On May 7, 4:27 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:42 pm, Daniele Futtorovic
>
>
>
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On 2008-05-07 22:26 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 10:46 am, Daniele Futtorovic
> > > <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On 2008-05-07 00:31 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>
> > >>> The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
> > >>> settlers then argued there were using as a point of reference
> > >>> what I stated about the PAC in S Africa (in other words
> > >>> backpeddling like a slimy politician) seems to assume that what
> > >>> characterises a settler is what others believe they are. In other
> > >>> words when I stated that despite the whites being in S Africa
> > >>> for 3 centuries makes them no more African than an Albanian
> > >>> becomes Greek because he is in Greece for one and a half decades.
> > >>> The whites in Bolivia consider the indigenous to be Indian and
> > >>> seek to distance themselves from them in a racialist manner. Why
> > >>> shouldn't they be expelled by the indigenous Indian
> > >>> nationalists?
> > >> Because it would be their (the indigenous nationalists') undoing.
>
> > >> A racist with a gun is dangerous. A racist without a gun is just a
> > >> pathetic loonie.
>
> > >> Racism is an ideology. You should know as well as I do that
> > >> ideologies don't drive the world. Economics (and their more
> > >> sophisticated form, class struggle) do. A racist ideology can at
> > >> best ever be a tool to provide moral justification for an existing
> > >> social inequality. Remove the inequality (expropriation), the
> > >> ideology will fart itself out.
>
> > >> -- DF.
>
> > > DF, you are trying to give a rational(ist) argument with a
> > > fundementally irrational person, someone who isn't even political.
> > > For example, he *projects* onto the PAC a "throw the settlers out"
> > > position they never had. The irrationality of his view...that
> > > "settlers" (as only defined by himself) have to leave every country
> > > they reside in even if the m***** don't call for this shows how such
> > > irrationality (and a bizzare form of racialism) he's sunk to.
>
> > > Further he delibertly falsifies my position by a false reductionist
> > > argument "The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
> > > settlers..." rather a pathedic lie. He further lies when he writes
> > > "...what characterises a settler is what others believe they are."
He
> > > refuses to look at the totality of a discussion to draw
conclusions.
> > > That the PAC defines what a settlers is is good enough for me. For
> > > V, who now casts himself as the consiousness (I know, a joke if
there
> > > ever was one) of the PAC (and other BC groups I suppose) by seeking
> > > to be the arbritor of "settlerism". Irrational.
>
> > > I accept the PLO Charter version as well: Jews who accept
Palestinian
> > > rule and stop seeking Jewish exclusiveness can stay, those that
> > > percist in Zionist practices are to leave.
>
> > > So...DF, "settlerism" is not what they say, but the way they ACT.
> > > (something I've stated about a dozen times now).
>
> > > An Albanian who lives in Greece for 15 years (or a Greek who lives
in
> > > Albania for the same period) is still Albanian, but he's part of
the
> > > Greek working class, whether British and Greek Citizen Vngelis
> > > believes it or not. Same is true for the Polish worker in London.
> > > Niether are "Settlers" because they are not trying to colonize the
> > > country to the exclusion of the "native" populations. That ****tends
a
> > > "settler state" mentality.
>
> > David,
>
> > I pretty much agree with the definition of "settler" you have
elaborated
> > throughout this thread, that the decisive criteria is whether they
> > consider themselves part of a foreign nation, or instead of the nation
> > they're dwelling in. I don't necessarily agree with the practical
> > consequences you've spoken of, but neither do I disagree -- in my view
> > they're essentially dependent on the specific situations and my
> > knowledge of those which were discussed is too limited for me to take
> > any specific position.
>
> > At any rate, in my opinion the aspect of settler or not is mostly
> > irrelevant, or rather ought to be from a point of view of class
> > struggle. What in this context matters is not whither some person came
> > but whether his an exploiteur or not. In the same way, while I hold
the
> > view that control of immigration (meaning, in practice, a stop to
> > immigration) would be in the interest of workers in developed
industrial
> > countries, I hold it that such a policy should involve accepting,
> > integrating those who've already immigrated into such a country.
>
> > I also agree that Vngelis' posts, in this thread as well as in the
"MIA"
> > thread, are a far cry from rational for the most of them, and that he
> > seems to be frantically aiming, or should I say "throwing dirt" at you
> > personally. I've been off a while, but reading up some of the post of
> > the last months, I found myself more often than not wondering, and not
> > being able to decide, whether I was drunk or the posters (not limited
to
> > Vngelis).
>
> > Still, there have been enough situations where I was agreeing with
> > Vngelis, seeing more truth/sense in his positions than in his
> > contendents', for me to know that he is not "fundementally
irrational",
> > even least "not even political". So I could probably spend my time
> > pondering whether he popped a fuse or got replaced by an MI6 bot --
only
> > that I won't, simply taking what's written as it is written,
regardless
> > of the author, to some extent at least.
>
> > In that sense, please allow me to counter rationally (according to
your
> > qualification) such arguments as I deem fit to be countered. After
all,
> > there isn't like an oversupply of rationality in our world, so it
> > shouldn't hurt too much.
>
> > --
> > DF.
>
> Praising Cold Warriors Rorty or current gangsters like Zisek on MIA I
> assume and having a person in charge of the Lenin archive who openly
> loathes ...bolshevism are part of your world Danielle. They aren't
> part of mine.
> I also note on your lectures on 'racism' you parrot standard 'left'
> tripe. Good for student audiences irrelevant in the real world. A
> nationalist who refuses to expel white settlers who call for autonomy
> is toothless and pointless and will suffer whatever fate awaits him.
> Those who want to split up countries should be expelled back to the
> USA where they come from. This is a tradition in Latin America. If you
> dont know it learn about it.
> vngelis
I assume you mean Lenin and Trotsky who would of rejected such crap as
yours. Yours is the petty-bourgeois dilitantism of an isolated
sectarian. When you find a current or even an *individual* who thinks
this is *Marxism*, please, get back with us.
The point of Marxism, and the workers struggle to achieve state power.
Period. Find where Marx or Lenin or Trotsky talked about "expelling"
anyone. Please. You can quote the bourgois academics in The Guardian
all you want, it's totally irrelevant to what is going on in Latin
America.
David
|
