How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
and yet they ARE socialists, in that, the society (The State) is far more important than any individual's rights.

THATS the nature of socialism, subjugation to The State, not the touchy feelie crap you WISH socialism meant.

this has been explained so thoroughly by myself, Marx, Engles, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, and in fact EVERY political theorist who ever discussed the nature of Socialism.

socialism in ONE form of collectivism, which is chracterized by THE STATE'S dominance over the rights of the individual

collectivism over here on the left. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> capitalism over here on the right


Authoritarianism up here in the north
l
l
l
l
l
l
v

Liberty down here in the south.

stop trying to play shabby word games.

the chinese know what socialism and marxism are, they tasted it in Tiananmen Square.

the chinese are now EXPERIMENTING with the forbidden capitalism, but they are not a capitalist state.
The size of the state has nothing to do with socialism you moron, that simple fact negates all the BS you just spewed out. Their state is no different from ours, apart from the fact it's less democratic. Socialism is a system of economics, the chinese are not socialists, they are state capitalists. Hence why they've been floating the idea for the last couple years to change the name of the communist party since that ideology no longer applies with the exception of allowing the government to fall back on "dictatorship of the proletariat" to justify the party's rule.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
and yet they ARE socialists, in that, the society (The State) is far more important than any individual's rights.

THATS the nature of socialism, subjugation to The State, not the touchy feelie crap you WISH socialism meant.

this has been explained so thoroughly by myself, Marx, Engles, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, and in fact EVERY political theorist who ever discussed the nature of Socialism.

socialism in ONE form of collectivism, which is chracterized by THE STATE'S dominance over the rights of the individual

collectivism over here on the left. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> capitalism over here on the right


Authoritarianism up here in the north
l
l
l
l
l
l
v

Liberty down here in the south.

stop trying to play shabby word games.

the chinese know what socialism and marxism are, they tasted it in Tiananmen Square.

the chinese are now EXPERIMENTING with the forbidden capitalism, but they are not a capitalist state.
Oh look, kkkynes is trying to redefine words again.

Socialism does not mean any of the ridiculous crap you just ranted. Socialism means collectivized, nationalized, or worker owned resources and means of production. It could also mean that they are not owned by anyone. Socialism is antonymous with capitalism which means private ownership of the means of production and resources.

Communism means stateless and classless society. The idea that socialism is a step toward communism is a concise definition of Marxism. Communism is but one form of socialism but not all socialists agree with the dictatorship of the proletariat idea of Marxism. That is nationalization which is inherently authoritarian.

New rule, if you want to use the word socialism you must be able to define it.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Oh look, kkkynes is trying to redefine words again.

Socialism does not mean any of the ridiculous crap you just ranted. Socialism means collectivized, nationalized, or worker owned resources and means of production. It could also mean that they are not owned by anyone. Socialism is antonymous with capitalism which means private ownership of the means of production and resources.

Communism means stateless and classless society. The idea that socialism is a step toward communism is a concise definition of Marxism. Communism is but one form of socialism but not all socialists agree with the dictatorship of the proletariat idea of Marxism. That is nationalization which is inherently authoritarian.

New rule, if you want to use the word socialism you must be able to define it.
I would like to know if there is a recognized definition of socialism that does not rely on the signally Marxian term means of production.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You heard it here first folks. Miss KKKynes has officially stated that President Obama is in fact NOT a socialist or communist. Thanks for clearing that up for us Miss KKKynes. The rest of you can now go home, put your pitchforks away and rest easy at night, knowing that Obama is not socialist.

Thanks chap.
actually, Bwana Obama IS an authoritarian collectivist, which IS the definition of a socialist.

example: The State's desire to prevent those with no health insurance from burdening the medical system REQUIRES that all must sacrifice and join O-Care, whether they like it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and whether they need it or not.

The State wants, the individual must obey or suffer the consequences

thats Authoritarianism.

his stated desire is for a "Single Payer" system, which would by definition be a Collectivist System.

and thus with one simple example he demonstrated BOTH of the required chracteristics for a Socialist.

if he simply OFFERED a collectivist option he would be a harmless Communist
if he simply OFFERED a capitalist option he would be a capitalist

he has chosen The Third Way, compulsory semi-collective half-assed capitalism, which is ultimately designed to fail and usher in full collectivism, which makes him a FASCIST.

Mussolini would be proud.
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
I would like to know if there is a recognized definition of socialism that does not rely on the signally Marxian term means of production.
How about workers directly controlling their labor. The right wingers seem really intent on making everyone a Marxist regardless of the reality of Marx's ideas.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I would like to know if there is a recognized definition of socialism that does not rely on the signally Marxian term means of production.
Recognized by whom?

I do not recognize a phrase as signally Marxian even if he coined it. Shakespeare coined hundreds of terms and is even credited by some scholars as the person who standardized the English language. By your logic it would be signally shakespearian to speak in English. You're welcome to use another phrase to convey the same concept so long as it is accurately conveyed.

I do agree it is inadequate though.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Oh look, kkkynes is trying to redefine words again.

Socialism does not mean any of the ridiculous crap you just ranted. Socialism means collectivized, nationalized, or worker owned resources and means of production. It could also mean that they are not owned by anyone. Socialism is antonymous with capitalism which means private ownership of the means of production and resources.

Communism means stateless and classless society. The idea that socialism is a step toward communism is a concise definition of Marxism. Communism is but one form of socialism but not all socialists agree with the dictatorship of the proletariat idea of Marxism. That is nationalization which is inherently authoritarian.

New rule, if you want to use the word socialism you must be able to define it.
ohh look Abandon Intellect is once again splitting a complex issue into only HALF of it's components to criticize the missing portion in absentia.

Communism: all things owned by NOBODY. no economy only sharing.
Capitalism: everything is owned by somebody, or soon will be. you must trade your stuff for a taste of somebody else's stuff. (and yes, The State can be one of those Somebodies)
Socialism: The State owns everything, and if you want something you must justify that want to The State
Fascism: The State owns nearly everything, but RUNS everything, if you want something you must BUY it from the state (or one of it's approved subservient corporations), and even then, The State decides how you may use it.
Anarchy: No State, No Rules, No Society. the economy operates thusly: a guy who wants something hits the guy who has it over the head with a rock.

Socialism is, as it has ever been, the confluence of Authoritarianism, and Collectivism.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ohh look Abandon Intellect is once again splitting a complex issue into only HALF of it's components to criticize the missing portion in absentia.

Communism: all things owned by NOBODY. no economy only sharing.
Capitalism: everything is owned by somebody, or soon will be. you must trade your stuff for a taste of somebody else's stuff. (and yes, The State can be one of those Somebodies)
Socialism: The State owns everything, and if you want something you must justify that want to The State
Fascism: The State owns nearly everything, but RUNS everything, if you want something you must BUY it from the state (or one of it's approved subservient corporations), and even then, The State decides how you may use it.
Anarchy: No State, No Rules, No Society. the economy operates thusly: a guy who wants something hits the guy who has it over the head with a rock.

Socialism is, as it has ever been, the confluence of Authoritarianism, and Collectivism.
There is no part of this based on fact. I should hit you over the head with a dictionary.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
How about workers directly controlling their labor. The right wingers seem really intent on making everyone a Marxist regardless of the reality of Marx's ideas.
Marx did not advocate The Worker directly controlling his labours.

The Worker was to be broken, harnessed, and yoked to a plow for the service of The Authoritarian Socialist State (lamentable bu necessary of course) until the Intellectual Vanguard could magically transform The Authoritarian Socialist State into Stateless Classeless Utopian Communism.


Eventually...

you have just proved you have not read Marx.

fortunately you have no credibility to lose, so at least there's that...
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Marx did not advocate The Worker directly controlling his labours.

The Worker was to be broken, harnessed, and yoked to a plow for the service of The Authoritarian Socialist State (lamentable bu necessary of course) until the Intellectual Vanguard could magically transform The Authoritarian Socialist State into Stateless Classeless Utopian Communism.


Eventually...

you have just proved you have not read Marx.

fortunately you have no credibility to lose, so at least there's that...
Because he wasn't pushing marxism. You're the only one who is doing that.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
I would like to know if there is a recognized definition of socialism that does not rely on the signally Marxian term means of production.
How about breaking it down into components and analyzing the pieces?

What is social?

3: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society
4a : tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others

-ism
1: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

The word society seems to be an important ingredient.
Perhaps to an independent, paraplegic, garbage-munching carnivore these ideas are foreign, but it would seem to me it is a theory/doctrine of human welfare based on cooperative, interdependent relationships in society. But maybe this definition is too vague or broad?
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
Marx did not advocate The Worker directly controlling his labours.

The Worker was to be broken, harnessed, and yoked to a plow for the service of The Authoritarian Socialist State (lamentable bu necessary of course) until the Intellectual Vanguard could magically transform The Authoritarian Socialist State into Stateless Classeless Utopian Communism.


Eventually...

you have just proved you have not read Marx.

fortunately you have no credibility to lose, so at least there's that...
You just proved that not only have you not ready Marx, you get your definitions right wing radio. This is probably the lowest you've sunk in terms of blatant stupidity and out right lying in one thread.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
How about breaking it down into components and analyzing the pieces?

What is social?

3: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society
4a : tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others

-ism
1: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

The word society seems to be an important ingredient.
Perhaps to an independent, paraplegic, garbage-munching carnivore these ideas are foreign, but it would seem to me it is a theory/doctrine of human welfare based on cooperative, interdependent relationships in society. But maybe this definition is too vague or broad?
Oh Oh, you've just opened yourself up to a phonetic barrage... Brace yourself
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
There is no part of this based on fact. I should hit you over the head with a dictionary.
ORLY?

All from http://www.britannica.com/

communism, the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.


fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period.


Sadly Britannica has no entry for Anarchy, only the varietal Pick-a-Mix subsets of "Anarcho-_________ism"

however, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy has an excellent definition of Anarchy:

an·ar·chy
noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\ : a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws




[h=2]Full Definition of ANARCHY[/h]1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature &#8212; Israel Shenker>

3
: anarchism

See anarchy defined for English-language learners »

See anarchy defined for kids »






WHOOPS!!!

 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You just proved that not only have you not ready Marx, you get your definitions right wing radio. This is probably the lowest you've sunk in terms of blatant stupidity and out right lying in one thread.
so, Marx did NOT assert that the Authoritarian Socialist State was a lamentable but necessary step on the road to the Worker's Paradise?

he did not assert that the Proles (after being radicalized into the Glorious Revolution) must be De-Radicalized through a Dictatorship, before they could advance to Communist Utopia?

he did NOT assert that the "Means Of Production" must be Nationalized and controilled by The Authoritarian Socialist State until the magical Communist Evolution made The State obsolete?

you really dont know ANYTHING about marxism, socialism, communism, or apparently what Anarchy really means.

what DO you know? perhaps we can start with something simple:

 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Since when is britannica a dictionary? Notice the format describes vernacular usage and not facts. Did you even read it? Britannica doesn't define words. It is so broad that it doesn't bolster your argument or mine, despite your big blue font and declaration of victory. It is just another weak attempt on your part to redefine words.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Funny how every post you make revolves around a misreading of Marx until you try to back up your attempts at redefining every word, then it is britannica. Telling indeed.
defending Marxism from legitimate criticism of their STATED GOALS, advocating EXACTLY THE SAME policies as Marxism, and supporting politicians and organizations which are the very definition of Marxism, makes you "Not A Marxist", and you claim i'm the one with a poor grasp of the language.

that's what is truely telling.
 
Top