard Aubrey

I read English just fine, Gan. You, having far less to read, managed to misread my post. How's this English as a tentative fourth language thing working out?
I said nothing about King.
I spoke solely about the workers and what they thought when they found out you reserve the right to take whatever they accumulate.
Or kill them.
Or both.

gan nima

that's right richard and you were responding to a post on Martin Luther King that was rebutting a right wing projection of King as one who rejected left wing philosophies, political ideas, and the like. that was what i addressed and that you can't see that or ignore that is as disingenuous as the clown who claimed that King would reject left wing philosophers, ideas. gan nima

reg

Martin Luther King WAS a man of "left-wing" philosophies and ideas. And he was familiar with Marx, Hegel, etc. What I reject is the implication that he embraced the dubious "left-wing" philosophies that originate in Leninism and it's dueling offshoots, Stalinism or Trotskyism. Big difference... I thought that piece you posted used Niebuhr's reference to Lenin totally out of context and gives a wrong impression. No biggie, but you saw way Aubrey leaped on it to conflate "leftism" with stalinism.

Richard Aubrey

You need Stalinism if you're going to have leftism.
Because, once the workers find out what's happening to them, and that some--not they--are going to be more equal than others and there's nothing they're ever going to be able do about it, they want out.
And that can't be allowed.

gan nima

now, if i said ya can't have capitalism without fascism ya'd say i was crazy. same logic 'no can have left without stalin'. it's like this richard guy has never read a book. gan nima

reg

Aubrey - Pulling crazy shit out of your ass would embarrass most people. I give you credit for the shamelessness of your stupidity.

michael "OJ" michaels

All I can do is laugh at you white lefties. You have plenty in common with white conservatives. Most notable is the fact that you too have an inherent belief in the economic, social and intellectual superiority of your race. The difference between white lefties and white conservatives is thus:

white conservatives keep their racist mentality from seeping from their lips in public or but let it come gushing out in private.

white liberals keep their racist mentality out of their mouths in public or private. But it's still there.

I see it plainly on this blog. Mr. Churchill was spot on. Those people in the WTC were working in a building that housed the CIA and a defense contractor. By the US military's own definition, that made them legitimate military targets and anyone who did not work for the CIA or the Defense Contractor "collateral damage."

What is controversial about pointing this out? Logically, its 100% sound. As is the argument he puts forth which recounts the collective guilt America placed on "Good Germans" who tacitly approved of the Final Solution by their non-action; and directly analogises their guilt with the guilt that every American deserves to be labelled with concerning their non-action in opposition to, for example (one of many), the deliberate murder of millions, yes more than one million, Iraqis.

But no, you can't say that type of thing and expect more than .01% of white people to express anything other than outrage at anything that seeks to explain why the attacks on 9/11 took place. No, if you go anywhere near that, you are justifying the attacks, and thats so outrageous that all the white people can unite in opposition to it.

Sorry, but after wiping out an Indian Tribe, it would be perfectly justifiable to wipe out all the Anglicans.

So, after wiping out over a million Iraqis, murdering over a million Americans would be justified. And for the record, I won't complain TO ANY ARAB if I am one of the people who gets killed. I'm not innocent. No one is. I didn't decide that - you white people did when you set the precedent that genocide against men, women and children was par for the course in warfare.

All I see is a huge list of straw man arguments condemning Churchill without actually addressing what he actually said. I bet all you Bush-haters are sick of BUsh & Co. doing this all the time but when i came down to choosing whose team you were on, you chose the white team, not the right team.

To me, you are no different to them. I spit on all of you in pure concentrated disgust. 99.9% Racist-ass-crackas.

reg

Oooooohhh! Scaaarrry !


reg

Also, for greater verisimilitude, in the future don't use "spot on" and "cracka-ass" in the same screed.

michael "OJ" michaels

what is that supposed to be - pseudo-intellectual humour?

John-Paul Pagano

Great two posts on Churchill. I'm new to your blog and curious: why the bile against Glenn Reynolds? Both you and Burke exhibit it. I can think of some reductive right-wing idiots (Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs races to the fore), but Reynolds, while clearly conservative, is both thoughtful and largely unprovocative. Interesting that you and Burke tag him. I wonder why.

Marc Cooper

I harbor no bile toward Reynolds.

Dan O'Donnell

Churchill may have offended some folks who were already hurt far too much but he's saying something important: http://blony.com/index.php/2005/02/05/ward_churchill_sees_through_our_enemies

Also, AIM is fractured but some support him: http://coloradoaim.org/wardpetition.htm

And, apparently, he's roughly the indian he claims to be: http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm

John-Paul Pagano

Er, have you looked at the aztlan.net web site? It's one of the most insane hate sites on the Internet. I wouldn't be using it to verify any of Churchill's claims.

Dan O'Donnell

Not really. Got caught lazy, I'm afraid. I'd seen quite a few posts making the claim but after finding they all had the same source I became suspicious of what you imply. The unwillingness to name a lab for the reasons cited and absent any other sources tends to make your point.

The comments to this entry are closed.