An open question to all SWP members on u75

[butchersapron]

I don't remember an SP member saying that, but as it goes I've got on fairly well with the SP members on here, including in PMs. As for you and a handful of others regarding me as a liar and dishonest, couldn't really give a shit, as I know I wouldn't bother deliberately lying on an irrelevant web board and no-one on here actually knows me (well other than a couple of people like soli and belboid who I get on fine with). And as said many on here think you're insulting and patronising, but there you go.

As for misreading stuff, you don't even know what I've read on the site in terms of what I mentioned in my last post so that's quite a claim, but never mind.....

But I do agree with Charles on one thing this is boring now.....

I guess you wouldn't remember it would you - like you don't remember having the meaning of totalitario or junta explained to you repeatedly. Like you don't remember all those bits of the FOD book that clearly state that they had not intentions of shutting down the CNT, that they were not marxists at any point, never even influenced by -and that they were simply an internal anarchist developement - all these things that 'you've forgotten'...and keep bringing up despite being corrected....

Yes, i fucking do know because i've read every thing on that site.

 

[gurrier]

wheras anarchists on here seem to see trotskyists as wanna be dictators

You really miss the point, don't you. Anarchists have argued, at great length and over and over again, that the logic of leninist politics leads inexorably towards dictatorships whenever they have the smallest smidgeon of success. The Leninists themselves could be jolly decent chaps, including Lenin or Stalin, but that is really irrelevant. We are interested in political ideas, not personalities. You should really try to understand that - it is a central theme to all of our debates here and, until you understand that, you will continue to be bewildered by any type of serious political debate.

 

[charlie mowbray]

Hear hear Butchers!!

 

[cockneyrebel]

Butchers I do remember about you say about junta, I haven't brought that up. I didn't remember you saying about totalitarian, but accept that it has a different meaning in Spanish. Although obviously the FOD saying they would shut down the stalinists and execute people is obviously a problem for at least some of the anarchists on here. I also think the central common command of the military is very interesting.

As for the FOD book saying they weren't marxists, where on this thread have I said otherwise? The same goes for shutting down the CNT. What I was getting at was if they were saying that people who had turned their backs on the working class should be shut down, why wouldn't/didn't this apply to the CNT leadership who they called traitors?

But heh why not just throw everything in together? And as said I'm sure you remember several people saying you were patronsing and insulting to debate with.....but you carry on.....

As for you reading everything on that site, there is a hell of a lot there, so it must be amazing that you can remember every single page and bit of information!

As for why I come on here, because I've got some time at work....

 

[butchersapron]

You think that's a hell of a lot? Good god, that might explain a few things.

You did bring up Junta - you tried to use it to demonstrate that the FOD were in some way 'totalitarian' or 'authoritarian' - i suggest you read the preface to see just how well using the term will serve you in this context. You did exactly the same with totalitario. These things are on the thread ffs!

Don't treat us like idiots - you've brought out on this thread the same arguments that you've brought up every single time we've come close to discussing these isues - with no indication of any growth in your knowledge or deeper understanding of the events of 1917 or 1936. It is possible to debate this in a sensible manner with someone from your tradition, no matter the depth of disagreement - if they're informed and serious in their knowledge and responses. You, however are just a ranter.


edit: that's it from me until something substantive or new comes around. I hate these stupid games with CR as much as anyone.

 

[charlie mowbray]

The FOD NEVER said anything about shutting down the CNT- they were all members of the CNT! Profound disagreements with those in the CNT-FAI who had compromised the revolution can in no way be equated in wanting to shut down the CNT- have you read nothing of the various texts put on the board or given links for?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Butchers you're wrong I brought up the totalitarian thing and then you said about the different meaning in Spainish. I looked it up and you were right. I didn't bring up the junta, find it if I did........there was one quote I put up with junta in it but that bit of the quote was not what I was talking about.....so you're definately wrong.....

Charlie I never said the FOD said that, so what's your post for?! I said they called them traitors and I couldn't see from their own logic of saying shut down people who had turned on the working class why they didn't apply that to the CNT leadership. Isn't traitors turning your back on the working class?!

 

[butchersapron]

Okey dokey. In your immediate reply to the post where i put you right about the spanish use of totalitario - which oddly, you now claim to have accepted, but didn't then, saying "As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you:" - you then directly quoted me this text in order to bak up your claim about totalitario meaning authoritarian:

"Our Group demands the immediate establishment of a revolutionary junta, the shooting of the guilty ones, the disarming of the armed corps, the socialization of the economy and the disbanding of all the political parties which turned on the working class"

So not only did you bring Junta up, you are also now claiming that you accepted my point about the term totalitario when you did nothing of the sort!. Please carry on though.

 

[charlie mowbray]

The horse's mouth: "As for the FOD book saying they weren't marxists, where on this thread have I said otherwise? The same goes for shutting down the CNT. "

 

[cockneyrebel]

Absolute bollox butchers. that was just the beginning of the quote .....you made an issue of that part of the quote not me, it was just the beginning of the sentence ffs! Should I have cut the beginning off because it mentioned junta?! I just used the entirity of the quote, shutting down organisations/executing people to show that I think the FOD did wanna use authoritarian methods. And that also doesn't mean I can't accept the translation of totalitarianism! So no, again, you're totally wrong.....face it on that one.....

And whats that quote for Charles? I never said the FOD said shut them down, I said I couldn't see how it would follow from their logic as surely traitors equate to turning on the working class. Can you not see the difference?!

 

[charlie mowbray]

Are you totally thick? You denied saying the FOD wanted to shut down the CNT- only 2 posts before- .I provided evidence that you did say that!FFS!!

 

[butchersapron]

Uh no - i put the whole of the quote up. You were clearly hoping that the use of the term junta would have authoritarian connontations - if you follow your abusrd logic, unless you had just posted a message saying simply 'junta' then i would have grounds, but if there were other words in the post i haven't! Absurdity.

And what about your attempt to bluff that you had accepted the totalitario point i made, when you did no such thing - just gonna ignore it? 'Forgotten' it already?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Read the quote charles it says.....that I deny saying the FOD said they wanted to shut the CNT down. It clearly says the opposite of what you're trying to prove!

Are you thick?!?!?!

 

[cockneyrebel]

No I accepted the literal meaning of the totalitarianism. As you pointed out it means in total. But when in total mean closing down organisations and executing people, I said that this involves authoritarianism.....can you not see the difference?!

As for junta, it was just part of the quote. I was clearly using it to talk about the executions and shutting down organisations....as said should I have cut off the beginning of the sentence for your benefit because it said junta in it!? Face it butchers at no point did I refer to that part of the quote.....

 

[butchersapron]

No I accepted the literal meaning of the totalitarianism. As you pointed out it means in total. But when in total mean closing down organisations and executing people, I said that this involves authoritarianism.....can you not see the difference?!

As for junta, it was just part of the quote. I was clearly using it to talk about the executions and shutting down organisations....as said should I have cut off the beginning of the sentence for your benefit because it said junta in it!? Face it butchers at no point did I refer to that part of the quote.....

You quoted it for fucks sake - what do you think that means? It means that you have referred to it. No one else - you.

And you nowhere agreed on the term totalitario. Nowhere. Again, this is what you said, not what you now imagine you said, or wish you had said:

"Butchers from your point of view you might have given me "the facts" but not from mine. If that makes debating pointless, fair enough. As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you"


How could it be any clearer? This truly pathetic

 

[cockneyrebel]

Uh no - i put the whole of the quote up.

I believe I put the whole quote/sentence up on post 322. Should I denounce you as dishonest, a liar, a clown?

And what about you Charles, changed your mind yet?

 

[butchersapron]

I believe I put the whole quote/sentence up on post 322. Should I denounce you as dishonest, a liar, a clown?

And what about you Charles, changed your mind yet?

For what? I put up the aboslute entirety of the quote you used in post #322. Wtf are you on about? What are you going to denounce me for? It just gets worse.

 

[cockneyrebel]

No you're being truely pathetic. Look back on the thread and you will see that I clearly said I accept the meaning of junta, but as said, the only reason it was there was because it was the beginning of the quote! I never made an issue out of that part of the sentence, you did.....

As said on totalitarianism, I think in context of shutting down organisations and executing people, "in total" does have an authoritarian meaning, that doesn't mean I wasn't accepting your translation of the actual word....FFS butchers, I know what I meant, I wrote it!

 

[butchersapron]

Whoah, hang on - let's first get this out of the way about you accusing me of dishonesty in quoting the exact same text as you did in post#322 - what the fuck are you on about? I did no such thing did i?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I put up a sentence in post 322 but wasn't referring to the junta bit at all. You made an issue out of the word junta, not me, in fact I NEVER referred to that bit of the quote....you're just talking rubbish....as was Charles above when he managed to turn the sentence into the opposite meaning of what it meant!

 

[cockneyrebel]

I thought you weren't bothering with me?

 

[butchersapron]

Right, so tell me where i didn't post the whole of the quote as you claim - and that led you to accuse me of dishonesty. Show me where.

You cannot stick up a quote and say that you wasn't referring to it! esp when you've just tried to use it support for a point you're trying to make.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You said you put the entirity of the post up, but the quote I put up in post was the entirity of the quote!

And I was using some of the quote, sorry am I not allowed to do that!!!

 

[butchersapron]

No you're being truely pathetic. Look back on the thread and you will see that I clearly said I accept the meaning of junta, but as said, the only reason it was there was because it was the beginning of the quote! I never made an issue out of that part of the sentence, you did.....

As said on totalitarianism, I think in context of shutting down organisations and executing people, "in total" does have an authoritarian meaning, that doesn't mean I wasn't accepting your translation of the actual word....FFS butchers, I know what I meant, I wrote it!

No you didn't - show me where if you did. I've shown what you've actually said twice now - here it is again:

Butchers from your point of view you might have given me "the facts" but not from mine. If that makes debating pointless, fair enough. As for the meaning of totalitarian in terms of the context of the rest of the book on this link I disagree with you:

 

[butchersapron]

You said you put the entirity of the post up, but the quote I put up in post was the entirity of the quote!

And I was using some of the quote, sorry am I not allowed to do that!!!

No i didn't - i twice said that i had 'put the entirety of the quote up' - not the entirety of the post - this is in posts #583 and 587. You lying about posts from 5 minutes ago now.

And you're barely making sense in the above. Do you want to try again?

 

[cockneyrebel]

You have interpreted that sentence to mean me denying the translation of totalitarianism. What I was saying was that "in total" takes on a certain context when lined up with executing people and shutting down organisations. If you don't wanna accept that, fair enough, but that's what I meant.

As for saying I accept the word junta, it's there, I'm not gonna go through the whole fucking thread again!

 

[butchersapron]

No, we're talking about a) you claiming not to have brought the term junta up and b) you claiming to have accepted what i said about totalitario when you didn't. The posts are there.

 

[cockneyrebel]

FFS it was typo!!! Are you that anal? I put up the entirity of the quote in post 322. That's there as a fact.

Is this still ignoring me.....

 

[cockneyrebel]

The fact that junta was in the beginning of the quote I put up is an irrelevance because I wasn't using that bit of the quote, it was just the beginning of the sentence.....it's not like I was trying to claim junta meant anything!

As for totalitarian I've explained what I meant when I'm saying "in total" takes on a certain meaning when put up against executions and shutting down organisations IMO.

FFS what is the point!

 

[butchersapron]

FFS it was typo!!! Are you that anal? I put up the entirity of the quote in post 322. That's there as a fact.

Is this still ignoring me.....

What on earth does this mean? you accused me of using a quote dishonestly and leaving a section out - i didn't as the record shows. I used the full quote.

What was a typo?