Who’s wrong?

The mix is shit, Noel's vocals aren't great, it rips off Ricky Martin and that French song they play in all the Americans-travel-to-Europe comedies etc etc 

Hope this helps

I can't speak for anyone else, but just because I hold a politically incorrect viewpoint doesn't make me wrong or a Trump supporter. Don't lump me in with that asshole and his fanbase because we disagree.

It's a nice thought that all words being equal would somehow get rid of racism/homophobia/etc, but I don't see it happening, for a number of reasons. The main one is that for such a thing to work, black people (for example) would all have to decide that being called "nigger" would no longer be offensive. They would have to ignore the centuries of slavery, ignore the thought of their ancestors being called it repeatedly while being whipped by their owner, ignore the feelings of sadness or anger that it would bring them. It's easy to say that "hey, a word shouldn't have to bring you down, after all it's ONLY a word", but it's simply not that easy.

I haven't thought this through completely, but this mindset somehow reminds me of the debate over in the US about confederate statues. As if removing them would somehow lead to history being forgotten, lessons from the past suddenly unlearned. But of course it would never be forgotten, because we still have history books and museums. It's just a case of not glorifying bad people, and I wouldn't say that is counterproductive in any way, in terms of progress.

And for the Trump theory to be true, it would mean that he would also have beaten Bernie Sanders, had he instead won the Democratic primary. It's all hypothetical of course, but almost EVERY single poll has indicated that he would have lost that race, against the most liberal senator in America. Maybe he won some votes simply because he was politically incorrect at all times, but that's not what made him win the election. Hillary Clinton did. Donald Trump didn't win because people liked him (in the general election), he won because because people hated the other candidate even more. It was a unique case, with a unique outcome.

With that said, I still have hope for Noel's new album.

I'm talking about natural progress, if we say, from tomorrow, let's all use that word or from tomorrow, let's ban that word, both ways are equally wrong. In a perfect world, there will be no racism but also there will be no people who are reacting like this when they hear word nigger or any other word.




I have no problem to say that I've learned my lesson, I think that only time when I called someone ''my nigga'' was on this forum and I meant that as ''my friend'' and I called white basketball player with that name. Monkey see, monkey do. I saw others using that and then I did that also.





And it's ok, I understand, I won't use it anymore in this context. But if black man says to me, yo my nigga I will answer with yo my nigga.


I'm fighting for world where we will all be like Turk and J.D.




Not for world where certain people will be above and tell how to talk and what to do, world of censorship and taboos.

I agree with everything you said. The only point I would make is that I can’t see a functioning society work without capitalism. Every other type of society, the likes of communism and the rest, have all failed miserably time and time again throughout history.

This is just not true. In fact, communism and anarchism have been usually internally successful in practice. Look at revolutionary Catalonia, Makhnovia, the Paris Commune, etc...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

The trend you'll notice is that they work internally before being crushed by the states around them. In Mahknov's revolution, illiteracy among peasants plummeted and attendence at communal organisations was almost universal. Catalonia established true equality, built and maintained six new hospitals, and even managed to defend themselves on multiple fronts for three years. In both cases, the USSR went in and destroyed the worker controlled collectives and mass-murdered the revolutionaries. If you've not read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, I recommend it - here is what he says: 

"It was the first time I had ever been in a place where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists;  every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and painted their boxes red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal.

Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.

Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Modern scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. There was enough to feed the collectivists and the militias in their areas. Often there was enough for exchange with other collectives in the cities for machinery. In addition food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas."

...Did you just call North Korea communist? 

*sigh* Ok, here we go again...

The USSR, Mao's China, North Korea, were NOT communist. Repeat, NOT communist. Repeat, NOT COMMUNIST. 

Here's how it went down: Karl Marx writes the communist manifesto with Engels in which he says that in order to remove the exploitative dialectics of capitalism, private property must be abolished. Note that property is not the same thing as possessions - you can have your own toothbrush, you just can't privately own production. He says that a society without the state must be created wherein production is controlled COMMUNALLY (fun fact: that's why it's called communism, not dictator-state-ism) by the workers and based around the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

But how to achieve this society? Well, this is where anarchists and Marxists disagree. Marx says that THE WORKING CLASS should take over the state apparatus. Now, this does not mean state ownership like you see in the USSR, it means councils of working-class people would get together and democratically organise production by using the state apparatus. For an example of this, see the Paris Commune in which bakers, builders, etc communally took over state apparatus and controlled production. They were still just builders and stuff, they had no privilege in society, they just communally used state apparatus to achieve communism. As an anarchist, I disagree with this idea and think that the state should be abolished along with private property, but c'est la vie. 

So let's go forward a bit. Russia is being completely ravaged by poverty and inequality. This fellow Lenin with a rag-tag band of nutters is making speeches about an authoritarian vanguard taking over society, and all the Marxists, communists, and anarchists there think he is fucking mental. However, in about 1916, when Lenin takes a tour of Russia, he sees how popular communist ideas are, and starts to change his rhetoric. He begins to hide his fascist ideology behind Marxist jargon - for instance, remember the "from each according to ability, to each according to need" thing? Well, Lenin starts preaching "from each according to his ability, to each according to his WORK". This change means that his vanguard would control how much everyone ate, and the state HE controlled would have complete power. Not very Marxist, eh? 

Anyway, in the midst of the chaos following the tsar's death, he somehow manages to take power. This was not a revolution, it was a coup. And what does he do? Establish a state-less, communally owned, socialist society? No, he shuts down any working class control and mass-murders anyone who doesn't obey, including the anarchists. He establishes complete state power, and even goes into Ukraine to mass-murder the revolutionaries there. I think it's pretty clear at this point that a free, socialist society was not high on his "to-achieve" list. 

BUT he keeps calling him and his regime communist, in the way Hitler called himself a socialist. It curried favour among the working class and made him look like a bold revolutionary rather than a fascist bastard, which is what he was. So now you've got a whole new flavour of fascism - simply paint your flag red and talk about capitalism a bit, and now you're a communist! You don't have to actually BE a communist or anything, it's gonna be fascism of course, but it'll look better. Hence Mao's China and the horrific North Korea. 

Here's the thing, though: the two biggest propaganda systems in the world (the capitalist west and the fascist east) now have a shared definition of communism. The fascists in Russia go "We are communist state politicians - for the working class!" while killing everyone, and the capitalists in America go "Look how terrible communism is, they kill everyone and brainwash them!", while exploiting everyone. 

So now every education and media system in the world is completely free to lie about what communism is. The idea of North Korea being in any way communist would be laughably stupid if the tragic truth wasn't that so many people (who've clearly read nothing of communism) think it is. 

REPEAT, NOT COMMUNIST.

Here's Chomsky talking about the Russian "socialism"

Ok, let's deconstruct this nonsense real quick.

1) North Korea has about as much to do with communism as Liam Gallagher does with String Theory. Communism is a stateless, classless way of organising society in which production is owned and controlled communally by the working-class. North Korea is a society completely governed by the state in which the workers have no say whatsoever - there's a word for this, fascism. If you can give me one way in which the ideology of North Korea ties in with communism, I'd be amazed. They are totally, totally non-related.

2) Anarchism is not a "way to live". It's a method of analysing society in which you question all hierarchy and organise against those which cannot be justified. It stands for a truly free and democratic society based on strong and equal organisation. I'd be interested to see why you think this is dangerous. 

3) Anarchism has been a strong internal success whenever put into practice. Did you read the post I wrote to you earlier in this thread?

That's a bit like saying the Nazi's were connected to socialism because they were called the National Socialists isn't it?

No modern state has ever had success through anarchism. And I think defending communism is almost immoral due to the individual freedoms it strips from everyone it encounters. There’s a reason the most forward thinking, progressive societies are democracies.