Thread: INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY

well personally i am all for police brutality

keeps the riff raff in line

Originally Posted by sailor jack

so why the hell dont we see more minorities being beaten up?

the world would be such a better place...

Because then you get types like Khalid Abdul Muhammad and the New Black Panther Party, then liberals go "OH GOD HORRIBLE RACISM" and both the cops and rational Original types get mad and beat up the liberals.

MANKIND WINS

Originally Posted by sailor jack

surely thats a good thing?

Well yes I'd say any membership rise in the NBPP is a good thing.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

so you agree police beating the crap out of people is good?

In the same way that counter-revolutionaries trying to sabotage the French Revolution led to the total destruction of said counter-revolutionaries by Robespierre, yes.

It led to him being killed because in the end there was a lack of actual mass movement, and his executors quickly improved the domestic situation, ergo they won out.

would you like to see the police beat people up?

Such a situation would lead to an increase in "racist" groups like the NBPP, so yes. If there was a state of emergency declared in New York right now and the police started beating up every minority they saw, then I doubt Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could go in there and preach reconciliation. Radical groups would inevitably form and when radical groups form and get popular in a deteriorating situation they get angry and when they get angry they start a revolution of some sort.

...but then the police would beat them up

Considering that most workers in the US today are foreign/immigrants, it'd go a bit further than that.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

and the revolution only improved the domestic situation because they had pretty much defeated the counter revolution with "King" Provence's declaration of Verona, which alienated moderates and effectively handed France victory

The revolution pretty much destroyed the political power of feudalism in France and played a vital role in the rise of capitalism across Europe. Even if it ended in everyone catching AIDS and dying it would still be progress.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

there are other ways of progress than killing people

History is of class struggles. Tribalism versus Despotism, Despotism versus Feudalism, Feudalism versus Capitalism, Capitalism versus Socialism. The feudal system was willing to hold onto its power no matter what, and it'd be naïve to think otherwise.

there are soo many different aspects to it. socially, class conflict is a huge contributer, but in the bigger picture (revisionist attitude), political aspects would have surely been more efficient even if longer term, and fewer people would have died

You haven't actually disproven the importance of class struggles. Just saying "well if x was done this way, less people would have died" proves nothing.

For example, The Afghanistan War of 2002 - Legacy of USA Imperialism and (Soviet) Social-Imperialism by Alliance Marxist-Leninist quotes that:

The rapid disintegration (due to tribalism) of the Amanullah reformist government, showed the objectively weak – even the non-existence - of a national bourgeoisie. The Soviet ambassador to Kabul, F.F Raskolnikov, wrote in 1929:

"The tragedy of Amanullah’s case lay in the fact that he undertook bourgeois reforms without the existence of any national bourgeoisie in the country".
Cited by Hyman, Antony: Afghanistan Under Soviet Domination 1964-81; London 1982. Cited p. 42

Would you care to explain the case of Afghanistan in... any single point within its history where class conflict was clearly not a driving factor? Tribalism still exists in Afghanistan even to this day and capitalism's influence in the country is tenuous.

Originally Posted by djwolford

Of course that has a lot to do with the way we outnumber blacks in the state of Alabama and also a lot of us white folk are pretty heavily armed. I don't think that an uprising would do so well here.

Actually the NBPP (and NoI originally and possibly still do) advocate a Republic of New Afrika, which includes Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika

@sailor jack:

i didnt say it wasnt a driving factor

Yes you did.

there are soo many different aspects to it.

and whyyy are you bringing afghanistan in to it?

Because it's a good example of how class conflict plays a driving force in the world today and in history.

all i asked was "do you want to see police beat the crap out of people"

To which after some discussion you said:

...but then the police would beat them up

it sorts itself out, perfect

Then you said in that same post:

and the revolution only improved the domestic situation because they had pretty much defeated the counter revolution with "King" Provence's declaration of Verona, which alienated moderates and effectively handed France victory

That is how we arrived at this situation.

you have just turned yourself into one of the people the police would beat up.

Not surprising.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

i didnt say "marxism only recognises class conflict as the driving factor of history". it believes it is the main factor, as do you.

I dont.

And why is that? Beyond "there are soo many different aspects to it" if possible.

You have not understood what i have written. i think class cannot be the main factor because it is politics which decides the class system, so therefore politics can control it and therefore politics is the driving factor, that is my view.

Which is wrong. What decides the political system? The political system is written up a class (or in a collaboration of classes), who appear due to the economic structure of society. Would capitalists create a tribal system of government? The economic system creates the classes, which is why socialists don't advocate political change, they advocate economic change.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

i dont believe that because even classless societies progress. many become classed but there are other routes of progression.

Evidently the quote meant "in a world with classes."

and i dont think its wrong at all. a government may be made up of classes but it only takes one reshuffle/coup/dictator to eradicate the class system.

Uh, no it doesn't. Name a single state where a mere coup, much less a reshuffle, ended a political system simply because of that. The very economic system needs to change, not just who represents it.

and would capitalists create tribalism? they have. the ancient greek city states were in effect capitalist tribes. the capitalist heirarchy is perfectly evident in what were tribes.

You're confusing trade with capitalism. The economic system created that city-state structure, not the other way around. Explain how the bourgeoisie, proletariat, and petite-bourgeoisie existed in the ancient Greek city-states. (Go look those terms up, since you probably never have)

Originally Posted by sailor jack

im not confusing the two at all. most modern historians would probably agree that to some extent, greek city states were capitalist. trade was on the whole privately owned, governments didnt really have a hand in trade at all. Capitalism was the main system of government in ancient mesopotamia, which was adopted by greece

There was no bourgeoisie, ergo it was not capitalism. Whether or not a government controls the economy is irrelevant, ever heard of State Capitalism? It's what Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Capitalism

the bourgeoisie were typically the sons of professionals that had made enough to own property, like an elderly blacksmith, who would pass his wealth from years of trade to his sons, or self made intellegent men, pythagoras for example. The proletariat were probably the likes whod businessess werent as successful, who struggled at times, who relied on their sons earnings. the petite bourgeoisie were the working men, the blacksmiths, the potters, the sculptors who worked all their lives and passed the benefit to their offspring

I'm pretty sure Greek society was classified as a slave society.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/ter...#slave-society

See also: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...amily/ch05.htm

Furthermore:

Tribal society has survived up to the present day... How this transition took place varied from place to place, and is shrouded in the mists of time. We know that in ancient Greece, as a result of trade, there were large numbers of foreigners living in the midst of their society and a money economy developed, leading to a situation where the tribal lands were all mortgaged to money-lenders. The local tribes re-asserted their power by imposing a constitution institutionalised the rights of landowners and made provision for slavery.

While the story doubtless differs in every case, wherever tribal society has given birth to class society out of its own development, it has been the increase in the productivity of labour which is the essential feature responsible for the breakdown of tribal life:

“The increase of production in all branches – cattle-raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts – gave human labour-power the capacity to produce a larger product than was necessary for its maintenance. At the same time it increased the daily amount of work to be done by each member of the gens, household community or single family. It was now desirable to bring in new labour forces. War provided them; prisoners of war were turned into slaves. With its increase of the productivity of labour, and therefore of wealth, and its extension of the field of production, the first great social division of labour was bound, in the general historical conditions prevailing, to bring slavery in its train. From the first great social division of labour arose the first great cleavage of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited.” [Origins of the Family, Chapter 9]

This still doesn't disprove anything. The economic system gave rise to these classes who then structured society around said economic system.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

youre just giving me marxist and therefore biased sources.

What does this have to do with anything? It's a Marxist take on the history of ancient Greece. Of course it's going to be biased, just like you claiming that early Greece was capitalist or anyone at all holding an opinion. My point is that you should counter it like you're trying to counter my points.

but it was definately capitalist then.

If it's a tribal society then it is not capitalist. Capitalism, according to Mariam-Webster:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism requires a state, whereas obviously under tribalism there is no state. We're talking about governments here. It also requires the bourgeoisie class. Trade is not capitalism.

my aim isnt to disprove anything. im just telling you youre not right. neither am i, neither is simon schama neither was hitler. we cannot be right in matters of opinion

I fucked your mother.

Just an opinion, you can't disprove it lolz.

i believe a tribal society can be capitalist. there is no definitive ru.e that says it cant by definition, you just have an opposing view.

I fucked your mother, you just have an opposing view. The picture I drew of myself fucking her cannot be argued because there is no definite rule that says it cannot be classified as fucking.

i believe tribes could embrace private ownership, investment. a tribe does not have to be socialist, just the majority of them today are

Wait, tribes are socialist? What?

you didnt fuck my mother because she would rather die than shag a marxist,

Lies, I am a capitalist just like those Greek city-states were.

and by what youve said i presumed you believed tribes were socialist. if not, tell me what you think they are

They are tribes and engage in tribal means of production and their accompanying class structure is tribal.

http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.n.../chapter_i.htm
http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.n...chapter_ii.htm

When did I ever insinuate that tribes are socialist? Are capitalism and socialism the only two modes of production in the history of mankind? I certainly wouldn't call a goddamn Xhosa or Pashtun tribe socialist, fuckwit.

Originally Posted by sailor jack

personally, i judge things by how socialist or how capitalist things are, because those are the two types of society i relate to through experience. it may be narrow minded and short sighted, but thats how i roll

So basically you admit that you're an idiot who probably shouldn't be discussing any field relating to... anything. It isn't narrow or short-sighted, it's just wrong and retarded.

Very well then.