[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Leg End]

Yes, the Murder /k/ube is our version of the Kaʿbah.

AVE NEX ALEA! AVE NEX ALEA! AVE NEX ALEA!

Ave Cubum Necis, Ave Nex Alea.

At last, we finally know the origins of the Borg.

I would actually watch a new Trek series with such a premise.

At least they are ready for when the good guy with a gun appears...

Indeed they are.

I think these people should have their guns taken away though.

...Why? How have you come to this conclusion?

 

[tstorm823]

Ok, so then by your criteria Rosa Luxemburg [https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm] is progressive.

The first paragraph of the introduction of your link says revolution is the aim. So I honestly don't know what you're getting at. I read only the introduction, and that introduction was a repudiation of social reform as an end goal and outrage that others might accept elements of the bourgeois into the socialist movement. No, that author isn't progressive. That piece is a case against progressivism.

 

[Saelune]

I think these people should have their guns taken away though.

...Why? How have you come to this conclusion?

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

 

[Leg End]

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

So they're 'Crazy' for arms being involved in religious ceremony. Alright. What do you think of Sikhs and the Kirpan?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

The question is, of course, what objective measure you have of a person's mental state and whether or not they are "crazy" as you put it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ok, so then by your criteria Rosa Luxemburg [https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm] is progressive.

The first paragraph of the introduction of your link says revolution is the aim. So I honestly don't know what you're getting at. I read only the introduction, and that introduction was a repudiation of social reform as an end goal and outrage that others might accept elements of the bourgeois into the socialist movement. No, that author isn't progressive. That piece is a case against progressivism.

If social revolution cannot be brought about even as the culmination of a long struggle, is not your view of 'progressivism' merely a species of your own description of conservatism?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution calling the NRA a terrorist group. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/04/san-francisco-just-passed-resolution-calling-nra-domestic-terrorist-organization/]

The interesting part of this resolution is as follows:

It also said that the city would assess its financial and contractual relationships with vendors that do business with the NRA.

?The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,? it noted.

If this actually turns into something rather than being simple bluster, then it would be interesting to see the federal courts take a look at this.

 

[tstorm823]

I guess it was, after all, foolish to think you had any knowledge whatsoever of the debate between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism. Rosa Luxemburg advocated the former of those.

I guess it was, after all, foolish to think you had any knowledge whatsoever about anything you say literally ever. Read your own source!

Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.

It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.

That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.

To translate, there is no marxist society without revolution, only reformed capitalism. It's downright amazing, not only did this person not write in the way that you are characterizing them, but the writing in this piece agrees with me in literally the conversation we are having about reform vs revolution. You linked me a piece where a Marxist describes precisely what I'm telling you now.

Reform is not revolution. Reform is gradual and patient. Revolution is sudden and violent. Reform builds out of the things that came before. Revolution eliminates what came before.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I guess it was, after all, foolish to think you had any knowledge whatsoever of the debate between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism. Rosa Luxemburg advocated the former of those.

I guess it was, after all, foolish to think you had any knowledge whatsoever about anything you say literally ever. Read your own source!

Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.

It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.

That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.

To translate, there is no marxist society without revolution, only reformed capitalism. It's downright amazing, not only did this person not write in the way that you are characterizing them, but the writing in this piece agrees with me in literally the conversation we are having about reform vs revolution. You linked me a piece where a Marxist describes precisely what I'm telling you now.

Reform is not revolution. Reform is gradual and patient. Revolution is sudden and violent. Reform builds out of the things that came before. Revolution eliminates what came before.

If social revolution cannot be brought about even as the culmination of a long struggle, is not your view of 'progressivism' merely a species of your own description of conservatism, supposedly its opposite?

Far from enunciating your view of reform vs. revolution, Luxemburg explicitly disagrees with your notion that the main difference between reform and revolution is suddenness or violence. And Luxemburg advocated building a democracy with free institutions. (Sound familiar?) She also advocated struggling for reforms within the capitalist system. The dispute with Bernstein is about what that struggle will lead to (mere improvement of the situation of workers vs. conquest of political power by workers) and whether an energized working class should go to sleep satisfied upon making any gains or on the other hand redouble their efforts and put on more pressure.

 

[tstorm823]

If social revolution cannot be brought about even as the culmination of a long struggle, is not your view of 'progressivism' merely a species of your own description of conservatism, supposedly its opposite?

Yes, 100%. To go all the way back to that Teddy Roosevelt quote: "wise progressivism and wise conservativism go hand in hand". Progressive and conservative aren't opposite in the sense of contradiction, but rather in a complimentary sense. They are inverse sides of the same coin.

To make my own analogy, it's like the gas pedal vs the breaks. They sort of do opposite things, one moves and one stops, but in a different sense they're doing the same task, getting you to your destination.

Far from enunciating your view of reform vs. revolution, Luxemburg explicitly disagrees with your notion that the main difference between reform and revolution is suddenness or violence. And Luxemburg advocated building a democracy with free institutions. (Sound familiar?) She also advocated struggling for reforms within the capitalist system. The dispute with Bernstein is about what that struggle will lead to (mere improvement of the situation of workers vs. conquest of political power by workers) and whether an energized working class should go to sleep satisfied upon making any gains or on the other hand redouble their efforts and put on more pressure.

Let's not ignore the difference in reformation vs revolution that is improvement vs replacement. She absolutely agrees on that. Reformation only builds onto existing structures, that's the ultimate message of the paragraphs I snipped out. Steadily improving something will never turn into replacing it. You cannot turn against something by means of working in unison with it. There is no revolution by means of reform.

And like, there are snippets in that full thing (of which I've read more of now) where she's theorizing on pushing forward gleefully with capitalistic structures in the specific belief that fully realized capitalism is inherently self-destructive and will lead to revolution anyway.

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution calling the NRA a terrorist group. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/04/san-francisco-just-passed-resolution-calling-nra-domestic-terrorist-organization/]

The interesting part of this resolution is as follows:

It also said that the city would assess its financial and contractual relationships with vendors that do business with the NRA.

?The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,? it noted.

If this actually turns into something rather than being simple bluster, then it would be interesting to see the federal courts take a look at this.

Well, that's unexpected. If I hadn't double-checked I wouldn't had believed it.

https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence, and

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and

WHEREAS, The leadership of National Rifle Association promotes extremist positions, in defiance of the views of a majority of its membership and the public, and undermine the general welfare, and

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism; and

WHEREAS, All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association?s influence; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization;and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should encourage all other jurisdictions, including other cities, states, and the federal government,to adopt similar positions.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If social revolution cannot be brought about even as the culmination of a long struggle, is not your view of 'progressivism' merely a species of your own description of conservatism, supposedly its opposite?

Yes, 100%. To go all the way back to that Teddy Roosevelt quote: "wise progressivism and wise conservativism go hand in hand". Progressive and conservative aren't opposite in the sense of contradiction, but rather in a complimentary sense. They are inverse sides of the same coin.

To make my own analogy, it's like the gas pedal vs the breaks. They sort of do opposite things, one moves and one stops, but in a different sense they're doing the same task, getting you to your destination.

So progressivism isn't really about progress at all. OK.

You can say exactly the same thing about revolution, by the way. It moves and gets you to your destination.

Far from enunciating your view of reform vs. revolution, Luxemburg explicitly disagrees with your notion that the main difference between reform and revolution is suddenness or violence. And Luxemburg advocated building a democracy with free institutions. (Sound familiar?) She also advocated struggling for reforms within the capitalist system. The dispute with Bernstein is about what that struggle will lead to (mere improvement of the situation of workers vs. conquest of political power by workers) and whether an energized working class should go to sleep satisfied upon making any gains or on the other hand redouble their efforts and put on more pressure.

Let's not ignore the difference in reformation vs revolution that is improvement vs replacement. She absolutely agrees on that. Reformation only builds onto existing structures, that's the ultimate message of the paragraphs I snipped out. Steadily improving something will never turn into replacing it. You cannot turn against something by means of working in unison with it. There is no revolution by means of reform.

You're making the mistake of equating "Reform alone is not sufficient" to "The struggle for reform is not useful".

And like, there are snippets in that full thing (of which I've read more of now) where she's theorizing on pushing forward gleefully with capitalistic structures in the specific belief that fully realized capitalism is inherently self-destructive and will lead to revolution anyway.

That accelerationism would constitute a revolutionary conservativism, in your view? Or would it be about retrograde progress toward a revolutionary crisis?

 

[Leg End]

Well, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution calling the NRA a terrorist group. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/04/san-francisco-just-passed-resolution-calling-nra-domestic-terrorist-organization/]

The interesting part of this resolution is as follows:

It also said that the city would assess its financial and contractual relationships with vendors that do business with the NRA.

?The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,? it noted.

If this actually turns into something rather than being simple bluster, then it would be interesting to see the federal courts take a look at this.

This is funny coming from a city that is, on some level, is likely largely responsible for disease-ridden needles being everywhere within it's city limits.

 

[tstorm823]

So progressivism isn't really about progress at all. OK.

No, progress is 100% about progress. It's just that the very notion of progress asserts the value of what we already have.

To take an example from another comment that was made by someone else, the gay marriage debate was conservative vs progressive. Those who want things the same, and those who would reform. But the people who wanted gay marriage legalized (or at least most of them) didn't want that out of the desire to destroy the status quo, but rather amend it. Revolution was not the goal. If a gay couple wanted the elimination of the institution of marriage, they wouldn't be trying to secure it for themselves. One side seeks to preserve what exists, the other tries to improve it, but both are acting for love of the institution.

That accelerationism would constitute a revolutionary conservativism, in your view? Or would it be about retrograde progress toward a revolutionary crisis?

It's frankly a communist delusion that capitalism is destined to implode. There's no sense even trying to label it seriously.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's frankly a communist delusion that capitalism is destined to implode. There's no sense even trying to label it seriously.

Climate scientists are now communists?

 

[Saelune]

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

So they're 'Crazy' for arms being involved in religious ceremony. Alright. What do you think of Sikhs and the Kirpan?

They are crazy for literally worshipping gun.

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

The question is, of course, what objective measure you have of a person's mental state and whether or not they are "crazy" as you put it.

*points at picture* That is crazy yall. You wouldnt disagree if it wasnt about guns.

 

[tstorm823]

Climate scientists are now communists?

You're suggesting that climate scientists, as a group, believe capitalism is destined to implode? And people questioned why I think you're always just talking about communism.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

So they're 'Crazy' for arms being involved in religious ceremony. Alright. What do you think of Sikhs and the Kirpan?

They are crazy for literally worshipping gun.

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

The question is, of course, what objective measure you have of a person's mental state and whether or not they are "crazy" as you put it.

*points at picture* That is crazy yall. You wouldnt disagree if it wasnt about guns.

Considering you are proposing taking away a person's constitutional rights (the right to own firearms) on the basis of how they dress and what religion they engage in (as weird as we might find it) then yes, you're going to get quite a bit of push back. Just because people have a kooky religion (protected by the First Amendment, by the by) doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own firearms.

 

[Saelune]

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

So they're 'Crazy' for arms being involved in religious ceremony. Alright. What do you think of Sikhs and the Kirpan?

They are crazy for literally worshipping gun.

Crazy people shouldnt have guns, its not that hard to understand.

The question is, of course, what objective measure you have of a person's mental state and whether or not they are "crazy" as you put it.

*points at picture* That is crazy yall. You wouldnt disagree if it wasnt about guns.

Considering you are proposing taking away a person's constitutional rights (the right to own firearms) on the basis of how they dress and what religion they engage in (as weird as we might find it) then yes, you're going to get quite a bit of push back. Just because people have a kooky religion (protected by the First Amendment, by the by) doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own firearms.

These same people would be upset if it was Muslims and guns. The Republican Party has never been pro-Religious freedom, it is a lie to defend Christian supremacy.

 

[Leg End]

They are crazy for literally worshipping gun.

So you didn't even read the article? At no point is there worship of arms here. And again you don't answer my question, this time about Sikhs.

*points at picture* That is crazy yall.

You don't see the irony in saying that?