On 2008-05-10 05:29 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 2008-05-10 02:35 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>> So you think that mass murder is OK morally, but not a wise
>>> tactical choice.
>>
>> No, I think mass murder is morally neutral, because morale itself
>> is not neutral. Have a look at Trotsky's masterpiece "Their morale
>> and ours" for further elaboration.
>
> I am quite familiar with that piece, thank you, and thoroughly agree
> with it. There is of course "collateral damage," as the US
> government so charmingly likes to put it, in all wars, including
> civil. Killings in war, civil or otherwise, are not necessarily the
> same thing as murder, although quite often of course they are. You
> were advocating killing people simply because they were members of
> the wrong social class, not due to any kind of civil war necessity.
>
>>> Vangelis has repeatedly called for the expulsion of anyone who he
>>> deems to be a "settler" from their country of birth, although he
>>> sometimes says that they can stay if they sup****t the
>>> Revolution.
>>>
>>> You go him one better, and prefer the idea of mass murder. Your
>>> only defense is your implication below that perhaps you do not
>>> quite agree with him as to who should be designated a "settler,"
>>> and who not. Irony? Your claim to be merely ironical is
>>> contradicted by the rest of this posting.
>>
>> Yeah, whatever. What do you want?
>
> For you to retract and, ideally, apologize for your disgusting
> posting. Then perhaps I could have a civilized discussion with you in
> this forum.
>
> If in fact you disassociate yourself completely and not just
> partially from Vangelis's immigrant-ba****ng, that is a step in the
> right direction. That is not at all clear from your postings, in
> which you have frequently praised Vangelis.
>
If you wanted me to retract my position, it would seem more appropriate
to have stated so in the thread where it was presented.
I will try to lay it out once more, since you still don't seem to
understand it, still speaking as you do of me _advocating_ mass-murder
on the Bolivian question.
Vngelis argued -- to put it shortly and to the extent to which his
position can be summarized concisely, or indeed summarized at all --
that all "settlers" should be expelled from Bolivia (and from other
places but let's focus on Bolivia).
There were and are a few discrepancies with this position, the first one
being the question of what's a "settler". David has gone IMO sufficient
lengths to describe that problem. I have stated clearly that I agreed
with what he wrote as to this.
[Note that you switched the question to (quoted here, above): "Vngelis'
immigrant-ba****ng". We were talking about "settlers", which at any rate
are something different than immigrants in general. Immigrants weren't
the question back then, as far as I was concerned. Consequently, neither
shall they be here.]
In one of my few contributions to that thread, I wrote one paragraph,
which I introduced with the comment:
"(since we already are in the business of telling other people what they
ought to do with their country, anyway)"
I meant that.
Further on, I wrote:
"The best solution" (read again: *best solution*) "IMO would be to strip
the exploiters, whether settlers or not, white or black or yellow or
red or pink or green of their power"
That's what it looks like when I advocate something. I agree it's a bit
commonplace, but hey.
The immediate following bit was:
"But you might also simply shoot them all. Although it's not necessarily
as simple, and it might be harder to get a consensus for it. But ah,
there you go."
Is that the piece you found disgusting? Is that the bit you want me to
retract?
I can't really take it back, for it was not meant seriously. In the
context of what Vngelis wrote AND with the impossibility to actually
find a distinct population you could reasonably define as "settlers" AND
under the premise that I do not see it as kosher to tell people of a
country I barely know anything about what they ought to do -- given all
these conditions I couldn't fathom how this could be read as a serious
position.
But alright, I'll spell it out:
I NEITHER DO NOR DID MEAN TO FORCE THE BOLIVIAN PEOPLE TO MASS-MURDER AN
UNDEFINABLE PART OF THEIR NATION.
Good enough?
Now as to me "praising" Vngelis, let alone "frequently". Firstly, I
shall not be coerced as to whom I praise or do not praise. Secondly, I
don't think I ever /praised/ him. You might want to elaborate as to what
you mean. The last (recent) bit I wrote relating to this was to
contradict David, saying I did not personally think Vngelis "totally
irrational" and "not even political". I also said that I had in the past
found myself occasionally agreeing with him. I still think I do
understand some of his positions -- although understanding them requires
wading through large parts of... shall we say not so reasonable stuff. I
could change my position if he keeps on posting christian propaganda
outlets, though.
Now, that all being said, I must maintain -- and I'm very sorry if this
keeps us from having civilised discussions -- that I do NOT have a moral
problem with mass-murder *per se*.
I just so happens that I would love to mass-murder, personally, the
whole EU-bureaucracy, for instance -- if I could get away with it. I
actually have dreams about that. And if somebody did it in my stead I
would jump and hoot and howl at the moon for utter bliss. Again, I'm
very sorry if the anger and frustration current state of things make me
feel prohibit us from having civilised discussions.
But then again, I do have wits enough to know that it would be WRONG to
POLITICALLY ADVOCATE mass-murder. NOT because mass-murder is evil, but
because it doesn't work (or rather, making it your policy is
counter-productive). I actually do think that this question is dealt
with along these lines in "Their morale and ours".
I nevertheless privately hold the opinion that many (almost all) bullets
shot on this planet don't reach the right targets. So yes, I imply there
*are* "right" targets. What path ought to be trod in the context of a
political movement is a different matter altogether.
Lastly, I can't help wondering why you're not making equal a fuss of
David's answer to my post.
>>>> I must point out, though, that on the other hand I do not at
>>>> all share the sentiment of horror and pacifist tremor which
>>>> transpires from your last two posts. I certainly wouldn't mind
>>>> if the Bolivian latifundia owners where shot as a whole --
>>>> firstly because it's not my country and I therefore have no
>>>> business in telling them what to do, and secondly because I
>>>> have little sympathy to spare for aristocrats.
>>>
>>> The least one can say about this is that it is against the most
>>> elementary principles of Marxism. Members of a class do not labor
>>> under a collective guilt due to their particular relation****p to
>>> the mode of production. It is the system, not the individuals,
>>> which is to blame.
>>
>> Who said anything about blaming? Yes, you are right: the system is
>> to blame. But the system "exists" for itself only ever in an
>> a-tem****al, abstract way. In reality, the system exists through
>> individuals and their relation****ps towards one another. For all
>> practical matters, you can only address the system through the
>> people who live it. Pray try to make a revolution without "blaming"
>> any individual whatsoever, and I guarantee you will find yourself
>> in front of a counter-revolutionary shooting squad pretty quickly.
>
> Or perhaps a "revolutionary" shooting squad, if I should happen to be
> in the wrong country at the time of the Revolution, run by
> "anti-globalist" immigrant-bashers? No thank you!
You're eluding the point.
>>>> Secondly and much more im****tant is your bringing this subject
>>>> into this thread in the first place. Here's the one-hundred
>>>> dollar question: where, my dear Watson, did I, in this thread,
>>>> speak of murder or homicide? Hmm? You imply I did and that's
>>>> clearly malevolent. You're implicitly equating birth-control
>>>> with murder, and you don't even have the guts to state it
>>>> openly, unlike the religious s***, which I suggest you turn to
>>>> for a new group of friends and like-minded people. Unless that
>>>> was a mistake or misunderstanding on your behalf, in which case
>>>> I suggest you correct it.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. I sup****t birth control and abortion. For that matter I
>>> happen to agree that the world population is too large, and that
>>> a socialist world government would seek to encourage population
>>> reduction, although hopefully not as bureaucratically as the
>>> Chinese government does.
>>>
>>> My question was asked for one reason and one reason only--because
>>> I wanted to know the answer. If you had answered "yes" you would
>>> at any rate have been displaying logical consistency, something
>>> absent from this posting.
>>
>> Err... you are?
>>
>> Let me see if I get this right. In one post in one thread I speak
>> about mass-murder. In another post in another thread I speak about
>> control of population through control of births, no part of it
>> approaching the subject of mass-murder, even remotely. You ask me
>> whether the two posts have anything to do with each other. I say:
>> "no". And you say I would have displayed *logical consistency* if I
>> would have said "yes"?!
>>
>> Hello?
>>
>> I don't even understand how could would come to think the two
>> issues are related -- unless of course you equate abortion and
>> contraception with murder, but you claim you don't.
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>
> Since you see (perhaps correctly but that is irrelevant here)
> overpopulation as one of the key problems facing the human race, and
> since mass murder is, obviously, the quickest method for population
> reduction on the grand scale, and since you toyed with the idea of
> mass murder on the same day as you posted your posting on
> overpopulation, the question was only natural.
What part of "birth control" don't you understand? Read my original post
again. *Each occurrence* of the terms "control of population" or anything
similar is preceded or followed by "control of births" or "birth
control". I actually referred to birth control more often than to
control of population. On the other hand, in the bit about Bolivia, no
reference was made to population in general and their numbers. The
"mass-murder" had clearly nothing to do with it.
So the one who associates control of population with mass murder is
quite clearly: you. I think it's disingenuous to blame me for that,
actually.
Besides, mass-murder as a means to reduce population raises more
problems than it solves. Whom shall we shoot? Right, shoot the
exploiters, but there still will be too many people left. So that's a
no-no.
--
DF.
|
