kelly4
Well-Known Member
You want everyone to have an open mind so that they might learn something. Then when someone goes looking for you to share your knowledge...you get all butthurt. LOL!
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
You want everyone to have an open mind so that they might learn something. Then when someone goes looking for you to share your knowledge...you get all butthurt. LOL!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
lets all run to the wikipedia anarchy portal and learn about the awesomness of anarchy from a bunch of middle school emo kids who have just discovered how awesome Morrissey is, but havent yet learned about the incredibly awesome band The Smiths.
next month when they discover Bauhaus...
that's gonna be a Game Changer.
meanwhile, i took abandon's exhortation to "educate myuself" to heart. i found a website that explains the whole Philosophy of Libertarian anarchism, and here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/id/anarchism/
seriously, dont sleep on that link, its the THIRD google result.
it's a lollercaust
i dint know angelfire still existed.
next month when they discover Bauhaus...
that's gonna be a Game Changer.
meanwhile, i took abandon's exhortation to "educate myuself" to heart. i found a website that explains the whole Philosophy of Libertarian anarchism, and here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/id/anarchism/
seriously, dont sleep on that link, its the THIRD google result.
it's a lollercaust
i dint know angelfire still existed.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Your question is, what is the difference between anarchosyndicalism and Marxist Communism. I mean now you're just asking me to educate you. What are you even doing in the politics forum?
If you cant explain your position where anybody can get it, then maybe you need to look within yourself to figure it out.
How will things get collectivized? Voluntarily? Ain't going to happen. That's real world talk not utopian fantasy talk.
You still haven't answered the question in laymen's terms as requested.
And yes, I voted. For Gary Johnson.
Now go pimp Obama some more and vote for someone else.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Stop poking him or he's gonna start throwing Gandhi quotes at us. LOL
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Explain your position, I don't get it.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Explain please, you sound like a Marxist.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
OK, I'll put this into simpler terms for you, you're not being rude and you're asking me directly, then taking my flippant replies with thick skin, pardon me please. I have been dealing with trolls who are foaming at the mouth over mention of the word socialism.
The way I see it, there are two evils. Not rep/dem. The two are state and corporatocracy. The popular libertarian movement which has been spreading recently in the US, is indeed antistatist. It is not anticorporate. As I see it, the state is the lesser of two evils.
OK, I'll put this into simpler terms for you, you're not being rude and you're asking me directly, then taking my flippant replies with thick skin, pardon me please. I have been dealing with trolls who are foaming at the mouth over mention of the word socialism.
The way I see it, there are two evils. Not rep/dem. The two are state and corporatocracy. The popular libertarian movement which has been spreading recently in the US, is indeed antistatist. It is not anticorporate. As I see it, the state is the lesser of two evils.
I don't know that corporations have proven to be any more incompetent or malignant than the government has. At least with corporations in charge you have the ability to have a revolution against them without getting executed. Libertarians still have a government that protects people against being hurt. Also, it appeared to me you just cast a vote for statist socialism. Is it because even if it isn't your ideal situation it is better than the alternative?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually I did not cast a vote for statist socialism, I voted for Jill Stein who occupies a dot on that graph very close to mine, and she was endorsed by Noam Chomsky who I agree with very much on a range of issues. I did have supporting arguments for Obama and yes, I was terrified that Romney would win.
Corporations exist for a single purpose, profit. The state, at least theoretically, exists for the welfare of citizens. Anarchocapitalism and Voluntaryism are the utopia promised by capitalism and right-libertarianism and they are indistinguishable from corporatocracy. People already get lawyered in the ass when they take on big business, why would that change if the government were smaller or nonexistent? Now in Anarchocapitalism and Voluntaryism, you add to that the private armies these corporations will have (since the state ought not to monopolize force) and you've got some real crackdowns on strikes and occupy protests. Exxon and BP will be invading countries themselves instead of getting the US mired in mideast backwaters.
No, I voted green and I will continue to do so.
Libertarianism would not mean that companies could have private armies and gun down strikers. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I compared your definition of Libertarianism to Keynes definition of Libertarian Socialism. Outright lies, exaggerations, and the like. There would still be laws in a Libertarian world. Libertarians are not Anarchists.
You really have to explain how you can have Socialism that isn't state enforced without first accepting the principles of Voluntaryism. Wouldn't they be the same thing? Voluntary Socialism would have to be well... voluntary, wouldn't it? I am not asking you how you get to your ideal state, but I also don't see how you can espouse that the ideal living condition for the human race is something that entirely voluntary while then turning to say that the very idea behind that is evil. Is your entire premise that Libertarian Socialism is Voluntaryism where the entire populace decides to be Socialists without the state forcing them to? If not, what is it?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Yet you shilled for Obama, you little bitch.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
Romney did not impress me as Governor at all . I'm pretty sure he would not have been elected twice . So he didn't run again . He bought the election in the first place and then ran around trying to make a name for himself like Geraldo Rivera all the while his eye was on the presidency . I'm glad that pompous ass lost .
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
That's what I'm getting out of it. He's also stated we are not evolved enough yet for this to be possible so he has that going for him. I still say that's the only difference from Marxism, albeit a major one.
The test is poorly done, however. I fail to see how the question "No one can feel naturally homosexual.", "It is important that my child's school instills religious values.", "The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist." and the many other questions like that can be considered useful for deciding where you are on that scale in politics. Stalin and myself appear on completely opposite corners of the square yet our answers to "No one can feel naturally homosexual." and "It is important that my child's school instills religious values." could be exactly the same. I don't consider myself a Christian, I am gnostic at best. Yet, I still think it is important that my children go to a school that instills my religious and moral values or lack thereof. If I were religious, I would want my children to be shown religion, and should be allowed to send my children to a religious school. The question might generally be answered one way or another by a certain group, but they might like chocolate icecream too. It doesn't mean they would force it on other people. Things like religion and homosexuality are not just left or right, statist or libertarian. A statist might believe homosexuality isn't natural, and a Libertarian might believe the same thing. Whether they believe doesn't change how they treat it.
Supporting Obama and Romney was the same thing for me.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
The test is poorly done, however. I fail to see how the question "No one can feel naturally homosexual.", "It is important that my child's school instills religious values.", "The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist." and the many other questions like that can be considered useful for deciding where you are on that scale in politics. Stalin and myself appear on completely opposite corners of the square yet our answers to "No one can feel naturally homosexual." and "It is important that my child's school instills religious values." could be exactly the same. I don't consider myself a Christian, I am gnostic at best. Yet, I still think it is important that my children go to a school that instills my religious and moral values or lack thereof. If I were religious, I would want my children to be shown religion, and should be allowed to send my children to a religious school. The question might generally be answered one way or another by a certain group, but they might like chocolate icecream too. It doesn't mean they would force it on other people. Things like religion and homosexuality are not just left or right, statist or libertarian. A statist might believe homosexuality isn't natural, and a Libertarian might believe the same thing. Whether they believe doesn't change how they treat it.
those silly quizzes are neither useful nor accurate. they are designed to elicit the response they think will make dipshits feel better by asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".
they ALL artificially conflate religious views, social mores aand opinions on unrelated topics and assign them a value on the "authoritarianism" scale, while never actually divulging what they quanta they use might be.
