dont start threads calling them c**ts then!!Dave The Man wrote:Putting up with the Idiots on the Melbourne Victory Forum
there are a few undesireables on there though.
What pisses you off?
Moderator: bbmods
-
punkologist
- Posts: 3379
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: Level 2 Ponsford Stand
-
punkologist
- Posts: 3379
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: Level 2 Ponsford Stand
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45001
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact:
Well I was Banned and I hate to Say I am Glad because I don't have to Put up with Them.punkologist wrote:dont start threads calling them c**ts then!!Dave The Man wrote:Putting up with the Idiots on the Melbourne Victory Forum
there are a few undesireables on there though.
Well the guy I posted about is a You Know What
I am Da Man
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45001
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact:
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
sherrife
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:20 pm
- Contact:
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
sherrife
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:20 pm
- Contact:
Because it matters on how you decide to go forward...
Anarchists mostly prefer small organisations, they place means on the same ethical level as ends, and they demand the abolition of all leadership. All great things in theory... But hard to accomplish in reality, or at least, hard to uphold whilst consciously creating a larger movement. They often believe that only actions that are directly revolutionary should be supported, which means that workers' strikes for better conditions don't make the grade... a bit sh!t IMO.
Socialists on the other hand are much more pragmatic, to a fault. They believe that a group has to become large enough to influence large numbers of people, so recruitment is a #1 priority. They also believe that plurality should be sacrificed for clarity, which manifests itself i something called democratic centralism - which means that when the party comes to an agreement via a vote, everyone HAS to toe the line... I find that pretty authoritarian, but at the same time, logical (:S). They are also much more rooted in reality, and are involved in struggles in all sorts of workplaces from week to week.
It's tough because it is impossible to do anything without joining a group, let alone build one's own ideas, but joining a group means a reasonable level of agreement with everyone else.
Anarchists have great ideals, but in practice it is very difficult to do things that are 'directly revolutionary', and very sectarian to ignore all the other struggles that are happening daily. Also, i disagree with their small organisations policy, I think people power has to be exercised in huge numbers, and some sort of coherent message is important.
Socialists have a slight tendency towards centralist leadership, but I must be clear, they are VERY critical of Stalinist totalitarian states such as China and even Venezuela. It's not a case of 'we'll lead everyone for their own good' but more like, 'not everyone is going to be a socialist, but the more of us (and the more clear we are) the more we can influence others'. I find even that problematic, but on the other hand, a group of 15 people acting alone out of dandenong isn't going to change the world is it?
It basically comes down to do you include everyone and have really broad (and in the long-term, ineffectual) coalitions of people who agree that capitalism sucks, or do you have a really tight knit group that has a clear (and democratically decided) policy on everything, and then explains that to others as a united front.
I'm somewhere in between.
Anarchists mostly prefer small organisations, they place means on the same ethical level as ends, and they demand the abolition of all leadership. All great things in theory... But hard to accomplish in reality, or at least, hard to uphold whilst consciously creating a larger movement. They often believe that only actions that are directly revolutionary should be supported, which means that workers' strikes for better conditions don't make the grade... a bit sh!t IMO.
Socialists on the other hand are much more pragmatic, to a fault. They believe that a group has to become large enough to influence large numbers of people, so recruitment is a #1 priority. They also believe that plurality should be sacrificed for clarity, which manifests itself i something called democratic centralism - which means that when the party comes to an agreement via a vote, everyone HAS to toe the line... I find that pretty authoritarian, but at the same time, logical (:S). They are also much more rooted in reality, and are involved in struggles in all sorts of workplaces from week to week.
It's tough because it is impossible to do anything without joining a group, let alone build one's own ideas, but joining a group means a reasonable level of agreement with everyone else.
Anarchists have great ideals, but in practice it is very difficult to do things that are 'directly revolutionary', and very sectarian to ignore all the other struggles that are happening daily. Also, i disagree with their small organisations policy, I think people power has to be exercised in huge numbers, and some sort of coherent message is important.
Socialists have a slight tendency towards centralist leadership, but I must be clear, they are VERY critical of Stalinist totalitarian states such as China and even Venezuela. It's not a case of 'we'll lead everyone for their own good' but more like, 'not everyone is going to be a socialist, but the more of us (and the more clear we are) the more we can influence others'. I find even that problematic, but on the other hand, a group of 15 people acting alone out of dandenong isn't going to change the world is it?
It basically comes down to do you include everyone and have really broad (and in the long-term, ineffectual) coalitions of people who agree that capitalism sucks, or do you have a really tight knit group that has a clear (and democratically decided) policy on everything, and then explains that to others as a united front.
I'm somewhere in between.
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
LOL Madness.
So, Omar, basically which ever you choose, you'll have to compromise. Either on your beliefs or your ability to effect change.
I suppose (can't help myself giving advice sometimes
) it comes down to what you actually want to do. What do you want to achieve and how determined are you to achieve it.
Then, pragmatically, select the best vehicle that will allow you to achieve your goals. It will mean compromising on some things you hold dear, but once inside a group you have the opportunity to influence it's direction a lot more than you do from the outside.
You don't have to adopt all of the traits of a group and therefore become something you're not to be able to work within an organisation and comply with things you personally disagree with in order to achieve a desired outcome.
That'll be 5 cents thanks.
So, Omar, basically which ever you choose, you'll have to compromise. Either on your beliefs or your ability to effect change.
I suppose (can't help myself giving advice sometimes
) it comes down to what you actually want to do. What do you want to achieve and how determined are you to achieve it.Then, pragmatically, select the best vehicle that will allow you to achieve your goals. It will mean compromising on some things you hold dear, but once inside a group you have the opportunity to influence it's direction a lot more than you do from the outside.
You don't have to adopt all of the traits of a group and therefore become something you're not to be able to work within an organisation and comply with things you personally disagree with in order to achieve a desired outcome.
That'll be 5 cents thanks.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
member34258
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:08 am
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
Ahhhh, I understand. A sensitive soul such as yours could never even unintentionally do something to upset someone else.member34258 wrote:I think I was upsetting people stui.
And you know I would never do that.............
Maybe one of Julia would be more discrete?
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
Dave The Man
- Posts: 45001
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 21 times
- Contact: