the neoliberal vision of the future

[Pickman's model]

Killing innocent people for profit is by definition not capitalism, just like the slavery of the southern US was not capitalism even though it was business.

that's not entirely true, is it?

it is, in fact, the logical end state of capitalism, where people are treated as human resources. this would of course never happen in the global north, would it.

 

[Kizmet]

2. You posted a deeply foul anti-semitic cartoon dating from 1920s France, and said that it was the work of French socialists. The major French socialist party at that time, the SFIO, was led by Leon Blum, who was Jewish. This party did not identify capitalism with Jews, Judaism, or anything else of a semitic nature. You're a fucking liar.

I'm a bit surprised you're willing to state this on behalf of every member of a party dating back to a time before you were born. You seem remarkably sure. Do you know the origin of the cartoon?

 

[butchersapron]

kizmet is here to prove to loon-jobs theory of altruism correct.

 

[LLETSA]

This is nonsense, unless you call machine gunning striking workers heroic and politically progressive, which as you've already made clear, you do.

It isn't actually nonsense. Plenty of those belonging to the progressive tradition in politics have ended up turning the guns on the workers. What's puzling here is onarchy's condemnatory use of the word progressive when he says he regards himself as a liberal. Liberals are part of the progressive tradition in its broadest sense, aren't they?

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you know the origin of the cartoon?

cartoons originated many centuries ago, at least as long ago as leonardo da vinci. but i suppose you're going to paste up a long and turgid article about the origin of the form.

 

[Kizmet]

kizmet is here to prove to loon-jobs theory of altruism correct.

Nah. You folk are doing a great job of doing that for him.

 

[LLETSA]

Ok, about time to answer that. For some reason it is called a "Free State," heaven only knows why. It has no connection to the Free State Initiative and it should be clear from the fact that it was a PRIVATE state partially owned by a MONARCH, that this was not a laissez-faire free state. So why bring it up? You're not seriously suggesting that because someone just happened to call it "Free State" that I should have to answer for the crimes did in that place?

This Free State Initiative-it's just you really, isn't it?

 

[Kizmet]

cartoons originated many centuries ago, at least as long ago as leonardo da vinci. but i suppose you're going to paste up a long and turgid article about the origin of the form.

You seem to have confused me with someone who gives a shit.

Nope, am only interested in how Idris is so sure of the origin of that particular cartoon.

 

[LLETSA]

Right, ta, but what of the strikers, if Rockefeller Snr was a 'progressive' what did that make them.

Also progressives (although perhaps not as readily as Rockfeller might have regarded himself as one.) There's no contradiction. As I said, plenty of governments arising from the progressive tradition have ended up repressing workers whose leaders and activists were also part of that tradition.

 

[rekil]

Also progressives (although perhaps not as readily as Rockfeller might have regarded himself as one.) There's no contradiction. As I said, plenty of governments arising from the progressive tradition have ended up repressing workers whose leaders were also part of that tradition.

Don't be helping him ffs.

 

[butchersapron]

Nah. You folk are doing a great job of doing that for him.

Is that right. Show us how then.

 

[Pickman's model]

You seem to have confused me with someone who gives a shit.

Nope, am only interested in how Idris is so sure of the origin of that particular cartoon.

the worst i can be accused of is thinking you someone who is full of shit. but then you reinforce that impression with every post.

 

[Kizmet]

It isn't actually nonsense. Plenty of those belonging to the progressive tradition in politics have ended up turning the guns on the workers. What's puzling here is onarchy's condemnatory use of the word progressive when he says he regards himself as a liberal. Liberals are part of the progressive tradition in its broadest sense, aren't they?

Onarchy's problem is that he uses so many terms pejoratively that he runs out when he regards himself.

 

[LLETSA]

Don't be helping him ffs.

I'm not helping him. Just because he's wrong about most things (although I know nothing of Rockefeller's politics), it doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about everything.

 

[LLETSA]

Onarchy's problem is that he uses so many terms pejoratively that he runs out when he regards himself.

I'm guessing that he'll end up condemning himself as a fascist before the thread's run its course.

 

[Kizmet]

the worst i can be accused of is thinking you someone who is full of shit. but then you reinforce that impression with every post.

If you can smell shit just remember that your own mouth is closer to your nose than mine.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you can smell shit just remember that your own mouth is closer to your nose than mine.

i can't smell shit; but i don't need to smell it to know you're full of it

 

[Kizmet]

Is that right. Show us how then.

How can I show you something you don't want to see?

 

[Idris2002]

I'm a bit surprised you're willing to state this on behalf of every member of a party dating back to a time before you were born. You seem remarkably sure. Do you know the origin of the cartoon?

I've actually just been looking this up, and it turns out to be more complex than you'd imagine. In the late 19th century, some members of the early French socialist movement flirted with anti-semitic stereotypes for purposes of anti-capitalist propaganda. They may have helped prepare the soil in which overt political anti-semitism grew up and in which the Dreyfus affair was born (did you know, btw, that the French military didn't admit until the 1990s that Dreyfus was innocent?).

Now, some French socialists argued that Dreyfus was a class enemy and that his fate was no concern of theirs. This is what Jean Jaures, the leader of French socialism at the time, had to say, as he declared for the Dreyfusard position:

I could answer that if Dreyfus has been illegally convicted and if, in fact, as I will soon demonstrate, he is actually innocent, then he is no longer an officer or a bourgeois; he has been stripped by the very excess of misery of all class character; he is nothing less than mankind itself, at the very deep- est level of misery and despair which can be imagined.2

French socialists in Jaures time and after can certainly be accused of not opposing anti-semitism as strongly as they should have: but that wasn't onarchy's accusation. He accused French socialists of the postWW1 era of actively promoting anti-semitic images of a kind most often associated with the radical right. And this at a time when the leader of French socialism was himself Jewish.

So, I'm pretty sure that I'm right, that onarchy is a liar, and you are a fool.

 

[butchersapron]

How can I show you something you don't want to see?

You do realise that everyone knows that when you slime onto a thread you're not going to actually say anything don't you? That you're only going to offer empty glib teenage paradoxes and re-workings of what others have already said - and in the sort of arrogant tone of someone who really really fears getting caught out. Because we do. And you have been.

 

[Kizmet]

i can't smell shit; but i don't need to smell it to know you're full of it

Perhaps it's leaked out from your brain into your eyes?

 

[audiotech]

As I said initially I don't know this project and know nothing about who has been displaced or not (which obviously I don't support). If you have paid a little bit of attention to the Free State Initiative then you know that it wants to create a Free State in an *unpopulated* area with no natural resources. An important motivation for doing this is precisely to avoid infringing the rights of the locals.

The thing that makes me cautious about the Lekki-project is that it is mainly a Chinese project, and China does in general not promote liberty, but rather national interests.

I said no glib answers, but I see you've added made up stuff too, with some crackpot notion of a place with no natural resources.

Bye.

 

[Kizmet]

You do realise that everyone knows that when you slime onto a thread you're not going to actually say anything don't you? That you're only going to offer empty glib teenage paradoxes and re-workings of what others have already said - and in the sort of arrogant tone of someone who really really fears getting caught out. Because we do. And you have been.

I think that if by 'everyone' you mean you and your fetid circle jerk of friends and by 'caught out' you mean ganged up on until all meaning is lost. Then you'd be more correct.

Remember, butch, you get what you deserve.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Could you show me a post on this thread where you have included an idea connected to something under discussion, kizmet?

 

[Kizmet]

I've actually just been looking this up, and it turns out to be more complex than you'd imagine. In the late 19th century, some members of the early French socialist movement flirted with anti-semitic stereotypes for purposes of anti-capitalist propaganda. They may have helped prepare the soil in which overt political anti-semitism grew up and in which the Dreyfus affair was born (did you know, btw, that the French military didn't admit until the 1990s that Dreyfus was innocent?).

Now, some French socialists argued that Dreyfus was a class enemy and that his fate was no concern of theirs. This is what Jean Jaures, the leader of French socialism at the time, had to say, as he declared for the Dreyfusard position:



French socialists in Jaures time and after can certainly be accused of not opposing anti-semitism as strongly as they should have: but that wasn't onarchy's accusation. He accused French socialists of the postWW1 era of actively promoting anti-semitic images of a kind most often associated with the radical right. And this at a time when the leader of French socialism was himself Jewish.

So, I'm pretty sure that I'm right, that onarchy is a liar, and you are a fool.

So your research turned up very little except to suggest they 'flirted' with anti-semetism and yet that somehow make you even surer that you are right?

If that is the alternative.... then I am happy to be foolish.

 

[nino_savatte]

Onar Åm according to his loonsite. Unless it's some even loonier loon follower.

Just had a look at it.

The Norwegian Tea Party? What is this obsession with all things American?

 

[Kizmet]

Could you show me a post on this thread where you have included an idea connected to something under discussion, kizmet?

There is no discussion here yet. Only blowhards blowing hard.

 

[Idris2002]

Try reading the full post, Kizmet, not just the first paragraph. Come on, you can do it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Obviously you have a perverted view of laissez-faire ("leave us in peace") if you think that killing innocent people is part of it.

Actually it doesn't translate as "leave us in peace" at all. It means "leave it alone". Leave [us] in peace would be "laissez en paix". Killing innocent people, either directly (as a consequence of brutality) or indirectly (as a consequence of the conditions of labour) is what happens in laissez faire environments. You wouldn't appreciate this because you're the one who is holding the whip.

It isn't a proper laissez-faire Free State unless 1) there is a state and 2) the state protects the rights of ALL the inhabitants of the state. You seem very ignorant about what laissez-faire means.

I didn't say that there wasn't a state. Please don't misrepresent me. Some citizens are doubtlessly more free than others because the kind of state that you envisage acts entirely in the interests of capital (like it doesn't already) but in the case of a 'Free State' the state acts to protect its interests in any way it can - even if that means using brute force to exercise control. Those who wield economic power in such a society also wield considerable political and social power. Those that have to sell their labour to live do not have the same 'liberties' within your vision of a Randist Zion as you would have. Get real.

 

[Kizmet]

I did. And I was genuinely interested to know. But you turned up very little to refute the notion. except to state that the leader of one Socialist party happened to be Jewish.

That doesn't prove anything, really.