Tea baggers love feudalism.

[UncleBuck]

I thought Tea Baggers were liberal people?.......

you think a lot of weird things.

you thought there was a romney landslide in the making because dick morris said so.

so, ya know. there's that.

 

[ilikecheetoes]

what you think conservatives dont like to dip their ball sack now and then?

 

[nitro harley]

you think a lot of weird things.

you thought there was a romney landslide in the making because dick morris said so.

so, ya know. there's that.

Buck..

You keep forgetting that what dick said was not my opinion about the land slide...

 

[nitro harley]

what you think conservatives dont like to dip their ball sack now and then?

Could be, more than likely, But it sounds more like a liberal thing to me...

 

[GOD HERE]

and what do you propose the "working class" has ever had to trade beyond their labour?

even your marxism is incomplete and ignorant, and your understanding of fuedalism is laughable.

cry moar, then get a copy of the communist manifesto, marx does a good (if heavily biased) job of describing the manner in which various economic systems work.

prior to the bolshevik revolution, russia was the last of the european feudal states, which is why the message worked. china too was a feudal system before Mao, which is why marxism sold well there

playing with the meaning of words and redefining the terms to claim feudalism exists in modern liberal democracies isnt fooling anyone but the truely ignorant.

Mussolini recognized that classic marxist proletarian revolution was NOT gonna happen in liberal democracies, which is why he developed the Third Way in the first place. most of the marexist world has accepted this idea and OFFERS socialism, rather than trying to impose it with hardline Authoritarian Marxism (which is also called Stalinist Socialism) except the rabid doctrinaires and the Useful Idiots.

 

[abandonconflict]

An employment contract is not congruent with an oath of fealty. cn

So serfdom was voluntary because they swore oaths of fealty to the hereditary noble?

 

[cannabineer]

An employment contract is not congruent with an oath of fealty. cn

So serfdom was voluntary because they swore oaths of fealty to the hereditary noble?

You're turning my point sidewise. An oath of fealty and an employment contract are not interchangeable. One cannot reliably use the one to make a point about the other.

However in terms of volition they are quite similar; that subpoint I accept. I'm reminded of UB's argument that signing a W-4 is voluntary. In the same spirit, an offer of vassalage is equally voluntary. Iirc your options were threefold:
1) accept, 2) relocate, or 3) starve. Hey; it's an option. cn

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

When you get to clicking on your browser, and you surf your way over to RIU, drawn by the sweet smell of the ganj burning, you will quickly find that there are a ton of tea baggers around this site. At least one of them is a LEO and about half of them are in denial about their love for feudalism. They range from neoliberal to voluntaryist and from misguided to openly racist. They fit right into the right wing even if they say they oppose war. They'll comment on this and call me a Marxist or a Commie. At least one of them will say I owe him an explanation of something he could find through his own research if he cared to learn about it. Oh he'll insist that he's got it all figured out, then ask a basic question revealing a complete lack of grasp of the subject.

The Tea Baggers call themselves libertarians but completely disregard that aside from the US and throughout the history of the usage of the word it libertarian has been to describe anarchists. Even Murray Rothbard, the founder of American "libertarianism" and coiner of the term anarchocapitalism admitted as much. He concluded that his movement (which included the likes of Ron Paul) was not an anarchist movement. "Therefore we must conclude we are not anarchists." said he. The Koch Brothers donate heavily toward the Tea Party, the GOP and "The Libertarian Party".

When private property becomes so enshrined into the world view of many, the word property becomes synonymous with liberty. This is because the stratification of socioeconomic classes becomes so distinct and defined and polarized that there is only one (ever shrinking in size) class in which people can truly have liberty. The ones with property. The rest will have nothing but their labor and their children. There will be a hereditary elite and a dearth of socioeconomic upward mobility.

That is feudalism. The purest of these people are ultra right wing nuts who call themselves Voluntaryist, because they know anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. They have a pretty fantasy they use to sell their views to well meaning people. Some of them are quite aware how dystopian their vile and disgusting views are. They cling to philosophers like Ayn Rand, who sought to redefine altruism as evil and Murray Rothbard who sought to redefine egalitarianism as a revolt against nature. At the very heart of thier beliefs is a doctrine known as Social Darwinism.

They will try to tell us that the hereditary powerful billionaires of the earth should have every right to employ private armies, alleviating the need for a state. The rhetoric is anti-statist and therefore appeals to anarchists. They require the removal of the state in order to enforce a new, completely tyrannical kind of hierarchy.

Such hereditary hierarchy is as absurd (paraphrasing Thomas Paine) as hereditary mathematicians.

Flame away ancaps.

Rothbard quote, check
call everyone feudalist, check
lump everyone into a group, check
talk about definitions, check
Koch brothers, check

You must be super butthurt bro.

 

[abandonconflict]

You're turning my point sidewise. An oath of fealty and an employment contract are not interchangeable. One cannot reliably use the one to make a point about the other.

However in terms of volition they are quite similar; that subpoint I accept. I'm reminded of UB's argument that signing a W-4 is voluntary. In the same spirit, an offer of vassalage is equally voluntary. Iirc your options were threefold:
1) accept, 2) relocate, or 3) starve. Hey; it's an option. cn

Defending wage slavery is the act of fealty, being a proletarian opposed to unions for example. Being a wage slave is not necessarily. I agree with the assessment of options with which you concluded. Not all serfs swore fealty, but the ones who didn't were surely witches.

 

[Flaming Pie]

From your opening statement, all one has to do to avoid your doomsday is own property.

I'm set.

Is it really that hard to buy some property? sheesh.

 

[cannabineer]

Defending wage slavery is the act of fealty, being a proletarian opposed to unions for example. Being a wage slave is not necessarily. I agree with the assessment of options with which you concluded. Not all serfs swore fealty, but the ones who didn't were surely witches.

I think you can credibly argue analogy, which would require an adverb such as "like" after the bolded. I don't think you can claim identity. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I think you can credibly argue analogy, which would require an adverb such as "like" after the bolded. I don't think you can claim identity. cn

Some of the Tea Baggers seem as though they are sworn to defend a status quo despite their own interests.

 

[cannabineer]

Some of the Tea Baggers seem as though they are sworn to defend a status quo despite their own interests.

I cannot refute that. I can only observe that the status quo in this nation ≠ a feudal condition. The key elements are missing. I suggest that saying that one thing is like another (then listing either commonalities or differences) is much less prone to this criticism than the practice of using defined terms as metaphors where they don't properly apply. It avoids an otherwise irreducible vagueness. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

the status quo in this nation ≠ a feudal condition.

I said that the tea baggers long for such a dystopia.

 

[Mindmelted]

I said that the tea baggers long for such a dystopia.

AND YOU WOULD BE A IDIOT FUCKHEAD AS USUAL.....

 

[deprave]

last time I checked feudalism refers to a time period between the the 9th? and 15th century? How is the world anything like that today?

also last time I checked teabagger would be a derogatory term referring to the tea party, of which does not actually include any of the groups you even mentioned.

and that is just the tip of the iceberg, the amount of redefines and play on words you used in your original post is staggering, its like your from another parallel universe.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Feudalism is birthright of defined class structures, AC can't tell the difference between that and free market capitalism.

 

[abandonconflict]

Feudalism is birthright of defined class structures, AC can't tell the difference between that and free market capitalism.

There is no fucking difference.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

There is no fucking difference.

So, there is no class mobility then? Can children of factory workers become land owners?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Notice Kynes doesn't deny that he loves feudalism. Nor does he attempt to argue that what Tea Baggers like himself love IS feudalism. He just jumps right into calling me a Marxist, Stalinist or member of the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution.

i refuse to accept the premise.

i do not love or aspire to feudalism, but thats lost on you since you have no clue what feudalism is, you just think it's a catchy buzzword which can be shaped to fit you narrative.
i am NOT a "Tea Bagger", but that too is lost on you since you cannot comprehend what motivates the "Tea Baggers", so you assume they must be begging for serfdom, or they are just racist.
you ARE the same sort of coffehouse philosopher who just assumes that everything will work itself out once the current regime is overturned by the mob, since surely the mob will turn to YOU for guidance.
thus you ARE one of the fools who created the anarchy which resulted in Robespierre and "La Grande Terreur"


or have you forgotten the many arguments we have had in the past, which always follow the same script.

you make some outrageous ill-informed assumption
i and many others say "whoa now buddy, thats totally wrong on all counts"
you respond with marxist propaganda image dumps, whinging and claiming youre "not Pushing anything" as you push for the destruction of all order in favour of your mystery ideals
when asked what your mystery ideal entails you call names, aand declare that everybody should find out for themselves by reading the wikipage as if that answers ANY of the direct questions.
then you take your toys and go home, start a new thread with a new outrageous claim, and begin the whole process again.