Tea baggers love feudalism.

[Dr Kynes]

Really? Let's look at the first definition of Anarchy from the previous page...



If there isn't government or law there isnt politics... If there isnt politics then your whole argument is proven false...

Either a society has rules or it doesnt. If it doesnt then it is Anarchy... The strongest take from the weakest and there are no laws nor force that can compel anything to happen otherwise.

The point of the entire exercise is that lefties don't want to admit being socialists, communists or marxists since marxism (and it's subgenres) have a pretty big stink attached, so they create NEW names, or appropriate old ones and attempt to Re-Brand Marxism for the twatter generation.

unfortunately they didn't realize that this re-branding would, without a new Comintern, result in dozens of new versions of marxism, each with their own slightly different agenda which has diluted their ability to stay on message, which is why none of the dippledink anarcho-________ists on this forum can agree what "anarcho-" means, before they even attach their secondary label.

the left is in disarray, they cant even agree if Bwana Obama is doing a good job or fucking up, but since he has basically continued bush's policies en bloc, and has only added a little lefty jism on top through obamacare, the consensus is he is fucking up, but he is still not as bad as romney would have been, cuz romney liked horse ballet, and has never been poor, and his wife wore an ugly designer shirt! (substantive arguments one and all, as you can see...)


the Anarcho-rebranding of marxism has created a new, angrier, more petty left, but luckily for them, the right was also busily beating the shit out of itself at the same time, but the right is emerging with a new vision and a new energy (but it's really just a return to core principles) the next few elections will tell the tale, if the press continues to flog for the left, and the people are as stupid and malleable as the left assumes, we will get more of the same, but if the nation can be saved, leftism will be withering on the vine.

fuck, even bloomberg is facing backlash, in the second liberalest place on earth (outside san francisco) over his big drinks ban. who would have toyught new york had the backbone to object to leftist overreach. im stunned.

 

[NLXSK1]

The point of the entire exercise is that lefties don't want to admit being socialists, communists or marxists since marxism (and it's subgenres) have a pretty big stink attached, so they create NEW names, or appropriate old ones and attempt to Re-Brand Marxism for the twatter generation.

unfortunately they didn't realize that this re-branding would, without a new Comintern, result in dozens of new versions of marxism, each with their own slightly different agenda which has diluted their ability to stay on message, which is why none of the dippledink anarcho-________ists on this forum can agree what "anarcho-" means, before they even attach their secondary label.

the left is in disarray, they cant even agree if Bwana Obama is doing a good job or fucking up, but since he has basically continued bush's policies en bloc, and has only added a little lefty jism on top through obamacare, the consensus is he is fucking up, but he is still not as bad as romney would have been, cuz romney liked horse ballet, and has never been poor, and his wife wore an ugly designer shirt! (substantive arguments one and all, as you can see...)


the Anarcho-rebranding of marxism has created a new, angrier, more petty left, but luckily for them, the right was also busily beating the shit out of itself at the same time, but the right is emerging with a new vision and a new energy (but it's really just a return to core principles) the next few elections will tell the tale, if the press continues to flog for the left, and the people are as stupid and malleable as the left assumes, we will get more of the same, but if the nation can be saved, leftism will be withering on the vine.

fuck, even bloomberg is facing backlash, in the second liberalest place on earth (outside san francisco) over his big drinks ban. who would have toyught new york had the backbone to object to leftist overreach. im stunned.

Bloomberg is a genius... He has us arguing over a stupid soda ban rather than focusing on the high crime rates and bankrupt government...

 

[Doer]

Clearly you don't. Anarchy and political anarchy are two different things. You can go look it up. There is such a thing as anarcho-capitalism unfortunately (right wing libertarian-ism). Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-this, anarcho-that..

Anarcho-God? How about anarcho-Arco Station? There is no such thing as either. One is a milksop personal philosophy. The other is the same milksop applied to politics.

You think endlessly hiding in ever more fractured social theory will solve anything? NO. Rejecting all that is what got us here.

Us getting away from milksop politcal phylosophy is what we have now. It is being constant assailted by the new thinkers that think without any thought at all, they can think us out "it". But, the new books are the same as the old.

Give one example where this has been tried, and don't say Jonestown.

 

[NLXSK1]

When I think about it I find that Feudalism has much more in common with Marxism than Capitalism...

 

[Doer]

In that Marxism can descend into feudalism, where actual state control is absent and a local Member (jr grade) of the Central committee is allowed to act as Warlord, but not in name, only?

Yes, that is also why there is no such thing as un-enforced volunteer-ism. If you won't volunteer, we will force you. If you freely join but blow your commitments, we will punish you.

All the trapping of altruism and choice of a free society will not print into "anarchy." Someone, a natural leader, me even, to save my hide, will organize you into hierarchy through persuasion among the large fellows that like a strong leader, which leads to force, (what that large sized, inner circle is for) whether you like it or not, fight back or don't.

We will be engaged in struggle with other hierarchies, and you have only one say. Do as we say, or else.

Really believe me on this one if you can. I've come to the conclusion only hierarchy is natural, from the family unit, tribe etc. Matter of fact, we are born into it, it is so natural. It exists all around without exclusion. So, we see only hierarchy in nature.

Since anything else is un-natural. Us savage humans will turn on it and destroy it immediately. It's an abomination against nature. And it is the sole reason anarchy hasn't, doesn't and will never exist.

 

[abandonconflict]

Now Kynes is insisting that leftism is synonymous with Marxism and that marxism synonymous with authoritarianism.

Anarchofeudalism. Kynes just invented it.

 

[NLXSK1]

In that Marxism can descend into feudalism, where actual state control is absent and a local Member (jr grade) of the Central committee is allowed to act as Warlord, but not in name, only?

Yes, that is also why there is no such thing as un-enforced volunteer-ism. If you won't volunteer, we will force you. If you freely join but blow your commitments, we will punish you.

All the trapping of altruism and choice of a free society will not print into "anarchy." Someone, a natural leader, me even, to save my hide, will organize you into hierarchy through persuasion among the large fellows that like a strong leader, which leads to force, (what that large sized, inner circle is for) whether you like it or not, fight back or don't.

We will be engaged in struggle with other hierarchies, and you have only one say. Do as we say, or else.

Really believe me on this one if you can. I've come to the conclusion only hierarchy is natural, from the family unit, tribe etc. Matter of fact, we are born into it, it is so natural. It exists all around without exclusion. So, we see only hierarchy in nature.

Since anything else is un-natural. Us savage humans will turn on it and destroy it immediately. It's an abomination against nature. And it is the sole reason anarchy hasn't, doesn't and will never exist.

In feudalism the royalty (government) owned the land and the serfs were allowed to live on the land provided they produced goods for their lord.

In marxism the government owns the means of production and the workers toil for the government for their wages.

 

[Doer]

Oh, that's the theory, sure. But, I thought you meant in practice. In practice in Marxism, you see a combination of factors that make it remarkably like Feudalism.

So, are we agreeing on the only thing that makes sense to agree on, the practice?

I'm not into jousting definitions and theory, I figured you are on to something. ??

 

[abandonconflict]

In feudalism the royalty (government) owned the land and the serfs were allowed to live on the land provided they produced goods for their lord.

In marxism the government owns the means of production and the workers toil for the government for their wages.

That's correct. Another thing I despise about Marxism is his surplus theory. He sought to extract surplus from labor value to be controlled by central authority. This is just as bad as the capitalist theory of surplus, which holds that self interest as a market force ought to create surplus from labor value to be controlled by what ever god damn idiot inherits a company.

In this, Marx is no different from Adam Smith as pertains to division of labor.

Prominent interpretation, as well as criticism, of Smith's views on the societal merits of unregulated labor management by the ruling class is expressed by Noam Chomsky as follows: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

 

[NLXSK1]

Oh, that's the theory, sure. But, I thought you meant in practice. In practice in Marxism, you see a combination of factors that make it remarkably like Feudalism.

So, are we agreeing on the only thing that makes sense to agree on, the practice?

I'm not into jousting definitions and theory, I figured you are on to something. ??

I dont think we are arguing at all...

All of this comes down to a simple issue. Who owns the means of production in society?

If it is the private citizens then it is Capitalism. If it is some form of government ownership and control it falls under some form of marxism, communism, feudalism, etc...

Ultimately the left wants to confiscate the products and/or means of production and divert it to whomever they choose and thus taking undeserved wealth and ultimately power for themselves. They prey on the producers of society... It doesnt really matter what you call it.

The OP is completely false. Tea Party people want smaller government, less government spending = more private spending, etc. This is the opposite of feudalism.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Now Kynes is insisting that leftism is synonymous with Marxism and that marxism synonymous with authoritarianism.

Anarchofeudalism. Kynes just invented it.

really? did i say that?

nope, but in order to avoid the application of the tainted and sullied terms "Socialism", "Communism" and "Marxism", all lefties have invented new names based on the "Anarcho-_________" mad-lib.

leftism always has some correlation with Marxism, since Marx basically re-built the left movement with Das Kapital (a book you have not read) and The Communist Manifesto (another book you have not read), much in the way all "Right Wing" theories are coloured by the theories of Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, and John Locke.

arguing otherwise is ridiculous.

when you dare to articulate some portion of your "Philosophy of One" it falls 100% within the theories of Marx, and since you use Marxist rhetoric, post images of Marx, qoute Marx and his contemporaries, post images of slogans from Marxist organizations, and your signature consists of a quote from a well known Marxist, claiming to be offended by being called a Marxist is manufactured outrage.

you may not be a hooker, but if you wear a hooker's uniform, you can't bitch if somebody offers you $5 for a handjob.

 

[deprave]

That's correct. Another thing I despise about Marxism is his surplus theory. He sought to extract surplus from labor value to be controlled by central authority. This is just as bad as the capitalist theory of surplus, which holds that self interest as a market force ought to create surplus from labor value to be controlled by what ever god damn idiot inherits a company.

In this, Marx is no different from Adam Smith as pertains to division of labor.

Prominent interpretation, as well as criticism, of Smith's views on the societal merits of unregulated labor management by the ruling class is expressed by Noam Chomsky as follows: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

Ok then how the fuck is marxism any different than libertarian socialist? You have yet to answer. I don't see the difference. It seems to have ALL of the fundamentals necessary to believe in marxism, the entire concept is based on marxist ideas.

You would think that it would mean, small government socialist, but I mean how is that somehow different than good old fashioned socialism? Details.. My point is just that your not making your case to anyone, this is quote is vague and just plain snobbish please explain how can you not have an intrusive government when it must "take measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding its limits".

 

[Doer]

I dont think we are arguing at all...

All of this comes down to a simple issue. Who owns the means of production in society?

If it is the private citizens then it is Capitalism. If it is some form of government ownership and control it falls under some form of marxism, communism, feudalism, etc...

Ultimately the left wants to confiscate the products and/or means of production and divert it to whomever they choose and thus taking undeserved wealth and ultimately power for themselves. They prey on the producers of society... It doesnt really matter what you call it.

The OP is completely false. Tea Party people want smaller government, less government spending = more private spending, etc. This is the opposite of feudalism.

You're right. I can see that. I was weaving in my standing point, it's all down from here. We stand not on a pinnacle of virtue. WE are the tip, the sharp pointy end of self-rule. WE practice enlightened self-interest by hierarchical, multi-generational efforts, plus a lot of happenstance. Right? Luck favors the self reliant and minute man prepared in self-rule, so far.

So, I agree. Marx-ism is so far down there with Feudalism, so as to be indistinguishable in the, not optimal, dust bin.

 

[Dr Kynes]

That's correct. Another thing I despise about Marxism is his surplus theory. He sought to extract surplus from labor value to be controlled by central authority. This is just as bad as the capitalist theory of surplus, which holds that self interest as a market force ought to create surplus from labor value to be controlled by what ever god damn idiot inherits a company.

In this, Marx is no different from Adam Smith as pertains to division of labor.

Prominent interpretation, as well as criticism, of Smith's views on the societal merits of unregulated labor management by the ruling class is expressed by Noam Chomsky as follows: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

however chomsky's assessment is really a fallacy, notably, reductio ad absurdum.

chomsky assumes that the final form of capitalism is a completely free and unrestricted market system which would inevitably become predatory.

no-one has ever proposed TOTALLY free predatory markets except fools like murray "fifth column" rothbard, and those making similar reductio ad absurdum presumptions.
capitalism requires restraints, just as liberty does, since without restraint, liberty unchained becomes anarchy (not the feel-good type).

avocation of limits on capitalism is not abandonment of capitalism, nor does support for restraints on markets equate to "despising" capitalism.

does advocating restraints on government turn the libertarian into an anarchist?

you might say so, but most would disagree. restraint of the power of government is key to libertarian thought (all forms, even the european versions, the american conservative versions, and the literal definitions), but this does not make all libertarians into anarchists, any more than proposing limits on calorie intake makes my doctor into a sadistic villain who intends to starve me to death. (though that could be argued)

 

[abandonconflict]

however chomsky's assessment is really a fallacy, notably, reductio ad absurdum.

chomsky assumes that the final form of capitalism is a completely free and unrestricted market system which would inevitably become predatory.

no-one has ever proposed TOTALLY free predatory markets except fools like murray "fifth column" rothbard, and those making similar reductio ad absurdum presumptions.


capitalism requires restraints, just as liberty does, since without restraint, liberty unchained becomes anarchy (not the feel-good type).

avocation of limits on capitalism is not abandonment of capitalism, nor does support for restraints on markets equate to "despising" capitalism.

does advocating restraints on government turn the libertarian into an anarchist?
With this you reveal that you were attacking my position and didn't understand what I was arguing. No dimwit, that is precisely what I am arguing, that what you call a libertarian is not an anarchist. Even analexcessgay1 does the same when he blathers on about capitalism and anarchy being mutually exclusive. That is my point, that is my conclusion. That is not your premise, that is my entire fucking argument. If you're fine with this, why are you harassing me?

you might say so(...), but most would disagree. restraint of the power of government is key to libertarian thought (all forms, even the european versions, the american conservative versions, and the literal definitions), but this does not make all libertarians into anarchists, any more than proposing limits on calorie intake makes my doctor into a sadistic villain who intends to starve me to death. (though that could be argued)

This is how you win a debate with Kynes. You get him to defend your position with him thinking he is attacking yours.

Kynes bro, you're still a feudalist. Liberty unchained becomes hierarchy. Give propertarians their way and liberty becomes synonymous with property then watch while the people with more property subjugate the rest.

Now I'm going to watch you refute this by siding with Rothbard about property and capitalism, since you think you're a libertarian (you're actually a republican and a Marxist).

 

[NLXSK1]

This is how you win a debate with Kynes. You get him to defend your position with him thinking he is attacking yours.

Kynes bro, you're still a feudalist. Liberty unchained becomes hierarchy. Give propertarians their way and liberty becomes synonymous with property then watch while the people with more property subjugate the rest.

Now I'm going to watch you refute this by siding with Rothbard about property and capitalism, since you think you're a libertarian (you're actually a republican and a Marxist).

Show me a society that does not have a hierarchy...

 

[abandonconflict]

Show me a society that does not have a hierarchy...

 

[abandonconflict]

Ok then how the fuck is marxism any different than libertarian socialist? You have yet to answer. I don't see the difference. It seems to have ALL of the fundamentals necessary to believe in marxism, the entire concept is based on marxist ideas.

You would think that it would mean, small government socialist, but I mean how is that somehow different than good old fashioned socialism? Details.. My point is just that your not making your case to anyone, this is quote is vague and just plain snobbish please explain how can you not have an intrusive government when it must "take measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding its limits".

He is saying that in The Wealth of Nations, Smith argues thusly.

See your fallacy here? You are attacking the position of a Libertarian Socialist based on his explication of what Adam Smith wrote regarding the necessity of state. Smith was also a propertarian of the Locke influenced variety.

 

[Dr Kynes]

This is how you win a debate with Kynes. You get him to defend your position with him thinking he is attacking yours.

Kynes bro, you're still a feudalist. Liberty unchained becomes hierarchy. Give propertarians their way and liberty becomes synonymous with property then watch while the people with more property subjugate the rest.

Now I'm going to watch you refute this by siding with Rothbard about property and capitalism, since you think you're a libertarian (you're actually a republican and a Marxist).

again, liberty is NOT anarchy, unless liberty is completely unfettered, which results in CHAOS (which is synonymous with anarchy)

libertarians are NOT anarchists, and niether are you. REAL anarchists are madmen, like the clinically insane fool who shot Theodore Roosevelt because voices in his head didnt want Teddy to have a third term, or people who ACTUALLY espouse some political theory or other which PRECLUDES anarchy.

if i hide my true intentions to grow cannabis in my shed, while assembling my DWC, acquiring seeds, hanging lights, and installing fans, then actually grow that dope, harvest it, trim it, cure it and smoke it, can i claim that the dope was just an accident, and entirely a result of "Anarcho-Botany"?

not a chance. you are constructing a fictional version of anarchy, to conceal your actual beliefs which are really just communism or socialism (nobody is sure since you wont answer questions about it), and your assertion that libertarians are not anarchists is as specious and self-serving as your claims that capitalists are also not anarchists.

birds are not fish!

ha ha!! see i am right!! this statement is true, so therefore everything that has come before must also be true!!

why are you attempting to insist that birds are fish?

birds are in fact NOT fish, therefore you are harassing me by insisting that birds and fish are the same thing!

your repeated assertions that birds are fish is just another sign that you are evil, and probably racist.


since YOU are the only person in this forum arguing that capitalists can or cannot be anarchists, and the ONLY one arguing that libertarians can or cannot be anarchists, your arguments are between you and your shadow.

and you still have not succeeded in defeating your shadow, since you keep arguing with it.

supporting restraints on capitalism is not advocating of the destruction of all capitalism and all capitalist systems.

that is what YOU have repeatedly demanded, an end to ownership of ANYTHING even seeds, and the plants which grow from them.

this is the EXTREME of marxist thought, and that is the destruction of capitalism and democracy, since instituting real marxism has never occurred without also instituting the end of democracy or the republican form. only Third Way Socialism can survive with democracy, and Third Way Marxism is lots of capitalism, with a splash of socialism and communism in varying degrees.

your (and chomsky's) reductio ad absurdum view of capitalism and capitalists is simply a fallacy and a fiction that you use as a straw man, and to beg the question, "since capitalism is useless, what form is NOT useless" to which you have the ready made answer, "anarcho-______ism" which can be anything, because it means NOTHING.

i have stated this again and again, and you still pretend you dont know it's true, and you stiull pretend everybody is arguing an oxymoron which of course only you can defeat.

these windmills ARE NOT GIANTS, and your hemlet is a shaving bowl.

but by all means, keep tilting away.

 

[abandonconflict]

again, liberty is NOT anarchy, unless liberty

I didn't say liberty is anarchy. I said liberty is not property.

You keep writing these long emotional diatribes with only a morsel of pertinent explicable logic that are off base and reveal a distorted understanding of near related concepts mixed in with the topic such that you can muddy the waters of debated and make your convoluted string of dishonest rantings seem like an argument. Why not go to work and pay taxes since you think that is a lovely contribution to society.