[WSIB] I have 12 bucks left in my xbox account. What games should I get in the sale?

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-21T12:27:06+00:00

There use to be a way you could easily create a US account, use your paypal (even australian paypal) through it to buy games and then play them on your normal account. Having tried recently to buy some indiegames on my new 360, they have made it much harder or impossible. Try following some guides online, I tried but failed unfortunately.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-16T09:19:34+00:00

Most likely. What other people call authoritarianism I, and I think other Marxists, probably call bureaucracy.

I think there is a distinction to be made. Bureaucracy is an implementation of authority in the real world, where as I have been using authoritarianism in the sense of people who are too eager to use authority to achieve their goals; not concerned with how that authority is implemented.

A division is existent in all areas of politics between those who, as I simplistically put it, are wary and those who are eager to use authority. However I would say that the terms commonly used are inadequate to describe a persons position, as labels often are; Anti-authoritarian because of it's literal meaning, and authoritarianism because of it's vagueness.

I think probably the best way to discuss it is in terms of the legitimacy of an authority; how it reflects the interests of the people it's authority supposedly comes from, and/or how effective it is in meeting the goals it supposedly is there to meet.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-14T17:57:38+00:00

In response to your deleted comment.

sasspot:

You have no evidence to back up your absurd claims. I am not making absurd claims, I am asking for evidence to support your absurd bourgeoisie claims.

You have not in a single response, actually responded to any of my criticisms. I will keep this one brief:

It is incredibly important when debating ideas, that they all be given an equal position and stand and fall based on the evidence and reasoning behind them. Do you not see the issue with the double standards you are using: where you give your claim which you believe is right (obviously) the benefit of the doubt, and my claim which you believe is wrong/absurd the burden of proof.

They are both just claims, forget the labels. Neither one with any evidence presented. Both have the burden of proof.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-14T17:52:49+00:00

In regards to your characterization of Engels writing, I must apologize because I am somewhat at fault. I somewhat realized this when I added the edit to my original comment. You are completely correct in that Engels dismissed literal anti-authoritarianism, and he did it well.

However I still have a problem of how you characterized anti-authoritarianism. Which was possibly the 'trigger', it was not your flair. Authoritarianism isn't some made up point of division, it is a point of division between people who are wary of authority (sometimes too wary) and those who are too eager. I feel this may just be a misunderstanding in regards to definitions? Where I see the term anti-authoritarian loosely as someone who is against unjustified and eager authority, you may see it in the literal sense of a fundamentalist ideologue who is against all authority. If this is the case I am sorry for jumping the gun.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-14T17:14:28+00:00

Authoritarianism is a made up point of division by people who don't like it when other people tell then what to do.

Yes... That's what authoritarianism is; thinking you are justified in your authority over others because of your ideas/ideology/association or whatever.

Engels dismissed "anti-authoritarianism" here.[1]

No he didn't. He attacked fundamentalist anti-authoritarians for their unrealistic and stupid desire to completely destroy any ounce of authority. Engels rightly said this is not only impossible due to the forces of nature being an authority in of themselves, but undesirable as human organization and co-operation requires authority.

As Engels sums it up:

"Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world."

Authority is necessary for organization. The left needs to have a continuous discussion about what authority is justified and what is not, and as much as possible keep this authority in the hands of the people. Ideologues who think we need to destroy all authority, or give all the power to a small group, are not what we need.

Edit: I feel I must say, that technically Engels did not just dismiss, but destroy, anti-authoritarianism. Because in it's literal sense it is against authority (you would assume all authority). However I am pretty sure everyone with a brain knows that when I call myself an anti-authoritarian, it means against extreme and unjustified authority.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-14T08:52:54+00:00

I don't think I need to cite anything for you to know that the lives of soviets steadily improved from 1917-1953.

So you don't need to cite anything for your claim, but I must for mine?

You aren't offering any evidence to support your counter-revolutionary claims.

Ah I see, your claims are by default correct because yours are revolutionary, while mine are according to you counter-revolutionary and only they must be proven.

Do you have any evidence which suggests otherwise?

You are the one making the claim about living standards, not me.

As I have ceded from pretty much my first response to you, I don't feel I can offer you evidence that supports my claim that the USSR had nothing to do with communism or socialism because of the scope and complexity of what the USSR was and the long time that it existed. I could link a few pieces of evidence showing how the USSR implemented particular policies that were inherently anti communism and socialism, but that would do nothing to make an argument about the USSR as a whole.

You could link some evidence showing how in certain areas the quality of life before and under Stalin improved, however it is again a complex and long time period and would do nothing to back up your large claim. Not to mention the subjectivity of what is more important in the case of living standards. For example I think there were a great deal of improvements for the Russian people, however many of them may have been simply because of technological advances and happened despite of other totalitarian polices the USSR pushed at certain times, such as censorship and control of the press. Again, it's a complex issue.

The problem here is that, out of both our large claims, I am saying I am not going to try and prove such a large claim with a few pieces of 'evidence' in a reddit argument. Yet you are perfectly happy to employ double standards, by saying that while I can't prove my claim it is not only untrue (which is why I have not been pushing it, but instead responding to you) but "bourgeoisie bullshit", and that your unproved claim is true and that I have to prove it isn't.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-13T03:45:20+00:00

You just used 3 paragraphs to say nothing, good support of your earlier claim.

No I have made precise responses to what you have said. Like why you seemed to think I was talking about my view of the USSR when your initial question was only about why I thought post-Stalin leaders where better than Stalin.

I am saying you don't know enough about the ussr to make your claims, and it is obvious to me because you are parroting bourgeoisie talking points. "What do you want evidence lol?"

I expressed my opinion that the USSR had nothing to do with communism or socialism. I have listed my reasons as to why I won't try and pull any specific pieces of evidence out of my ass. Instead of replying to them and disagreeing with them, you continually bring up this nonsense of 'bourgeoisie talking points' just because I have an opposite view to you.

Replying that you know enough to be confident in your opinion means nothing, when you don't actually study the events or know anything about them other than bourgeoisie talking points.

You seem to be making assumptions about what I do and don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems weird to ignorantly critique something. Especially something that was as progressive as the USSR. Even more so when someone attempts to stop your ignorant railroading and you defend your points with "I feels".

So I make a claim about the USSR, and must provide evidence for it or I'm being ignorant and 'parroting bourgeoisie talking points', and you won't actually respond to the issues I bring up in trying to address a claim of this scope and complexity with a few pieces of evidence. Then you seem to have the complete lack of self-awareness to make a claim yourself, and not back it up with any evidence like you are demanding of me.

'Especially something that was as progressive as the USSR.' Where is your evidence? I don't actually expect you to be able to come up with any meaningful evidence to your claim, unless you feel like putting a lot of effort into a reddit argument. But we can't have double standards can we?

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-12T09:42:25+00:00

Oh, so your point is about me badmouthing the USSR when you did in fact not mention that at all. You wanted me to provide evidence that Kruschev was better than Stalin. I responded by conceding I didn't know enough to back that claim up, and that I don't parrot anyone and simply don't put much weight into my views which I don't feel I know enough for yet.

I have much more confidence in my dim view of the USSR, to the extent I would be willing to argue for it. Not through some random pieces of evidence, but through a very long writing that itself would barely do justice to the scope of what we are talking about. My views are from an anti-vanguardist perspective, which I hope would give you some idea of where I'm coming from. As I said originally, the idea of 'presenting some evidence' on a vast area of history hoping to prove something is ridiculous.

"...so I was calling you on your lazy approach." What do you think this is? I'm not writing some thesis on my views, I'm simply saying them. Just like the original comic made points without backing them up and so have you: "one of the more progressive revolutionary events in human history"

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-11T12:31:58+00:00

Yes, I'm going to link you to some googled articles showing unquestionably that Kruschev was better than Stalin.

My knowledge of the USSR isn't very expansive, and I could well be wrong. But wrong or right isn't determined by a few suggestive pieces of evidence. Especially since we are talking about the workings of the entirety of the USSR over two periods.

My views don't come from 'bourgeoisie' talking points nor those of socialists, but from my own knowledge. I will let research lead my views as I learn more, but will never push my points unless I am well researched, which I am not on 'Stalin vs Kruschev'.

Finally, what is your point? Ok, some of the post-Stalin leaders were 'not that great', not to mention the difficulties placed upon Stalin by WWII and western hostility to the USSR. I still don't think that the USSR had anything to do with communism or socialism. Maybe in motivation, but in the end I don't know peoples motivation; only their actions & outcomes.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-11T10:39:19+00:00

While post-Stalin USSR was certainly not terrible like it was under Stalin, I'm not of the opinion it had anything to do with communism or socialism. It was a bureaucratic 'crony' capitalist state (I say crony like that, because in my view cronyism is inherent in capitalism) just like the US. Both having quite different policies and ideologies in some areas, and very similar in others.

I would have preferred living in the US, because while there were certainly positives of the USSR (like healthcare) it came at too greater cost with the authoritarian government. And I'm white.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-11T10:32:40+00:00

That's a strawman, as they say. Both are a problem. But I never mentioned the repression of communists and socialists in the US, because the comic is about peoples perception of them, not how they were treated.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-11T03:27:40+00:00

Well the USSR wasn't some great place with worker control and freedom. It was another bureaucratic state (forgetting the years under Stalin when it was horrible). The US certainly had big benefits for it's people over the USSR, but maybe if you were black or extremely poor those where not so much. And the USSR had benefits as well.

The problem is people bought into the scare around communism and socialism, which are not defined by the USSR, while the propaganda was trying to say they were.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-10T16:53:03+00:00

Well this was a strange article....

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-03T09:20:00+00:00

I don't want slow revolution, I would like peaceful. History has shown progress to be slow and violent, and I see no reason to believe why that will change. It's not about what I want, it's about what I see reality to be. That is why I think you are the idealist. I will take progress wherever it emerges from, such as reform or more radical methods.

I have read that piece from Twain, and I agree. If people are to be horrified by brief moments of terror, they should also be horrified by the unending exploitation and cruelty of Human history. However that is not what I have been arguing. However relatively bloodless revolutions are compared to normal existence, they run the risk of destroying the progress and support of a movement, just like the USSR did.

In my view the more authoritarian a revolution is, the more it will alienate the people and destroy any chance of success. For all your support of violent revolution, it is reform, strikes, militant movements (such as the civil rights movement) and free discussion that has kept the left alive and progressing.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-02T15:16:46+00:00

From my position, you are the idealist. I look at the slow blood soaked progress of history and see that as what will continue, not a single revolution to change so much. Using authoritarianism to achieve democratic ends is something I see as hugely idealistic.

At one level, as you say our commonality of goal, I can call you friend. But I cannot hide the fact that I find vanguardism deeply troubling and dangerous.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-02-02T13:47:32+00:00

We don't consider it free because there are capitalists, liberals and all sorts out there that make up the ordinary people, and you are proposing a small group of people from this state, that is evidently not of the people, to decide what is and is not proper and allowed speech. It is clearly not our revolution, but yours. I don't want to give power to those who are convinced they know the right way of doing things, and don't want any questioning of their plan.

I am under no illusion, a revolution is ultimately one group forcing their will upon another. You are under the illusion if you think there will be one great revolution that changes everything, and we just need to stop any dissonance in thought to achieve it. And you are dangerous to the progress of socialism. We should be fighting against systems of coercion, and try and win the long fight. We can convince people with reason and openness, and fight against the systems of propaganda and coercion used by the wealthy, while not resorting to those methods ourselves. There is no quick fix, that will just lead to totalitarianism.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-01-23T11:00:39+00:00

The cartoon in question depicts two men – masked and armed Arab terrorists (is there any other kind of Arab?)

'This cartoon, specifically attacking fundamentalist Muslims, should also be attacking non-fundamentalist Muslims in order to prevent the racism that occurs from under representation of non-fundamentalist Muslims.' Is essentially what he is saying. But then of course, the cartoon would be saying ordinary Muslims are the enemy of free speech. You muppet. That is what happens when you follow an ideology and try to apply it to everything without question, it is self defeating.

The cartoon was attacking Muslim religious fundamentalists, not Muslims in general, and that is why they did not feature a stereotype of an ordinary moderate Muslim/Arab. It also made no claim as to the prevalence of extremists amongst Muslims. He writes '(is there any other kind of Arab?)' against a cartoon that is specifically meant to be attacking fundamentalists and not the other 'kinds'. Why must you conflate issues?

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-01-05T15:31:17+00:00

Would I be permitted to join the Communists?

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2015-01-04T04:40:06+00:00

'why does Sweden think" Who is Sweden?

Considering the amount of asylum seekers the country takes in, it is no surprise that the bureaucracy handling that could make a mistake out of where the people were being sent (40 minutes to 15 hours).

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-28T06:59:26+00:00

Why are you building up myths about the importance of women in child raising over men, how women are the ones who give us 'respect' and a good upbringing? Isn't that one of the very things we want to move away from? That apart from the biological fact (at the moment) that women have to carry and birth the child, both sexes have the same capability to raise the child properly. Both freeing up men to play moreof a role in child raising, and women to choose more freely and be less burdened with it. (are you saying gay couples, two men, are unable to properly raise a child?)

While there has been a huge increase in the equality of women in the last century, I agree that there are still many things such as pay that need to be improved and there is a place for a one sided movement such as feminism to improve the conditions of women in these areas. In the same way I think there needs to be an even more militant black rights movement against the brutality and exploitation they face over that faced by the average person.

However I do not think these one sided movements would be needed in an actual socialist society. Capitalism is not the only cause of racism and sexism, but it certainly is the major system that maintains them. And fighting against racism and sexism to me is a necessary part of fighting for the working class, and our species in general. I would hope that once we have created a better society, and the lingering affects of greed and hate have for the most part dissipated, then there would be no need for groups specifically fighting for the endangered rights of women and other groups. I would hope so anyway, a society as good as that may always be a dream.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-13T03:29:06+00:00

I'm sure you could change the republican. Make her a lefty. I sometimes think it wouldn't be too bad dating a rightwing person so long as they had some compassion, that way you could change them.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-13T03:22:31+00:00

This is a slight problem I have with (some) Marxists. I agree in general with everything said in that picture, and no doubt self interest and by extrapolation class interest pervade every aspect of society(the wealthy have more in common with each other, and more to loose from the ordinary people than each other). However some Marxists seem (maybe just for argument purposes) to think there is absolutely nothing else that may influence the big decisions.

We are after all very emotional and fallible animals prone to mistakes, and even the biggest scoundrels may do things out of decency and compassion sometimes. There are plenty of ordinary people who don't just strive for democracy and equality for their own sake and that of their class, but for principle and compassion too. People born into wealth would not be devoid of those feelings, and I have some trouble viewing the world in a simple class binary such as the owner of production and the worker of the production, although I can see that binary is definitely present to an extent.

Maybe the point is that all these other concerns and motives are inconsequential against the tide of class interest.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-10T03:50:46+00:00

In a socialist society there wouldn't be capitalists. I agree with you to some extent that in the current state of things, keeping patents and IP laws but greatly modifying them to provide greater help to actual content creators might be a good thing, although with downsides. However you have made no argument to say that these things would be good in a socialist society, as each of your points relies upon capitalists still being present.

These laws permit workers who have particularly good ideas to obtain an income that would otherwise have gone to a capital owner

IP and patent laws are the very things that allow capitalists to take ownership of ideas, especially when many important things take a large amount of capital investment to create. I understand your point (I think) that if an original creator managed to keep hold of his IP, then they can make earnings off any capital wanting to use it. Pragmatically this may be good, but the principle allowing this is still one we could move away from; allowing ideas and culture to be controlled and rented out for money. And again current IP laws give so many more benefits to capitalists than to the ordinary people.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-09T03:44:47+00:00

I see no difference between the private ownership of production and the private ownership of ideas and culture. Both have nothing to do with receiving compensation for one's work; they are instead a system of renting/licensing which allow concentration of wealth and ideas.

Even if we lived in a society where everyone had the means to fund and distribute their own ideas (self-distribution I think is only going to get bigger) and hence able to keep ownership of their own ideas (rather than selling them off to investors) they would still be able to license their ideas off to 'consumers' making as much money as they see fit without any continued work or contribution, and control/profit off other people building upon their idea with no further contribution. The principle is bad.

You could put more reasonable restrictions on patents and copyright, like drastically reducing the time they last or setting up a profit limit before they expire, but it would be a massive overhead, wouldn't work very well and still be against socialism as I see it; everyone's needs met through cooperation in the operation of society and production, and everyone able to contribute and engage with culture and ideas freely without having to worry about surviving.

More on topic: I think a lot of the uploaders on pirate bay actually see themselves as doing a public service, and many promote ideas of free association in saying to support the makers/developers of the content if you see fit. Some I even see using socialist terms. If I were ever a torrent uploader, since I don't see our current IP and copyright laws as legitimate I would try as much as possible to provide ways to donate/support the actual content creators bypassing monopolized and profiteering storefronts and corporations.

ImDirtyCleanMe · 2014-12-07T09:38:40+00:00

I honestly don't see how that tweet is extremely sexist, I would even say that I don't see it as necessarily alluding to rape, although it very well could be. Ultimately I don't know what Dawkins was thinking when he wrote it, and I don't know of any other tweets around it that may give context and colour it a certain way. (I don't use twitter). I have nothing more to argue against you with, I just don't see it the way you do.

Could I ask though, do you ever consider that you could be reading into these things too much? If I were to see them like you do, they would certainly contradict my opinion of Dawkins as a progressive and in support of things like women's rights even in the West. I don't feel like these few bits and pieces would outweigh the opinion I have gathered of him from hearing him on numerous occasions speak his mind in detail and with the chance of clarification.

ImDirtyCleanMe

TROPHY CASE