|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:24 pm
Quote: We shouln't have a monolithic outward policy and debate withen. We'd seem cold and xenophibic and internally weak. We should stay were we are, a collective of individuals all focused on the same goal of a classless utopia. well, i see you would think of such a group as cold and weak and 'xeneophobic'? how does that one work? we are internationalists, so how can we be xenophobic? ok. weak? howso? cold? how? when we have a vibrant amount of discusion going on inside? we would show a united face to all our opponents, not a scattered bunch of leftists. and there is the upside of the debate itself. people learn more when they see every debate as changing the course of the party, so, even when they don't agree with the final line agreed by the party, they will at least learn about their own way of thinking, or come over to another, or is this what you are afraid of? do you like the discussion circle nature of the guild? the fact that almost all threads turn out to be two people slugging it out?(usually me and someone else...)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:54 am
Gracchvs Quote: We shouln't have a monolithic outward policy and debate withen. We'd seem cold and xenophibic and internally weak. We should stay were we are, a collective of individuals all focused on the same goal of a classless utopia. well, i see you would think of such a group as cold and weak and 'xeneophobic'? how does that one work? we are internationalists, so how can we be xenophobic? ok. weak? howso? cold? how? when we have a vibrant amount of discusion going on inside? we would show a united face to all our opponents, not a scattered bunch of leftists. and there is the upside of the debate itself. people learn more when they see every debate as changing the course of the party, so, even when they don't agree with the final line agreed by the party, they will at least learn about their own way of thinking, or come over to another, or is this what you are afraid of? do you like the discussion circle nature of the guild? the fact that almost all threads turn out to be two people slugging it out?(usually me and someone else...) Hah. And the other person has a general tendency to be myself. But its good. It helps us all to develop our beliefs and to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:29 am
Well Graccvhs, I do enjoy your idea of discussion, but I think it's unnecessary, even a waste of time, to try and have the NCS draw up its own program or strict policy on popular issues, as this would bombard new members with information, or even draw them into just repeating whatever was already decided by general consensus of the guild, that being said:
I do think your idea for an all round political discussion of regular and proletarian issues wouldn't be a bad thing at all, though we'd want to do it in an orderly way.
Mainly; should we create a subforum stictly for discussion of these political issues (so as not to drown out the chatter here) or the "community" style stuff in the community forum. Then to discuss all issues accordingly on a full member basis. If anything it'll add to the membership participation within the NCS!
I have the money to donate so that the funds are simply replaced (so we can dance around a vote) if we do want to make a subforum for it. I do like the idea of that. But I'm obviously a subforum fiend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:42 am
Since I love them sooooo much, I'm going to use a metaphor.
Gracchvs, your idea is one giant crossbow bolt, while what I'm say is hundred small arrows.
We would cover much more political ground and and "hit" a more diverse group of people with the "many arrows" method.
While in yours, we'd go "deeper" into a specific idea and hit a few highly devoted people.
Just depends on what you want and you are wrong (I've allways wanted say that to Gracchvs 4laugh )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:15 am
Quote: But its good. It helps us all to develop our beliefs and to learn. unfortuantely, this only happens to be a few people. myself, gallenger, you, red(um, all of them...) what is needed is a kind of mandatory discussion. Quote: as this would bombard new members with information, this is bad how? Quote: or even draw them into just repeating whatever was already decided by general consensus of the guild and until a new line is chosen for that particular topic, the whole guild will do it, with differences of expression due to particular taste in words and/or the touchy nature of a particular discussion. but yes, it could turn out like stalin's lenin levy... so, if such a democratic centralism were to be applied, it would be nessessary to use the NCS community, if it still exists(i was banned while gone... not that i went there much...) to give people a communist education before they would be recruited into this guild, which would mean that you gallenger would have to stop recruiting so many people. Quote: Mainly; should we create a subforum stictly for discussion of these political issues wha? this is political guild... why relegate the real purpose to subs? Quote: We would cover much more political ground and and "hit" a more diverse group of people with the "many arrows" method. yeah, i know, you would fit in nicely with the mensheviks. Quote: While in yours, we'd go "deeper" into a specific idea and hit a few highly devoted people. and i would fit in nicely with the bolsheviks. Quote: Just depends on what you want and you are wrong (I've allways wanted say that to Gracchvs ) say it all you want, but it was the disciplined cadre of the proffessional revolutionaries in the bolsheviks that led the october revolution, abd it was the voluntarist loosely based membership that defended the february revolution... so yeah, you can say that im wrong all you like, but it was a party of the sort that i advocate, nay, the very expressions i am using, ie: democratic-centralism were invented by that party which led the only workers revolution that succeeded in maintaining itself after the civil war, thye party that corresponds to what you say, actually argued against the revolution anf fought against it when it was made reality. so yes, i am oh so very wrong arent i...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:11 am
Gracchvs Quote: But its good. It helps us all to develop our beliefs and to learn. unfortuantely, this only happens to be a few people. myself, gallenger, you, red(um, all of them...) what is needed is a kind of mandatory discussion. Quote: as this would bombard new members with information, this is bad how? Quote: or even draw them into just repeating whatever was already decided by general consensus of the guild and until a new line is chosen for that particular topic, the whole guild will do it, with differences of expression due to particular taste in words and/or the touchy nature of a particular discussion. but yes, it could turn out like stalin's lenin levy... so, if such a democratic centralism were to be applied, it would be nessessary to use the NCS community, if it still exists(i was banned while gone... not that i went there much...) to give people a communist education before they would be recruited into this guild, which would mean that you gallenger would have to stop recruiting so many people. Quote: Mainly; should we create a subforum stictly for discussion of these political issues wha? this is political guild... why relegate the real purpose to subs? Quote: We would cover much more political ground and and "hit" a more diverse group of people with the "many arrows" method. yeah, i know, you would fit in nicely with the mensheviks. Quote: While in yours, we'd go "deeper" into a specific idea and hit a few highly devoted people. and i would fit in nicely with the bolsheviks. Quote: Just depends on what you want and you are wrong (I've allways wanted say that to Gracchvs ) say it all you want, but it was the disciplined cadre of the proffessional revolutionaries in the bolsheviks that led the october revolution, abd it was the voluntarist loosely based membership that defended the february revolution... so yeah, you can say that im wrong all you like, but it was a party of the sort that i advocate, nay, the very expressions i am using, ie: democratic-centralism were invented by that party which led the only workers revolution that succeeded in maintaining itself after the civil war, thye party that corresponds to what you say, actually argued against the revolution anf fought against it when it was made reality. so yes, i am oh so very wrong arent i... However, if the coalition formed after the February Revolution had achieved its goals and stayed true to its original purpose, there would have been no need for October. Problem is, you can't just stop with a revolution, you have to take the same goals into the political arena, and you have to work after the revolution to promote the society toward which we work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:45 am
If after the February Revolution, Russia had jumped out of the war like Lenin did, there would have been no October revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:26 pm
Dark_Lord_Takai If after the February Revolution, Russia had jumped out of the war like Lenin did, there would have been no October revolution. It wasn't just the war though, but a culmination of other issues. February was organized and executed by the workers and peasants, but the coalition was the same old thing. It didn't stand up to February's ideals, and it didn't support those who did the dirty work in the February Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:57 pm
Lady Merewyn Dark_Lord_Takai If after the February Revolution, Russia had jumped out of the war like Lenin did, there would have been no October revolution. It wasn't just the war though, but a culmination of other issues. February was organized and executed by the workers and peasants, but the coalition was the same old thing. It didn't stand up to February's ideals, and it didn't support those who did the dirty work in the February Revolution. Okay.. things would have been EASIER if they had droped out of the war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:23 pm
try and squirm your way out of it all you like, the fact is, that the bolsheviks were the only proletarian paarty whych has successfully maintained poower through the civil war and imperialist intervention.
and my conception of the party comes from the bolsheviks, takai's comes from the mensheviks, that is, proletarian reformists!
but see, all it has come down to is pedantic arguing over history, not actually polemicizing with my previous post, that is, the practical part of it, the part which points toward how the guild should be organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:23 pm
If you also desire Graccvhs perhaps you would like to list out the issues we would be discussing. I think perhaps what we could do is list the links in the "announcement" thread, just incase people want to look it up again and it's sunk to the bottom or page 2/3, so don't be affraid to think of too many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:27 pm
i would gladly do such, if i thought that there would be any genuine and meaningful discussion, but at the moment, i see the nature of this guild to be a more pressing issue, the fact is, that there is a need for formalising this guilds views, as you yourself put forward in the first post here, it is only a matter of what views they be, how to formulate them, and how the individual members of the guild should react to such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:41 pm
Gracchvs try and squirm your way out of it all you like, the fact is, that the bolsheviks were the only proletarian paarty whych has successfully maintained poower through the civil war and imperialist intervention. and my conception of the party comes from the bolsheviks, takai's comes from the mensheviks, that is, proletarian reformists! but see, all it has come down to is pedantic arguing over history, not actually polemicizing with my previous post, that is, the practical part of it, the part which points toward how the guild should be organised. The history is important as well, because we must learn from the mistakes of the past in order to truly accomplish our goals. And this is part of the reason why we are here to begin with. It isn't meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:56 pm
as i said, pedantism, you defend your right, just because you have it, or hear, you defend talking about history because it helps.
sure, but in the context, it is only a method of squirming out of what is important right now in this thread, and which is in fact the purpose for theis thread, namely a dialogue to discuss "what should the NCS be put to use for", asd this question is inexrticably linked with how one should organise and run this guild.
you keep squirming out of it, either out of political cowardice: you cannot defend your ideas, or because you dont have any, and as such, post only regarding the side comments, that is, you question the proof, not that actual formulation, in politics, one has to do both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:06 pm
Yet one must build the foundation before one builds the house, or the house will fall. We must establish the philosophy and the background before we can put forth the walls.
I do like Gallenger's idea of a subforum to discuss current issues and events, because as a political group we cannot take solely a philosophical stance but a practical one as well.
I believe that I already defended using the NCS for discussion, and many others have brought up points similar to my own opinions. No use in being completely redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
