WINSLOW'S MAOIST IMITATION
: : WW: Well, father paranoia, who is going to do the organizing and researching? You haven't answered the question.
: : Qx: Typical ad-hominems that even Sendero would have found useful in its formative period. Winslow knows the answer but keeps up with the drivel. Therefore I don't need to answer this sicko.
WW: More elitist posturing while dodging the question yet again. Are you hung up?
Qx: Interesting isn't it readers? By slinging barbs and whatnot his usual harangue is a sloppy accusation again. Of course with the typical attempt to personalize this debate even further.
ON SPECIALIST LANGUAGE (AGAIN)
: : : : WW: Unity and unifocality are the mantras of state and proto-state apparatuses.
: : : : Qx: Well, these are cute terms. Did you get this from some management theory course?
: : WW: Why are these "cute" terms?
: : Qx: Because they reek of an attempt to sound sophisticated. Is that something you crave?
WW: Aww, cute little Quincunx.
Qx: Winslow couldn't even answer the question
and instead reverts to even more ad-hominems.
WINSLOW'S STRAW MAN
: : WW: Why do you assume I am a manager?
: : Qx: Oooooops, straw man here.
WW: Uh - you just asked me if I took a management theory course..
Qx: Yes, I did but that is
entirely separate from your assumption that
I have assumed that you are a manager. I know you might have a hard time explaining that in plain English but remedial courses are to be found in many
WW: The straw is in your ear
Qx: Not hardly. What I refer to as a "straw man" is your assumption that part of my argument is that I assume
that you are a manager. In reality, all I did was ask "Did you get
this from some management theory course?" That's a question
not an assumption.
WINSLOW AND ANGER
: : WW: It seems to me that you are just pissed off because I dare to criticise the "left".
: : Qx: Actually, I dare to question your honesty and that makes you very angry. I have no reason to be angry. Just skeptical.
WW: Yeah right. Whatever you say.
Qx: I am right but it's not "whatever you say". I'm not that dogmatic and I can welcome sincere questions. I'm just not wild about weird vendettas being conducted by disturbed people. But then again who does?
WW:I think you are angry because your little cyber-reputation is damaged due to your own desire to mud-wrestle with me (down and dirty yee ha!).
Qx: Really? I have a cyber-reputation? And how is this even mudwrestling? I'm not even angry.
WW: Your assumption that I have a "hate-on" for you is funny as shit.
Qx:Actually hate is never really funny and I recognize it when I see it.
WW:How could I hate you?
Qx: That's easy. I question your sincerity and let you have enough rope to hang yourself. You're doing that right here.
WW:You aren't important enough to hate. More vanity on your part.
Qx: I don't have to be important so the vanity accusation is useless again
(skipping due to extreme irrelevence)
: : : : WW: Even those fringe left groups that are explicitly anti-state have as their axis activities that are geared to unity and unifocal forms.
: : : : Qx: Please repeat in English.
: : WW: Uh, o.k. Demonstrations, mass meetings, strikes, and other fringe-left shenanigans are all premised on unity and, implicit in them, are both representation and delegation. The logic for these events is that they are shows of strength and thus in the interest of wage workers. I think these activities are really just occasions for displaying the strength of leaders and organizations.
: : Qx: If it's a trade union you may be right but if its the IWW then you're dead wrong. As usual. BTW, saying things such as "axis activities that are geared to unity and unifocal forms" is hardly understandable to wage workers but then if you're a statistician it could be great fun to haggle over the details.
WW: Tell me why I'm dead wrong about the IWW?
.Qx: Because you haven't done much more than assume. Now if you could get to my posting regarding this matter at the top of this debating room we could really air out this issue. How about it?
WW: Why are terms like unity, axis, unifocality, "hardly understandable to wage-workers"?
Qx: Because it comes from a specialist, managerial discourse that one is more likely to find in a management course than in everyday life amongst plain ol' workin' folks.
NOTE TO THE READERS: Could any of the readers who are working people really relate to these terms being spouted around the canteen at work? Maybe Winslow should try saying the exact same things in a bar. Preferably on a Friday night!
WW: Sounds like more elitist posturing from Quincunx.
Qx: Actually, I was just asking you to speak in plain English. There's nothing "elitist" or "posturing" about that.
: : : : WW: We don't need your pseudo, anti-vanguardist bullshit Quincunx -
: : : : Qx: Who is "we"? That might make your rantings a bit clearer.
: : WW: Wage workers. And the IWW has a program and structure which employs representation and delegation. That's what I consider phony.
: : Qx: So, by stating thqat you're claiming to represent "wage workers". That's bogus as all beat hell.
WW:: O.k. I made a mistake with "we" - that was unintentional. It's just that snobs like you put me on the defensive.
Qx: There's nothing snobbish about my telling you what I feel about your irrational rants. It's your refusal to confront your own irrational beleifs that's generating even more ad-hominems. Especially when it's quite obvious that your use of the word "we" was indeed intentional.
WINSLOW'S IDEA OF LENINIST "HONESTY"
: : : : WW: jeez, at least the Leninists are honest about it.
: : : : Qx: I rather doubt that. Many Leninists go right into historical denial mode when confronted with the huge amouunts of evidence against Lenin.
: : WW: I wasn't talking about Lenin's (or Leninists') past transgressions - duh.
: : Qx: Yes, you were. You stated that just previously.
WW: No, I was not.
Qx: Ooooh, yes you were. The "honesty" you ascribe to Leninists is what'll deep six you in a revolutionary situation . The fake "honesty" of the Leninists is exactly what Bakunin had predicted years earlier. Indeed, it is one of their main transgressions.
: : WW:You know they are quite explicit about the need for a vanguard party - they call a spade a spade, unlike other fringe left groups who pretend to reject vanguardism.
: : Qx: Then why don't you join a Leninist sect? What? You scared of becoming P.C.?
WW: vanguardist sects, anti-vanguardist sects - I don't see a big difference.
Qx: Now that is dodging the question!
WINSLOW'S FURTHER RANTS AGAINST THE IWW
WW: And you can quote all the phrases about "industrial government" you like; this sheds little light on the process of social transformation.
Qx: Really! I never did say anything about "industrial government". Nor did I quote any.
WW: Funny thing is, I almost joined the IWW a couple years back UNTIL THEY ASKED ME FOR FORTY FUCKING DOLLARS!
Qx: That is amusing! If you had joined the IWW would most likely have given your money back once they had met the real you. There's really no place for personal vendettas in the IWW.