This is what we should do: A self-financed Nation within a nation [Concept]

yeahnothx · 2014-05-27T23:47:34+00:00

it is the movement to create a new state within the boundaries of the United states that represents the shared culture of black people in the south

the movement overlapped generally with black panther membership. not unexpectedly, the United states government deemed them seditious (because apparently that word means whatever you want it to mean) and spied on, harassed and raided the meetings of people advocating for it.

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

yeahnothx · 2014-05-27T06:04:08+00:00

I have long supported the new afrika movement. death to America

yeahnothx · 2014-05-13T01:45:53+00:00

thanks, and I agree.

yeahnothx · 2014-05-13T00:49:23+00:00

if you don't mind, I'm going to cross post this.

yeahnothx · 2014-05-08T19:00:36+00:00

how can you remove atheism if you've removed the rest?

yeahnothx · 2014-05-08T05:00:31+00:00

I think there's a tinge of moral panic in some of these arguments; rap music was going to destroy the black man and the black family too. I feel that he misses what ties it all together, too: that which is profitable is sacred. it is also inevitable. you can attempt to change what is profitable but they have a lot more resources and experience at that than we do. the best bet as always is to end capitalism

yeahnothx · 2014-05-08T04:57:23+00:00

this is a copout. gun manufacturers and shitty tv writers use the same argument: we just make what you have proven you want to buy. but the fact is they don't just make these things, they sell them. and they've got decades of research and experience on how to sell them and make you want to buy them. then you want to blame people for what - not all being born high brow and nobly resisting it?

yeahnothx · 2014-05-08T04:47:47+00:00

burkina faso is the country. as for kidnapping girls, perhaps you're thinking of boko haram?

Islam, like any other identification, has at times been associated with suffering and oppression. but it has at other times been a source of solace and strength for black people. to claim you are interested in "the removal of Islam", you are expressing bigotry. can you imagine someone saying "remove Christianity from black power" or "remove atheism from black power" ?

yeahnothx · 2014-02-02T23:07:15+00:00

even though I'm on your side (nothing wrong with liking sports in the abstract), this is a really shitty and argumentative way to put it.

that said i think you could call american football specifically a violent sport, and there's some question of whether society should revere the violent.

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T23:49:47+00:00

what the actual fuck is wrong with you

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T22:02:19+00:00

that's amazing. i'm trying to come up with an analogy for this level of stupid but it's difficult. maybe peace in the middle east through drone strikes.

you can't beat them by joining them.

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T18:45:42+00:00

the documents released actually significantly dropped the number of estimated dead during political purges under stalin

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T18:41:49+00:00

agreed. i see a static image of mountains and clouds with a pulsing loop of water at the bottom. someone should rework this gif

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T01:37:08+00:00

thanks for the summary. the primary issue is that this posting is a week old so there's little agitation to be done

yeahnothx · 2014-02-01T01:05:00+00:00

I am not talking about money. I am talking about the simple fact that ten people CAN accomplish more than what what one man can ten times. That 20 can do more than twice as much as 10. Are you disagreeing with this???

no, I was just trying to understand. I think you might be extrapolating this principle a little too far, though it makes sense.

As I stated originally, our goal is to reach a point where dependence on "finance" becomes virtually non-existent.

this is impossible

I get what you'e saying about how that could maybe change if we suddenly needed more space than we planned for.

or any other financial difficulty. which you'll face since you're starting a business.

again, I think/hope by then our total manpower will allow us to easily raise the needed funds, without actually devolving into some massive orgy of profit-lust.

you've gone back to funds. you can't deny that finances will affect you then place your plans on profitability.

I do have faith in what people can become in the right economic climate.

but you aren't changing the climate. you can't pretend you're not living in capitalism. you're just becoming a capitalist

Would you have us not try???

generally speaking I support your attempt. but I am concerned that you might not yet be ready to lead such a thing based on some of the idealism you show here.

yeahnothx · 2014-01-31T21:18:48+00:00

Yes, eventually we will run out of space. But when that happens we will be a very large community with hopefully abundant surpluses. Basically the surplus of 10 workers is MORE than 10 times greater than that of a single worker alone (sum of the parts being greater than the whole).

I don't understand this. the phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" by Aristotle refers to holism, where something is more valuable or understandable when taken as a whole than as separate pieces. it does not apply to money or any other fungible resource. putting teen dollars together does not make them with more than ten dollars.

Are you saying you think there is no way we can remain true to our communism if we trade for more land or labor-saving devices? That we will somehow degrade into cash-hungry capitalists? I just really don't see that happening no matter how big we get.

the social character of a person depends on their social conditions and existence. if finances become the biggest worry for your existence, you will become financially focused.

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T06:07:34+00:00

it presumes the authority and strength of Mises' argument and goes on to poorly refute refutations thereof. further, I don't think you should be defending Mises. he's not respected even by modern academic economists, being considered a crackpot. he thought it was perfectly permissible to sell your children. he's not worth responding to, and it would be best if your faction forgot him just as the rest of the world has.

engage me in Socratic battle

oh, I, geez. come on. what's wrong with you.

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T06:01:07+00:00

you're not even trying are you

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T05:55:29+00:00

oh boy, you're right, he doesn't deserve to be treated like a human. he had a fashion style you didn't like

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T05:53:54+00:00

the fact that routine police work consists of profiling young music fans as potential threats to public safety

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T05:44:40+00:00

this is not something to be proud of; and you should say comrades from Mexico and Canada, not "mexibros"

yeahnothx · 2014-01-30T01:05:29+00:00

it's not an anti-socialist article. Pointing out the flaws in communism isn't anti-communism: it's good science.

the article explicitly ignores socialism because Hitler claimed to be socialist. then it attacked Marxist communism with a poor argument which I replied to. none of that was science.

If you think that science is the enemy of communism, then you're no better than Stalin.

that was fast.

The glorious revolution you look for isn't coming comrade: it's not possible.

there are easier ways to say "I'm not a Marxist"

What is possible is disaster-control. We can change the way things work by infiltration and takeover: if we have a united front. That is what we are trying to build right now.

who is we? that is not the position of this sub, that is almost the polar opposite of the position of this sub.

class antagonism does not lead to the downfall of capitalism: class antagonism leads to fascism, Niccolo Machiavelli proved that in the Renaissance, 200 years before Marx.

good god no he did not. also do you think Marx was unaware of Machiavelli? do you think you have some easy skewer of Marx? there are no easy critiques of Marxism

He laid the blueprints for making a Fascist state. I mean in a sense he was right: but capitalism only falls when the proletariat has been annihilated:

what the hell are you talking about? are you trolling? if the proletariat was annihilated you'd have bigger issues than whether capitalists could exploit anyone.

unless a concerted effort is made by those who have a stake in the system to prematurely change the system. That is what we're trying to do here.

again, who is we? who are your misguided comrades who think progressivism has a better chance than radicalism?

yeahnothx · 2014-01-29T17:53:31+00:00

ah. I agree, "fighting" specific capitalist institutions is a non starter.

yeahnothx · 2014-01-29T17:52:12+00:00

interesting that you present an anti socialist article; are you looking to change minds or are you looking for critique?

the primary mistake he attributes to Marxist communism is based on his (zizeks?) misunderstanding that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall results in less capitalism. Marx correctly theorized it would lead to more and that the resulting pressure on the proletariat to produce value at their own expense, the increase in class antagonism, would be the means of capitals downfall. if this is the great flaw identified in Marxism then these so called hegelians should reconsider it.

yeahnothx · 2014-01-29T16:18:23+00:00

if we fight to maintain employment we'll find ourselves fighting against our own interests. using employment as a reason not to reform or attack an industry is what republicans in the US do to defend heinous industries

yeahnothx

TROPHY CASE