@DolceEbellaAldrin This is the first time i hear about any "jealousy for the rich" and "Killing off parents". It's amazing how missguided you are. Where do you get this stuff? I find your ignorance amusing though
Dear Mr. Communists. If you all so desire to live in Utopia plz visit Cuba, China, Europe, and stay there. You can take your jealousy of the rich and become poor, tax yourself and starve, you can kill your parents, your God, your business, your freedom, but dear Mr. Communist, you can do all of that, without taking others with you. And needless to say, you will always be alone.
@DolceEbellaAldrin Your comment is very funny, it demonstrate pretty well that you know nothing about socialism and communism. Have you ever read a socialist or a communist book? Have you ever discuss with a communist? Have you ever try to see the history from the side of the soviet? I'm sure you didn't. I hope that one day you will see that the crap you say do not make sense. Inform yourself about the two side of the conflict is the best way to get out of ignorance.
Barry Soetoro, Political name, Obama, NOT a evil man . Just narcissistic, egotistical, ultra Liberal neo Socialist, a professional charismatic political obfuscator who truly believes in a Nanny State form of Gov ! He too is a BIG Tax & Spend entitlement PIMP! Believes Gov is the answer, which is contrary to what R Constitution clearly teaches. That's why he surrounds himself with Socialists & unaccountable hand picked Czars friends & adviser.
2012 can not come soon enough. The quicker we get rid of this rat bastard, ass clown, unAmerican traitor, the better off this country will be.
Those they put this piece of shit in office are personally responsible for our plight today.
We have generated a generation totally without morals, etchics or any sense of right or wrong. These pathetic pieces of shit just think that everything that I have is theirs. They are completely without morals.
Oooooooo these posters are sooo similar! They just happen to be making the same face really, and there were a lot more propaganda posters from the USSR, those were only a couple. PS. Socialism is actually the answer if you can understand what it really is...
To all you Socialist defenders on this video, i will leave you an inarguable fact to think about. Israel, a nation founded on free enterprise and controlled Capitalism grew to flourish economically in a short 62 years(Independence declared in 1948). they have a great quality of life and all is well. The Soviet Union had an economic boost due to WW2 and from then their economy slowly deteriorated because of their socialist/communist policies. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Israel Does.
@TheMetro510 Yea, they exist, and supress thousands of poor Palestines. Israël got pretty much rich because they received a crapload of money from other countries. And they are jews, jews are always good with money XD. That's why Russians hate 'em XD. And about the Soviet economy, it was the second largest in the world. Also see China, communist and prospering.
@SloveintzWend Sure, that's why they call themselves communist right? They used to be maoist, but now they call themselves market-communists. There is nothing fascist about China.
@TheJodofe What on earth is a "market-communism"? Communists running on capitalism, right. OK they may be communists, but surely they don't have socialism let alone communism in China.
Ban the socialist library! Everybody ought to pay to use the books! This is the argument of idiot Tea Baggers. Just look at um at a rally, a bunch of old worn out Nazi types. Yes, the Tea Party and the rest of the right-wing scum are that dumb!
WHAT THE FUCK HAS HE DONE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOCIALIST!!! PASSING A HEALTHCARE BILL THAT STRENGTHENS CROOKED PRIVATE HEALTHCARE COMPANIES HOLD ON THE PEOPLE IS ANYTHING BUT SOCIALIST! AND "BAILING OUT" PRIVATE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS ISN'T SOCIALIST IT'S FUCKING CORPORATIST! FAR RIGHT WING SHIT IS WHAT IT IS! YOU REPUBLICANS AND TEA PARTIERS ARE THE VERY DUMBEST PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET! EVEN IF YOU WERE FUCKING GOD I WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESPECT FOR YOU!
@fishontuesday You don't know what the fuck you're on about retard. Obama is the embodiment of socialism. Everything he does is based on Socialist and Communist doctrines. Seriously, go back to sleep.
@32GaugeSince when do Communists like private enterprises of any kind. Calling me names doesn't make you correct. You need to name some specific examples. There's a difference between saying your right and proving your right. Please I would love to see exactly what Socialist things obama has done. A progressive income tax might be the only Socialist thing he supports. But also remember socialism is multi tendency so you can't compare issues like gun control. Only major economic issues/structure
@fishontuesday The general focus on entitlement, funded by increasing taxes on the rich, is inherently socialist. Obama himself has said he wants to "spread the wealth." If that isn't a Marxist ideal, then I don't know what is. Plus, look at the people he surrounds himself with. I really don't see what the debate is on the issue. It is blatantly obvious, and no amount of rhetoric can cover it up.
@thewritingwriterof89 It's a progressive ideal that has been around before Marx and he liked the ideal and adopted it to be a part of his philiosophy. The communists focus on things other than progressive income taxes you know. And after Marx denounced many Socialists as "utopians" they distanced themselves from him on the principle that they didn't like central planning and he thought it was essential to transform society into it's ideal stage. Most regular Socialists are co-op lovers instead.
@fishontuesday What you say is absolutely true, but what I'm saying is that when you look at the people in Obama's inner circle of advisors, you have to take the Marxian brand of socialism to which they ascribe into account. It's not like this is a big secret or something. It's just totally ignored by the media. Many of his cabinet members are on video tape noting their admiration for Communist dictators and philosophers. That is simply not compatible with the vast majority of Americans.
@thewritingwriterof89 Sorry I wouldve adressed that but theres a length limit! I know all about his affiliations with marxists. I didn't want you to have an image of Socialists that is smeared by the communists. We aim to create a real democratic society not an unaccountable bureacracy. Please join the Socialist party. sp-usa.com and learn what we're about, you might be impressed and feel free to ask any questions or talk to me about politics.
@fishontuesday Well, I respect some elements of democratic socialism, even though I don't agree with it. After all, Orwell was a socialist, and he wrote some of the greatest works on liberty and freedom ever composed. So I do "get it", I just place a reverent status on the individual, and his hard earned money/possessions. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money," and I really don't think a better, more concise argument can be made.
@thewritingwriterof89 I do think that some Socialists have quite frankly taken it too far.I don't think that everybody should be paid exactly the same amount of money or anything like that. But the fact is billionnare CEO's don't produce billions if you understand what I mean. MOST Socialists in the U.S.A including me believe that people willing to work hard and get education required jobs should be rewarded even more. This includes inventors and related occupation BTW.
@thewritingwriterof89 Look I'm not about penalizing or disabling hard work i'm about disabling corrupt hard work. Capitalism makes me feel like a tool to be used. Once the stage is set for the rich it basically stays that way. Rags tor riches stories are becoming increasingly rare.
@fishontuesday But see, the fundamental truth that I see socialists ignoring is that we are all playing by the same rules. There is no law telling a poor person he can't educate himself, and make millions, if not billions of dollars. In fact, this is exactly the case in countless success stories. So many wealthy business men were once poor students, or born into a poor family. I place my faith in the drive of the individual, not the ability of govt. to help sustain someone.
@thewritingwriterof89 There isn't much room at the top of the pyramid. Capitalism is destructive. We could live so much better without it. Theres enough houses for everybody but theres homeless. There about 12 times more food then necessary in the world according to WHO but there were still famines in Ethiopia. Because of individual drive (in the corrupt business owner sense) you get all this money that nobody really needs and yet theres others who do need atleast something.
@thewritingwriterof89 Because of ridiculous income disparities many people can't get the things theres surpluses of. And theres a huge surplus of everything imaginable! Capitalism is just so unproductive. And because hard work is rewarded more in MY society I believe it puts forth the good kind of personal drive.
@fishontuesday Why do you naturally think rich business men are corrupt? I just don't understand the idea that the rich are inherently corrupt because of their wealth. The United States donates more to charity and world causes than any other country in the world, and it is still fiercely capitalist. That doesn't sound like the product of haughty, snide business men to me. Give me one example where a socialist government has been more productive than a capitalist one. It just doesn't happen.
@thewritingwriterof89 I don't. But don't you think that a corporation like NIKE using labor in Indonesia for less than half a dollar an hour (including child labor) with harsh laws against talking and forced overtime of 16 hours! Doesn't it seem atleast slightly corrupt to be doing that to make billions of dollars and record profits? As for your question, Venezuelas economic growth after the oil strike in 2003 was very impressive but I think they need to further diversify.
@thewritingwriterof89 I'm not to hot about a Socialist gvt as much as I am about a Socialist workplace. Support our workers, give them the oppurtunity for personal drive. I was trying to make it clear that I don't like central planning!!!!
@fishontuesday Public libraries exist for a reason (and are often built from the funds of super-rich businessmen). Anyone can go and learn. No amount of social stratification can deny someone this, especially not in America. It is still the land of opportunity, we just seem to be giving up on it as of late.
@thewritingwriterof89 Try to justify capitalism all you want but when I see a corporation bribe politicians millions or billions of dollars I know somethings wrong. I know that my democracy is becoming obsolete because of extravagantly rich people defending their personal intirests. I cry for democracy and the fullest potential for personal success without the harming of others personal success. It's times humans evolved again. No more person fuck over other person, instead person help peron.
@fishontuesday calm down man ... the guy that made this video is most likely just a jewish new world order scum that is making these binaural beat videos to make ppl look like crazy conspiracy theorist that scream the thruth but dont waste your tongue on these dumbasses and i like your comment
and you couldn't find any pictures more incriminating than those? come on. obama is very far away from beeing a socialist. in europe, he would be in a rightwing party.
It just propaganda. It doesn't matter, who use these methods... Or somebody think that there is no propaganda in US? LoL! It's more brainwashing then in China or North Korea.
socialism is the only anwser to any problem but tell me what do you gain from capitalism , capital, and hate towards others but the soviets told their people that everyone was their friend except the faschists
@ComradeChad actualy non of the both communism or socialism are simillar to faschism faschism encourages racism while both communism and socialism encoureges brotherhood unity and harmony stalin was the only negative comunist dictator while tito, castro, wang, lenin are all positive persons i gues gorbachev is positive to but he made very poor decisions , while under Josip broz tito he did not need any propaganda for the people to love him and noone was killed during his rule , btw im yugoslavia
@ComradeChad Lol, are people really debating still over Communism? It simply won't work because it's impossible to develope trade and market prices, because nothing is traded or sold, everything is produced by the government, therefor since there is no "Market Prices" no one will know who's in need of what, for instance in a capitalist economy, Wheat might be VERY high in price, what's that saying? It means people are going to grow more wheat to meet the demands.
@PivotB3stZ It would be based on need, and a free press. All communistic governments have failed due to lack of a free press. They suffer from corruption. A free press is the best cure. If what they do is right and just, they should be able to defend their actions in open debate.
@ComradeChad but what if soy beans are very low and not high at all? It means that people aren't in need or barely any need at all, which, will have a lot of Farmers stopping their growing for soy beans.
In a communist country this would be impossible to figure out, there isn't a supply and demand there is just what the government produces, so what if people are doign extremely poor on milk, the government has no idea, and the government won't do anything to solve the problem, therefor
@ComradeChad affecting cheese, cream, ice cream, and any other dairy product. Which will start a whole other "Tree" which starts a large scale famine, and what if it's something more important then milk? What if it's something like Wheat? Not a lot of wheat means not a lot of Bread, etc. and not a lot of Bread could lead to other disasters. Oh btw Communist is completely against human nature, so that could also be a problem...
You Americans had a little too much brainwashing going on during the Cold War i guess, hahaha sure Obama a Communist. Oh Jesus is so not ready for this World if he comes back, you guys would be the first to call him Communist haha ^^
Really? Because from my readings of the Gospel, Jesus at no point advocated a large overwhelming State, as modern Communists, as well as Obama, do. Further, he never advocated a bloody revolution, as "Classical Communists" did. Further Marx was not only extremely anti-religion, but also a raging anti-semite. Both views I suspect Jesus would abhor.
@sgtkpf Jesus was against Banks and that there are rich people who can buy everything and on the other side people who dont even have money to buy food! And by the way Marx wasnt an anti-semite! He was a jew himself btw! And no he was not a self-hating jew i heard that many times lol thank god I can speak Germans and read his books in the original way!
It's simply untrue that Jesus was against banks. Further, while Jesus certainly believed that wealth should be distributed, he felt it should be done so because the person who had it was willing to. Communism demands it be taken at the tip of the sword/gun. That is stealing. I suspect Jesus did not believe in breaking one of the commandmants. Further, you read "Germans?" There's more than one German language? Again, Marx did hate Jews, and more he hated religion in general. Jesus? No.
@sgtkpf Capitalists, and the "Christian rich" have generally NEVER followed "evangelical princples", or even those of the early "Church Fathers" in this regard (ex. John Chrysostom said any wealth held above one's needs while another was in want was "theft".) This is a fact.
The implicit economics of the "Four Gospels" is FAR closer to anarcho-communism than capitalism of any flavor - voluntary, communistic society where all wealth was common, each receiving according to their needs.
First of all, the first statement that you made wasn't even an attempt at a fact. It was clearly a generalization, and to label it as anything else (esspecially to do so so emphatically) is intellectually dishonest. The fact is Capitalism (both theoretical and practical) fits much more closely with the Scriptures than collectivism. The idea of property is strewn through out the Old Testament. And "Give unto Ceaser..." hardly sounds anti-State....
@sgtkpf In Marxism "communism" is something to be attained, not an immediate reality - that is a distinctive of Marxism in it's "theory of revolution"; a long term plan of eventually affecting stateless communism via a program of socialism.
OTOH. Anarchist-Communists do not subscribe to a hard plan of progressive socialism - some are troubled by socialism insofar as it still involves wages and private property (outside of capital.) These people are definitely "anti-state."
@sgtkpf wrt. to anti-semitism; an unfortunately common reality throughout much of western history. However we owe much of this venom to Christianity (if not the "historical Jesus" who may or may not have existed), which seeded a profound enmity against the Jews into western culture, by giving it a religious dimension (deicide.) And you're right - the character in the New Testament and similar period literature gives every indication of being a pacifist.
While there have been many anti-semite Christians, it is entirely unfair to link the two. The vast majority of famous (or more likely) infamous anti-semites have been anti-theists. Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Neitzche, Hegel, to most of America's modern Left. Further, it's my understanding that it is more or less accepted as fact that a person loosely fitting the "Historical Jesus" description did in fact exist.
P.S. ... and btw., SOCIALISM (which is not the welfare state) is essentially worker control over the means of production. Those who do, ought to be decision makers and self managing.
.
Gawd, that sounds awful!
.
So yes, socialism IS the answer to MANY of our problems. I am an anarchist, and hence, a socialist in the purest sense.
@ClosetRadical You're a moron in the purest sense. You want to steal from others to advocate a plan that has never worked. Also, you should clearify that you are a left wing anarchist. A right wing anarchist isn't quite as idiotic as you.
You: You want to steal from others to advocate a plan that has never worked.
Me: Actually, WHEN tried (rarely), it has - both collectivized Spain and the Paris Commune were crushed by reactionary forces, not due to an internal failing. Nor do I advocate theft - the defense of such is the job of the apologists of wage slavery and so called "title property."
You: Also, you should clearify that you are a left wing anarchist. A right wing anarchist isn't quite as idiotic as you.
Me: There is no such thing as a "right wing anarchist." I know there are people who call themselves such silly things, but this is like being a "Christian Porn Star." People can call themselves anything they want, but such terms as "anarcho capitalism" are incoherent - such persons may be "anti-state", but they are not opposed to exploitation (anarchism.)
@ClosetRadical No, you make no sense, a right wing anarchist believes in their individual rights. A left wing anarchist is a communist without government.. Government is replaced by society. When workers seize control after murdering their bosses everything goes to shit, since they have no knowledge of how to do the job of the skilled workers. Yes, take everything and let it all turn to crap.
You: No, you make no sense, a right wing anarchist believes in their individual rights. A left wing anarchist is a communist without government..
Me: If you understood what communism was, you'd realize that wasn't a put down. Yes, the goal is communism - just like you have in your family, unless you're in a household of sociopaths. What you call "individualism" is really just code-speak for "acquisitiveness and greed." Property without possession is the whole reason for state-power.
@ClosetRadical You make no sense. Just because someone is successful it does not make them a sociopath. Communism is the politics of envy and greed. It is the transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. It's just a political form of thievery. Families help each other when they need it, but to say that families strive for communism is untrue.
You: You make no sense. Just because someone is successful it does not make them a sociopath.
Me: "Successful"? How do you mean?
You: Communism is the politics of envy and greed.
Me: If you mean actual communism (each according to his ability, each according to his need), I marvel at that appraisal. Sounds mighty greedy. Or how this could be "greedy" as opposed to the limitless acquisitiveness of capitalism - that's equally baffling.
You: When workers seize control after murdering their bosses everything goes to shit, since they have no knowledge of how to do the job of the skilled workers. Yes, take everything and let it all turn to crap.
Me: ...and thank-you for this elitist P.R. You're just repeating the same old lie, that the rulers constitute a "league of expertise" - and whatever would we do without them! Nevermind that professionals and experts ARE "workers."
@ClosetRadical No, I'm saying it's wrong to steal from others for personal or collectivist gain. Do you support bank robbers, car thieves, and murderers? Do support taking the homes from people who worked all their lives to obtain them? Do you support lowering the quality of life across an entire country just to make it even? A small representative government is ideal, a large overbearing government or no government have proven to never work. My beliefs do not make rulers "experts".
You: No, I'm saying it's wrong to steal from others for personal or collectivist gain.
Me: Before we can even discuss theft, we'd have to be clear on what constitutes "ownership." in this society it's just ASSUMED (quite religiously really) that there is a "right" of people to endless "acquire", and more to the point, the obligation of their fellow men to honor this, even when they are harmed by this (hence why the state was born with the first pretense of "private property.") (cont'd)
You: Do support taking the homes from people who worked all their lives to obtain them?
Me: Someone's home? Of course not. If you mean their palace, gained through systematic fraud, while others are homeless - I consider it a species of self defense on the part of the later to do what they must to survive. You expect them to roll over and die for the fictive property of "the rich." And that is who you, and those like you are apologists for - not the common man, or his limited goods.
@sgtkpf Depends on what you mean by "look up" - if you mean a typical desktop dictionary, forget it - it's not the only topic where the reality is muddled (for instance, most definitions of "socialism" in said sources betray an ignorance of anything but so called "state socialism.")
.
Anarchism begins in association with 19th century socialism. Even the slightly later emerging "individualist anarchists" (like Stirner or Tucker) were decisively anti-capitalist. (cont'd)
@sgtkpf (cont'd) Actual anarchists are opposed to anything resembling "rulers" - that's not simply a comment on the state, but things as varied as exploitive economics or religious dogma. This is aside from the obvious fact that capitalism relies on state power, or will favor it inevitably. This is even clear in the old works of the classical liberals. So called "right Libertarianism" (another word stolen from the so called "left") is a relatively late development.
So the meanings of words aren't important? Archos is PRECISELY "simply a comment on the State." Even if it weren't, your assertion that an employer is a "ruler," as opposed to another participant in a contract is nonsense, meaning if you were right, you're still wrong. Finally your claim that laissez-faire economics rely on the state is easily the farthest removed from reality statement that I have ever read, esspecially from one who favors an economy necessitating State command.
You: So the meanings of words aren't important? Archos is PRECISELY "simply a comment on the State.
Me: The problem is that "rulers" come in many forms. What is the real difference between a "state", and say, privatized power which supposedly "owns" a given place? if anything, the latter is even more tyrannical - at least the state has the trappings of democracy and some level of public accountability. It all amounts to coercive, unaccountable "authority."
This is simply untrue. Rulers do not come in many forms. Unless you mean a straight-edge, ruler refers to one who governs. Further, it is ridiculous to claim that ownership makes one a ruler, and I suspect that's why you have not explained this idea, but rather said it and carried on.
I didn't say that. But I also see similarities between a basketball and the planet. Does not mean they are the same by any stretch of the imagination. I think you see too many (mostly non-existant) similarities.
Fair enough. I myself have run up against the character limit myself more than once. I may have been rash in assuming it was cut and run. But I know personally that I follow up when I run out of room. And despite what you may think, you did'nt do all that great.
You: But I also see similarities between a basketball and the planet. Does not mean they are the same by any stretch of the imagination. I think you see too many (mostly non-existant) similarities.
Me: As you've seen by now, I further explain my meaning in another posting. Again, I thought I was being clear.
I did not say here that you failed to back it up, but rather that your attempt to do so was wrong. It's not a lack of clarity but a lack of correctness that I am addressing here. The Fuedal Lord was an arm of the State, who owned the land. That is clearly not the case with a landlord, and capitalism requires that he not be. Further, under Fuedalism the serf had no recourse against his landlord. Under Anarchy, the tennent has methods of recourse against contract infringement.
You: This is simply untrue. Rulers do not come in many forms. Unless you mean a straight-edge, ruler refers to one who governs.
Me: If "property" entails the right to dispose of something as one see's fit (and to deny this to others over a given "thing"), how does that NOT involve "governance"? Esp. when we begin touching upon things and resources essential to others' livelihood and sustenance? "Anarcho-capitalism" would amount to neo-feudalism.
Freedom of speech gives me the right to say as I wish, and not to be forced to say what others want me to. The right to property works in the same way. It is actually antithetical to goverance. Governance is telling one what they can or cannot do with their OWN properrty/body/words.
Further, Anarchism (there is no non-caoitalistic anarchy) is not neo-fuedalism. While there are some similarities the gigantic difference is that fuedalism was State backed.
You: Even if it weren't, your assertion that an employer is a "ruler," as opposed to another participant in a contract is nonsense, meaning if you were right, you're still wrong.
Me: We're beating around the bush here - the problem we're really dancing around but not addressing directly is that "property" and notions of what constitutes ownership. The culture of acquisitiveness which thinks there is anything natural about "possessions without possession" is the problem.
The claim that possesion is unnatural is easily in the top five most ludicrous assertions that I have ever read/heard. nearly every animal expresses some form of territoriality. The space they claim as their's is their possesion. It is not a cultural phenomenon, but rather a fact of human nature, which is precisely why the idea of a collectivist anarchist is such an absurd contradiction in terms.
You: The claim that possesion is unnatural is easily in the top five most ludicrous assertions that I have ever read/heard
Me: You're misrepresenting what I said - I've continually made a distinction between ACTUAL "possession"/use and "title." The former is unobjectionable, and natural - the latter is a racket, which REQUIRES a concentration of power which monopolizes violence, as "human nature" without this is intolerant of such parasitism in it's midst.
I did not misrepresent what you said. The bird who is out hunting for food does not relinquish its ownership of the nest. There is no difference between this and title. Esspecially with land, not property can be "possessed" 100% of the time. Consequently "possesion without possesion" is a necessary part of possession in general. Clearly this is part of human nature, and animal nature in general.
Further, to see that you are wrong about Capitalism requiring the State, one need only look at the Mafia (or any gang.) The Mafia performs most of its activities outside the scope of the law. The Mafia's property rights are enforced not by the State, but by a private police force of sorts. This is the epitome of how Capitalism is enforced in Anarchy. Even if this Anarcho-Mafia existed Socialistically within its ranks, it would subordinate other communes.
@sgtkpf Thank you for the candor (anarcho-capitalism and the "mobster society" it would bring us.) You're being a bit of a "label queen" tho - that you don't see the meaningful similarity between "the gang in Queens" and the "gang in Washington" is probably one of the reasons why this conversation has been so dragged out. Just because it lacks a flag, or a lot of the later trappings of "establishment" does not mean we're not talking about the same beast.
I absolutely think Anarcho-Capitalism would lead to a terrible situation. Or Anarcho-Collectivism, were it possible. I have never claimed to be an Anarchist. I like the protection that the State provides, of my life, liberty, and property. I just wish it would do more protecting and less administering... You seem to define "State" as any body that defend property. Under that definition I am a State if I sit on my porch with a shotgun. I hardly think an individual can be a State.
This is precisely why Collectivist-Anarchy can not exist off paper, and why Anarchy is neccesarily Capitalist. I would think that someone who constantly smears Capitalism as exploitive would realize that unchecked Capitalism would exploit. It would appear you are guilty of doublethink, not something I wouldn't expect from most Socialists that I'ver met.
You: Finally your claim that laissez-faire economics rely on the state is easily the farthest removed from reality statement that I have ever read, esspecially from one who favors an economy necessitating State command.
Me: Capitalism REQUIRES state power. Neo-liberal revisionism aside, all of the classical liberals understood this. You've got it completely backward.
Again, it is ironic that you have the idea that Capitalism requires State power, when it is precisely the opposite. It is collectivist ideologies that require State power. Further, your ownideas contradict this. You think Capitalism necessarily oppresses, by it's very nature. Yet you feel that when you take away the force that keeps it from oppressing, that it will dissolve. Capitalism flourishes in the absence of the State, because there is no check on individual power/property.
You: Again, it is ironic that you have the idea that Capitalism requires State power, when it is precisely the opposite.
Me: Capitalism requires the state, and the state requires ideology - for the violence of the state, and it's monopoly upon it, cannot last with liberated minds. Hence, why my understanding of this struggle is that it is essentially psychological/cultural, not militant. (cont'd)
You: It is collectivist ideologies that require State power.
Me: I'm not sure what you're imagining when I decry capitalism - do you think I have some imagining of the creation of a "welfare state", forced redistribution of goods by centralized power, etc.? This isn't my meaning at all - I'm simply opposed to a series of "golden calves" which go so assumed, that they are taken to be characteristic of the "natural condition" of man and social-economic relations.
It is precisely property beyond possession, and claiming as one's own which is NOT directly the product one's own work, which I oppose. I am not arguing against "free markets" - that is not capitalism. The idea that one can withhold what he has no need of from another and not be regarded (and treated) as his enemy is absurd. If a society will not be plunged back into "state craft" of one form or another, it will be because society will not tolerate this kind of parasitism.
The biggest problem with your ideas is that they run in stark contradition to human history. The State is not inherant to humanity. I would assume that as an anarchist you recognize this. And I assume that we can both agree that one (but not the sole) purpose of the State was to protect property not physically held by the owner. But why would the State be formed to protect it if it didn't exist? And if it did exist before the State, then it clearly can exist without th State.
You: The State is not inherant to humanity. I would assume that as an anarchist you recognize this.
Me: It's not inherent, but in a sense the world we actually have is very much "built on the shoulders of ignorance" - a static appraisal of humans in history, or the pretense that there is an objective moral standard by which we may judge both OURSELVES and our ancestors is, IMHO, very incorrect. Simply put, the moral horizons of said antique persons were lower and nearer. (cont'd)
The biggest problem lies in this disscussion though. Look how off topic we've gotten. In response to a video about Obama's Statist-like tendencies we are arguing about what it means to be a Libertarian/Anarchist. Obama is clearly not a Libertarian of any stripe collectivist, or individualist. The man grow the State by the day. The argument has become whether Socialist is an appropriate label for him. It's idiotic while he infringes more and more on Liberty.
@sgtkpf I was only following the conversation as it evolved. You keep asking questions, making points directed my way, I keep responding. That's how conversations are - they evolve and grow.
.
That said, Obama is not a socialist. I don't see worker control over the means of production or worker self management in his platform. If "bread and circuses" or public charity deserve to be called "socialism", than everyone from monarchs through to state-capitalists are "socialists."
Haha. You misunderstand. That wasn't a criticism of you. If I had wanted to reshape the conversation, I would have done so. That's an idictment of the U.S. people and of the current administration. Obama and his cohorts are master propagandists, and have artfully changed the debate. Not just you and I, but the entire country debates whether list or not. The label is irrelevant. He is doing irreperable damage.
However, you are way off in your assessment of whether or not Obama is a Socialist. He has started on a path towards Government ownership of the means of production, and has made great strides in that direction. Also, he turned GM over to the labor union. Sounds kind of like worker self-management to me. Further the Welfare State is precisely Socialism. And you say "everyone from monarchs through to state-capitalists" as if there were a big difference. (cont.)
You: He has started on a path towards Government ownership of the means of production, and has made great strides in that direction.
Me: Well, that's my point - it's precisely why I (and Anarchists in general, as well as orthodox Marxists for that matter) do not regard the USSR as having been "socialist" - state ownership with the public as employees is state capitalism. And has GM been "given to the union"? Really? :-) It hasn't man, you know this.
But the State is made up of the citizens. While you could make the argument that the USSR was not of, for, and by the people (and you'd clearly be right) in the USSR there was clearly COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production. There for it was Communist. Further, absolutely GM has been given to the UAW. Absolutely.
Also, something you've said several times that bothers me. You seem to be under the impression that wage-labor is exploitative. This is not the case, and the perpetuation of this myth suggests an ignorange of economics.
The fact is, there is little difference. What you have labeled "state-capitalists" (a ridiculous phrase) The political spectrum has come full circle. Classical Conservatives favored religious Statism under the authority of an autocratic King. Modern Liberals favor secular Statism under the authority of an autocratic Glorious Leader, or Fuher, or General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. There's little difference.
So I agree, the state, religion, etc. are not "inherent" to man. But to have this kind of conversation, to even have these greater possibilities, required all of this "water to pass under the bridge." In this sense, I do agree with Marx, at least on many points of his historical analysis (in which he understood socialism, and later, stateless communism, as a consequence of human progress overcoming crisis.) (cont'd)
You: But why would the State be formed to protect it if it didn't exist? And if it did exist before the State, then it clearly can exist without th State.
Me: The act of asserting one's "ownership" over such property IS the creation of the state - it's state power in genesis. It would be terribly superficial to not observe the commonality between such exercises of coercive authority and later manifestations of more "formal" governance and rule. The latter begins in the former.
This is simply untrue. It is a ridiculous misrepresentation of "the State" to characterize it as any defence of property, or title, if you will. While this is certainly a function of the State you appear to be claiming it is the sole function of the State. Simply untrue. I currently protect my property both in and out of my possesion. I am hardly a State.
If you want proof, consider the fact that every (you may be an exception, but than you are the only one) Left-Wing "anarchist" supports the Welfare State. Even if you were correct in theory (you're not) this proves that in practice collectivists support not only a State but a massive and intrusive State.
@sgtkpf Which anarchists "support the welfare state"? If you mean pragmatically, that anarchists/libertarians would prefer to see hijacked dollars go to helping the poor than end up say, in weapons of war - of course. But I'm unaware of any anarchist who supports the "welfare state" - quite a few describe such a situation, like wage labor, as inherently degrading.
.
It is conceits of "property" beyond actual possession which requires state power to maintain/enforce.
Chomsky for one. Van Jones, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Jed Bradnt. And that's just off the top of my head. There are dozens of academic pieces by "anarchists" expressing support for the Welfare State.
@sgtkpf Noam Chomsky pragmatically supports welfare spending in the sense I qualified before. None of the other people you mentioned are Anarchists. Why bring them up in a discussion of Anarchism? Neither Lenin nor Stalin were even orthodox Marxists/Libertarian-Marxists, let alone Anarchists.
.
Now if you can name some of these "dozens of academic pieces" which do not pragmatically support welfare spending in the way I mentioned, but actually think it's a desirable condition, I'm "all ears."
Those other individuals are certainly Anarchists. They at the very least pay lip service to Marx, who was allegedly an Anarchist. But you've simply proved my point. The fact is that collectivists are necessarily not Anarchists. Is it a coincidene that every single time Marxism has been tried it is in a Statist form? Everyone who has tried to apply Socialism/Communism/Marxism has been a totalitarian. Collectivism outside of academia is neccesarily Statist. You proved my point.
You: Those other individuals are certainly Anarchists.
Me: Then I'm the King of France. Seriously man, come on...
You: They at the very least pay lip service to Marx, who was allegedly an Anarchist.
Me: You are aware that the First Workers International broke up PRECISELY because of the differences between Marxists and Anarchists, right? How does that make Karl Marx an "anarchist"? Never mind that most so called "Marxists" are in fact Bolsheviks (NOT orthodox Marxists.) (cont'd)
If you, and everyone who agrees with you calls themselves the King of France, we may change the definition, don't you think? You yourself have said repeatedly that the phrase Libertarian has been hijacked. Why is this any different?
I am told (though I've never seen it in any of his writings) that Marx argued for the abolition of the State. How is that not Anarchy?
You: Is it a coincidene that every single time Marxism has been tried it is in a Statist form?
Me: I'm not a Marxist (tho Marx & Engels have some good points.) Being surprised that there are statist elements inherent in Marxism makes me wonder how much you actually understand said theory of revolution. Marx was basically a revolutionary gradualist - he believed the first step toward creating a stateless society was the creation of "dictatorship of the proletariat." (cont'd)
Firstly, I would like to apologize. I made an assumption. Every other Leftist I have argued has self-identified as a Marxist. Further, they have claimed that Marx was an Anarchist. I was answering their claims, assuming you felt the same way. Again, I apologize for the assumption.
So of course Marxism always begins "statist." Which is ultimately the source of the schism between Marx and his followers and the Anarchists. To be fair to the orthodox Marxists, history has only known of Bolshevik/Leninist "Marxist" revolutions, or ideological children of said school of thought (Maoism, Hoxaism, etc.) Like the orthodox Marxists, I regard Bolshevism as an essential corruption of Marxism (it replaced "dictatorship of the prols" with vanguardism.)(cont'd)
All of that said, I'm not a Marxist. Marxism is not anarchism, save in that it's long term goals are similar (Marx believed the state could be transformed and devolved; communism being possible not up front, but as a consequence of technological and infrastructure development that would create the necessary surpluses for "each according to his ability, each according to his need.")
.
Anarchists reject "dictatorship of the proletariat." Again, not a small thing.
Again, I apologize. You have to unders've become a bit jaded. Most on your side of the aisle demand that Marx was in fact an Anarchist. I'm so used to arguing that, that I was arguing that point, without you having said it. I apologize.
You: veryone who has tried to apply Socialism/Communism/Marxism has been a totalitarian. Collectivism outside of academia is neccesarily Statist. You proved my point.
Me: You obviously have heard nothing of the "Paris Commune" or Anarchist Spain during the Spanish civil war. In truth, one may call themselves whatever they want - this doesn't make it so. A totalitarian "socialist" is a contradiction in terms. The USSR devolved into state-capitalism, esp. Stalin onward.
Now I'm often presented with Spanish "Anarchism" when I make this claim. Now, I'm certainly not on expert in this area, but my understanding is that the farms were collectivized. This collectivization was enforced. How this enforcing power was not the "State" I have never had answered. How is enforcing collectivist ownership of property any different from enforcing individual ownership of property? Further, these groups still identified as Spaniards, meaning the Spain existied.
@sgtkpf You (Y): Now, I'm certainly not on expert in this area, but my understanding is that the farms were collectivized. This collectivization was enforced.
Me (M): Fair question. The answer touches upon why I say anarchism is not simply "anti-state", but is opposed generally to what is essentially problematic about the state - exploitation and unaccountable power. That doesn't just apply to government, but to every sphere of life. Anarchism IS ultimately, an ETHICAL position. (cont'd)
Firstly, Anarchy is merely anti-state. You can be an Anarchist who hates your boss, but the two are not NECESSARILY related. Further, you seem to have this idea that Capitalism is necessarily exploitative. This is not the case. In fact, in most case it is not even practically exploitative. Further, no power is unaccountable, as history has shown. Even the most Machiavellian Autocrat must practice at least SOME level of restraint, as Machiavelli himself made clear.
Me: No, it means "no rulers" - and that has never been simply understood as an attack simply on crowns and nation states. All of that said, these are historical notes - while the first to "raise the black flag" were all socialists of one flavor or another, it is true that now there are others who have taken upon themselves the title and think as you. Honestly, I'm less concerned about the term than the substance of what we each mean. (contd)
I'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I know. However that is neither here nor there. The fact is in the absnce of rulers, Capitalism is the default condition. Finally, you seem to be of the impression that I am an Anarchist, Capitalist or otherwise. This is simply not the case. I am what you would call a Clissical Liberal, but what by all rights is today known as a Libertarian.
@sgtkpf You: I'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I knowI'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I know.
Me: "An-Arkhos" (as in "archons" - rulers.) Y'know, I think the simplest thing that could be said is this. "The State" is something we both oppose. HOWEVER, I believe that statism did not come out of a void - it is consequential of other regressive cultural dogmas.(cont'd)
...Further, why is it that I find the state so offensive? If I find privatization of power, kleptocracy, and unaccountability (etc.) THERE to be foul, would it even be coherent to not hold the same standards in all areas of human society? The state is only one (even if the supreme) example of institutional predation.
You: Capitalism is the default condition.
Me: This is incorrect. I think you're confusing commerce/trade of all kinds with "capitalism." (cont'd)
I am not at all confusing the two. I am associating Capitalism with ownership, possesion, and what you have labeled title. I have shown several time that this is a natural trait of not only humans but animals generally.
For instance, there are all manner of examples of differing societies having VERY different concepts of what "property" is - how it's acquired, how it's maintained, one's rights of disposition and exclusion over said property, etc. Indeed, in the most primitive societies, scarcely any hard notion of "property" exists at all, with the conceptions that do exist being being along the lines of possession and stewardship - defense of resources is less "dressed up" with such people.
Again, you have falsely accussed me of associating two things that I simply have not tied together. Further, your account of early societies contradicts your earlier idea that it was early man's concept of title that gave birth to the State. You at the same time seem to want to blame early man's innate selfishness for the rise of the State, and deny that inherant selfishness.
@sgtkpf HOWEVER, I will argue that if you simply want to be rid of "state power", you will NOT acquire this for very long accepting the customs and values which gave us "the state" not as some anomaly, but as inevitable consequence. IOW. call yourself what you like, but capitalism (which is not simply trade or EVEN markets) is incompatible with even the anti-statism you solely advocate for. (cont'd)
That being said, I will argue the exact opposite. Your ideas work if and only if humans are100% equal and community minded. As far as I can tell, humans are neither, not even close. Again, I do not wish for a State-less society. However a Capitalistic society is the only one that a Stateless society will lead to. It is in human nature to acquire, and your side has never done an adequate job of showing how human nature would be quelched in an Anarchaic society.
I do acknowledge human nature, if we mean descriptive generalities about human beings. However, too much is said of human nature without reference to the environment it responds to. Human avarice is neither unnatural or without cause - it is a survival instinct responding to perceived adversity and scarcity - a reaction which bourgeois culture provokes in people who are not in dire want.
Human nature doesn't need to change - our public discourse does.
I contend that here you are over estimating just how much influence public discourse has on the individual. While you have correctly identified what you call avarice as a natural human instinct, you seem to think can/would be willing to overcome it. It's a common line amongst collectivists that once people become accquainted with the ideas of collectivism they will be tripping over themselves to achieve it. This contradicts all of human history. Title has always existed.
You: Further, you seem to have this idea that Capitalism is necessarily exploitative.
Me: It is, by definition. It is much like slavery - there is this idea that the the lot of slaves was undifferentiated throughout history, or even in the American experience. In many periods of history, the slaves of "noble" homes, royals, the rich, etc. enjoyed levels of comfort and influence FAR exceeding that of the commoner.(cont'd)
BUT that's not the problem with slavery, is it? It is the very conception that one may own another, that one may extract the full value of their labor and benefit them as little or as much as they see fit. We are only talking DEGREES when the conversation changes to wage slaves - that we ought to be "employed" and surrender self management, that we don't receive the FULL value of our work - lesser evils, but similar in kind. Some modern "slaves" do better than others - so?
We are absolutely agreed on the problems of slavery. However it is not a good analogy. Further my point was that you do in fact recieve the full value of you work. That is why I question your understanding of economics. The reason the laborer does not recieve the full value of the product is because he does not contribute all of the parts that equal the whole. If a laborer uses my capital to produce a car, he is paid proportionately for the ratio that the labor was to the whole.
In my car analogy, the steel, silicon, leather, plastic, glass, etc. that go into the creation of the product are much, much more valuable than the labor. Therefore the capitalist recieves much, much more wealth (monetary) than the laborer does. There is no difference. The laborer is paid exactly the percentage of the worth of the car that he contributed. Currently, we actually se the laborer recieving a higher percentage. Firms that do so are quickly out of business however.
You: Further, no power is unaccountable, as history has shown.
Me: You're exactly right. Circumstance and education/awareness will be decisive in the level of said accountability, or whether such institutions will be able to continue to exist. Many say "power to the people" - whereas I think the truth is that the people already have power; they simply lack "consciousness" of any of this, through ignorance and dissipation.
You: Further, it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that a belief system that necessitates physical violence is an ethical position.
Me: Who said violence is "necessary"? However, defending one's life and liberty is entirely natural. That said, what IS "laughable" is the conceit that mutual predation (of which capitalism is a form) is preferable and more constructive than cooperation (socialism, communism, self management, democracy.)
Nearly every Anarchistand every Marxist says that violence is necessary to achieve their desired society. It's interesting that you find what you call " mutual predation," but what actually isn't, is so "laughable." Clearly those who prefer a society with a State and with ownership are in the vast majority. it's a shame that you don't recognize that you are one of the few laughing at the many. Many who find themselves in this condition do so from inside a padded cell.
You: Nearly every Anarchistand every Marxist says that violence is necessary to achieve their desired society.
Me: I think violence is not entirely immoral - certainly self defense broadly understood is acceptable. That said, wide spread social change ("revolution") IMHO. can only happen "popularly." How much "violence" such a situation creates would have a lot to do with what the last vestiges of power did in their "last gasp." (cont'd)
Very few people would recognize self-defence as violence. Violence has a connotation linking it to aggresion. Even if it didn't that's what I meant, and it still holds true that nearly every Marxist and Anarchist says that aggression is necessary to achieve thewir desired society.
You: Clearly those who prefer a society with a State and with ownership are in the vast majority. it's a shame that you don't recognize that you are one of the few laughing at the many.
Me: When has that been a good argument for doing anything? The "majority" and power used to say A LOT of stupid things. Barring shocking cataclysm (the kind that would put us into another "dark age"), we are making social progress, and insofar as we have a future, will so continue.
... You're kidding, right? That is your entire argument, and the entire argument behind Democracy. That people should decide how they interact with others, how they interact with the State (if any), and how they interact with capital is the only good argument for acting.
M: All of that said - most Anarchists are not pacifists. The "enforcement" is resistance, and more importantly, a rejection of the claims of the state's chief beneficiaries to ownership. This is really in the same vain as wondering how it would be consistent with Anarchism for a people to defend themselves against belligerence of any other kind.(cont'd)
Y: How is enforcing collectivist ownership of property any different from enforcing individual ownership of property?
M: Because it is "PRIVATE property", and the notion of "ownership" (where as possession and use are what in fact exist in our relationship to objects) in that way is what is the problem. Those who make capital productive are it's actual possessors (saying "collective OWNERSHIP" is in some wise misleading, insofar as it implies any kind of "title.")
The phrase collective ownership is actually pretty accurate, as it is precisely a title. It says that the lnad, property, capital, etc. belongs to the collective and not to any individual who feels he has a right to it. Further, it must be that way because as I have shown here ownership is one of the most natural parts of our animal nature. I refer you back to the bird analogy. The bird who goes out hunting does not physically possess its nest, yet it "owns" it.
You: The phrase collective ownership is actually pretty accurate, as it is precisely a title.
Me: The reason I question this, is because more than simply the privatization of ownership, the whole idea of ownership is itself problematic. "Use" -o.k. "Possession" - sure. "Ownership"? What does that even mean? It describes nothing but an assertion. It reeks of theology and kingship.
@DolceEbellaAldrin This is the first time i hear about any "jealousy for the rich" and "Killing off parents". It's amazing how missguided you are. Where do you get this stuff? I find your ignorance amusing though
HushErthling 1 month ago
Dear Mr. Communists. If you all so desire to live in Utopia plz visit Cuba, China, Europe, and stay there. You can take your jealousy of the rich and become poor, tax yourself and starve, you can kill your parents, your God, your business, your freedom, but dear Mr. Communist, you can do all of that, without taking others with you. And needless to say, you will always be alone.
And alone only is how you wil trully die.
Red and Rotten like the ones you killed.
DolceEbellaAldrin 4 months ago
@DolceEbellaAldrin Your comment is very funny, it demonstrate pretty well that you know nothing about socialism and communism. Have you ever read a socialist or a communist book? Have you ever discuss with a communist? Have you ever try to see the history from the side of the soviet? I'm sure you didn't. I hope that one day you will see that the crap you say do not make sense. Inform yourself about the two side of the conflict is the best way to get out of ignorance.
MrRedpartisan 3 weeks ago
I bet the person who posted this video also thinks that glenn beck should be president. Keep drinking that kool aid....
warez1911 5 months ago
Obama - Socialist? HAHAHA! That is stupid.
bittemeinrammstein 6 months ago
Barry Soetoro, Political name, Obama, NOT a evil man . Just narcissistic, egotistical, ultra Liberal neo Socialist, a professional charismatic political obfuscator who truly believes in a Nanny State form of Gov ! He too is a BIG Tax & Spend entitlement PIMP! Believes Gov is the answer, which is contrary to what R Constitution clearly teaches. That's why he surrounds himself with Socialists & unaccountable hand picked Czars friends & adviser.
Source(s) just the facts !
onstageagain 9 months ago
I bet that Ron Paul will lose the next elections!
iownage4youi 9 months ago
2012 can not come soon enough. The quicker we get rid of this rat bastard, ass clown, unAmerican traitor, the better off this country will be.
Those they put this piece of shit in office are personally responsible for our plight today.
We have generated a generation totally without morals, etchics or any sense of right or wrong. These pathetic pieces of shit just think that everything that I have is theirs. They are completely without morals.
Hopefully we could impeach this lying criminal?
GutpileCharlie 10 months ago
It's conspiracy bullshit like this that got those people in Arizona shot. Conspiracy theories on BOTH sides.
Abignalessuccessor 1 year ago
@Abignalessuccessor can't dispute the eerie similarities between guy like Hitler and Stalin and Obama.
bdj010 11 months ago
"Sociaism is not the answer 2 our Problems"
Why not?
What else?
Kabrielseiffert 1 year ago
Oooooooo these posters are sooo similar! They just happen to be making the same face really, and there were a lot more propaganda posters from the USSR, those were only a couple. PS. Socialism is actually the answer if you can understand what it really is...
yourplutoness 1 year ago
To all you Socialist defenders on this video, i will leave you an inarguable fact to think about. Israel, a nation founded on free enterprise and controlled Capitalism grew to flourish economically in a short 62 years(Independence declared in 1948). they have a great quality of life and all is well. The Soviet Union had an economic boost due to WW2 and from then their economy slowly deteriorated because of their socialist/communist policies. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Israel Does.
TheMetro510 1 year ago
@TheMetro510 Yea, they exist, and supress thousands of poor Palestines. Israël got pretty much rich because they received a crapload of money from other countries. And they are jews, jews are always good with money XD. That's why Russians hate 'em XD. And about the Soviet economy, it was the second largest in the world. Also see China, communist and prospering.
TheJodofe 1 year ago
@TheJodofe China is not communist it's fascist- welfare capitalism under totalitarian rule.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend Sure, that's why they call themselves communist right? They used to be maoist, but now they call themselves market-communists. There is nothing fascist about China.
TheJodofe 1 year ago
@TheJodofe What on earth is a "market-communism"? Communists running on capitalism, right. OK they may be communists, but surely they don't have socialism let alone communism in China.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@TheMetro510 That's right, everyone can flourish as long as you can get away with stealing land.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ban the socialist library! Everybody ought to pay to use the books! This is the argument of idiot Tea Baggers. Just look at um at a rally, a bunch of old worn out Nazi types. Yes, the Tea Party and the rest of the right-wing scum are that dumb!
Deguello321 1 year ago
WHAT THE FUCK HAS HE DONE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOCIALIST!!! PASSING A HEALTHCARE BILL THAT STRENGTHENS CROOKED PRIVATE HEALTHCARE COMPANIES HOLD ON THE PEOPLE IS ANYTHING BUT SOCIALIST! AND "BAILING OUT" PRIVATE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS ISN'T SOCIALIST IT'S FUCKING CORPORATIST! FAR RIGHT WING SHIT IS WHAT IT IS! YOU REPUBLICANS AND TEA PARTIERS ARE THE VERY DUMBEST PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET! EVEN IF YOU WERE FUCKING GOD I WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESPECT FOR YOU!
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday You don't know what the fuck you're on about retard. Obama is the embodiment of socialism. Everything he does is based on Socialist and Communist doctrines. Seriously, go back to sleep.
32GaugeSlug 1 year ago
@32GaugeSince when do Communists like private enterprises of any kind. Calling me names doesn't make you correct. You need to name some specific examples. There's a difference between saying your right and proving your right. Please I would love to see exactly what Socialist things obama has done. A progressive income tax might be the only Socialist thing he supports. But also remember socialism is multi tendency so you can't compare issues like gun control. Only major economic issues/structure
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday The general focus on entitlement, funded by increasing taxes on the rich, is inherently socialist. Obama himself has said he wants to "spread the wealth." If that isn't a Marxist ideal, then I don't know what is. Plus, look at the people he surrounds himself with. I really don't see what the debate is on the issue. It is blatantly obvious, and no amount of rhetoric can cover it up.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 It's a progressive ideal that has been around before Marx and he liked the ideal and adopted it to be a part of his philiosophy. The communists focus on things other than progressive income taxes you know. And after Marx denounced many Socialists as "utopians" they distanced themselves from him on the principle that they didn't like central planning and he thought it was essential to transform society into it's ideal stage. Most regular Socialists are co-op lovers instead.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday What you say is absolutely true, but what I'm saying is that when you look at the people in Obama's inner circle of advisors, you have to take the Marxian brand of socialism to which they ascribe into account. It's not like this is a big secret or something. It's just totally ignored by the media. Many of his cabinet members are on video tape noting their admiration for Communist dictators and philosophers. That is simply not compatible with the vast majority of Americans.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 Sorry I wouldve adressed that but theres a length limit! I know all about his affiliations with marxists. I didn't want you to have an image of Socialists that is smeared by the communists. We aim to create a real democratic society not an unaccountable bureacracy. Please join the Socialist party. sp-usa.com and learn what we're about, you might be impressed and feel free to ask any questions or talk to me about politics.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday Well, I respect some elements of democratic socialism, even though I don't agree with it. After all, Orwell was a socialist, and he wrote some of the greatest works on liberty and freedom ever composed. So I do "get it", I just place a reverent status on the individual, and his hard earned money/possessions. As Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money," and I really don't think a better, more concise argument can be made.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 I do think that some Socialists have quite frankly taken it too far.I don't think that everybody should be paid exactly the same amount of money or anything like that. But the fact is billionnare CEO's don't produce billions if you understand what I mean. MOST Socialists in the U.S.A including me believe that people willing to work hard and get education required jobs should be rewarded even more. This includes inventors and related occupation BTW.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 Look I'm not about penalizing or disabling hard work i'm about disabling corrupt hard work. Capitalism makes me feel like a tool to be used. Once the stage is set for the rich it basically stays that way. Rags tor riches stories are becoming increasingly rare.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday But see, the fundamental truth that I see socialists ignoring is that we are all playing by the same rules. There is no law telling a poor person he can't educate himself, and make millions, if not billions of dollars. In fact, this is exactly the case in countless success stories. So many wealthy business men were once poor students, or born into a poor family. I place my faith in the drive of the individual, not the ability of govt. to help sustain someone.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 There isn't much room at the top of the pyramid. Capitalism is destructive. We could live so much better without it. Theres enough houses for everybody but theres homeless. There about 12 times more food then necessary in the world according to WHO but there were still famines in Ethiopia. Because of individual drive (in the corrupt business owner sense) you get all this money that nobody really needs and yet theres others who do need atleast something.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 Because of ridiculous income disparities many people can't get the things theres surpluses of. And theres a huge surplus of everything imaginable! Capitalism is just so unproductive. And because hard work is rewarded more in MY society I believe it puts forth the good kind of personal drive.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday Why do you naturally think rich business men are corrupt? I just don't understand the idea that the rich are inherently corrupt because of their wealth. The United States donates more to charity and world causes than any other country in the world, and it is still fiercely capitalist. That doesn't sound like the product of haughty, snide business men to me. Give me one example where a socialist government has been more productive than a capitalist one. It just doesn't happen.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 I don't. But don't you think that a corporation like NIKE using labor in Indonesia for less than half a dollar an hour (including child labor) with harsh laws against talking and forced overtime of 16 hours! Doesn't it seem atleast slightly corrupt to be doing that to make billions of dollars and record profits? As for your question, Venezuelas economic growth after the oil strike in 2003 was very impressive but I think they need to further diversify.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 I'm not to hot about a Socialist gvt as much as I am about a Socialist workplace. Support our workers, give them the oppurtunity for personal drive. I was trying to make it clear that I don't like central planning!!!!
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday Public libraries exist for a reason (and are often built from the funds of super-rich businessmen). Anyone can go and learn. No amount of social stratification can deny someone this, especially not in America. It is still the land of opportunity, we just seem to be giving up on it as of late.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
@thewritingwriterof89 Try to justify capitalism all you want but when I see a corporation bribe politicians millions or billions of dollars I know somethings wrong. I know that my democracy is becoming obsolete because of extravagantly rich people defending their personal intirests. I cry for democracy and the fullest potential for personal success without the harming of others personal success. It's times humans evolved again. No more person fuck over other person, instead person help peron.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
@fishontuesday calm down man ... the guy that made this video is most likely just a jewish new world order scum that is making these binaural beat videos to make ppl look like crazy conspiracy theorist that scream the thruth but dont waste your tongue on these dumbasses and i like your comment
real1abcda 1 year ago
@real1abcda yes ok but I cant believe people are this damn stupid. And you take it easy on the jew stuff lol.
fishontuesday 1 year ago
This video is not the answer to your problems either!
jay40203 1 year ago
this video is propaganda
WeAre5Productions 1 year ago
and you couldn't find any pictures more incriminating than those? come on. obama is very far away from beeing a socialist. in europe, he would be in a rightwing party.
bilbobagginsofbagend 1 year ago
@bilbobagginsofbagend The idea is to keep away from European socialism. It hasn't exactly worked wonders for the continent.
thewritingwriterof89 1 year ago
obama is fucking America in the ass
BDeraas13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BDeraas13 America is fucking America in the ass.
gingerxsnapsxback 1 year ago
these videos make me want to move to japan
nathanielroller15 1 year ago
communism kills!
platipot 1 year ago
It just propaganda. It doesn't matter, who use these methods... Or somebody think that there is no propaganda in US? LoL! It's more brainwashing then in China or North Korea.
DemocracyFan 1 year ago
I don't care HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Chambrette 1 year ago
socialism is the only anwser to any problem but tell me what do you gain from capitalism , capital, and hate towards others but the soviets told their people that everyone was their friend except the faschists
smalltalkfan 1 year ago
@smalltalkfan I support you- I hate capitalism.
Besides comparing communism to socialism is like comparing faschism to capitalism.
ComradeChad 1 year ago
@ComradeChad actualy non of the both communism or socialism are simillar to faschism faschism encourages racism while both communism and socialism encoureges brotherhood unity and harmony stalin was the only negative comunist dictator while tito, castro, wang, lenin are all positive persons i gues gorbachev is positive to but he made very poor decisions , while under Josip broz tito he did not need any propaganda for the people to love him and noone was killed during his rule , btw im yugoslavia
smalltalkfan 1 year ago
@smalltalkfan I 100% agree with you- it's just that all this OBAMA'S A COMMIE stuff really pisses me off.
ComradeChad 1 year ago
@ComradeChad Lol, are people really debating still over Communism? It simply won't work because it's impossible to develope trade and market prices, because nothing is traded or sold, everything is produced by the government, therefor since there is no "Market Prices" no one will know who's in need of what, for instance in a capitalist economy, Wheat might be VERY high in price, what's that saying? It means people are going to grow more wheat to meet the demands.
PivotB3stZ 1 year ago
@PivotB3stZ It would be based on need, and a free press. All communistic governments have failed due to lack of a free press. They suffer from corruption. A free press is the best cure. If what they do is right and just, they should be able to defend their actions in open debate.
BVargas78 1 year ago
@ComradeChad but what if soy beans are very low and not high at all? It means that people aren't in need or barely any need at all, which, will have a lot of Farmers stopping their growing for soy beans.
In a communist country this would be impossible to figure out, there isn't a supply and demand there is just what the government produces, so what if people are doign extremely poor on milk, the government has no idea, and the government won't do anything to solve the problem, therefor
PivotB3stZ 1 year ago
@ComradeChad affecting cheese, cream, ice cream, and any other dairy product. Which will start a whole other "Tree" which starts a large scale famine, and what if it's something more important then milk? What if it's something like Wheat? Not a lot of wheat means not a lot of Bread, etc. and not a lot of Bread could lead to other disasters. Oh btw Communist is completely against human nature, so that could also be a problem...
PivotB3stZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is propaganda.
mpk1000000 1 year ago
You Americans had a little too much brainwashing going on during the Cold War i guess, hahaha sure Obama a Communist. Oh Jesus is so not ready for this World if he comes back, you guys would be the first to call him Communist haha ^^
RaptorN1 1 year ago
@RaptorN1
Really? Because from my readings of the Gospel, Jesus at no point advocated a large overwhelming State, as modern Communists, as well as Obama, do. Further, he never advocated a bloody revolution, as "Classical Communists" did. Further Marx was not only extremely anti-religion, but also a raging anti-semite. Both views I suspect Jesus would abhor.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Jesus was against Banks and that there are rich people who can buy everything and on the other side people who dont even have money to buy food! And by the way Marx wasnt an anti-semite! He was a jew himself btw! And no he was not a self-hating jew i heard that many times lol thank god I can speak Germans and read his books in the original way!
RaptorN1 1 year ago
@RaptorN1
It's simply untrue that Jesus was against banks. Further, while Jesus certainly believed that wealth should be distributed, he felt it should be done so because the person who had it was willing to. Communism demands it be taken at the tip of the sword/gun. That is stealing. I suspect Jesus did not believe in breaking one of the commandmants. Further, you read "Germans?" There's more than one German language? Again, Marx did hate Jews, and more he hated religion in general. Jesus? No.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Capitalists, and the "Christian rich" have generally NEVER followed "evangelical princples", or even those of the early "Church Fathers" in this regard (ex. John Chrysostom said any wealth held above one's needs while another was in want was "theft".) This is a fact.
The implicit economics of the "Four Gospels" is FAR closer to anarcho-communism than capitalism of any flavor - voluntary, communistic society where all wealth was common, each receiving according to their needs.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
First of all, the first statement that you made wasn't even an attempt at a fact. It was clearly a generalization, and to label it as anything else (esspecially to do so so emphatically) is intellectually dishonest. The fact is Capitalism (both theoretical and practical) fits much more closely with the Scriptures than collectivism. The idea of property is strewn through out the Old Testament. And "Give unto Ceaser..." hardly sounds anti-State....
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@RaptorN1
-What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money
-It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew.
-The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.
-What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.
-Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.
Hitler was part Jewish too champ...
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf In Marxism "communism" is something to be attained, not an immediate reality - that is a distinctive of Marxism in it's "theory of revolution"; a long term plan of eventually affecting stateless communism via a program of socialism.
OTOH. Anarchist-Communists do not subscribe to a hard plan of progressive socialism - some are troubled by socialism insofar as it still involves wages and private property (outside of capital.) These people are definitely "anti-state."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf wrt. to anti-semitism; an unfortunately common reality throughout much of western history. However we owe much of this venom to Christianity (if not the "historical Jesus" who may or may not have existed), which seeded a profound enmity against the Jews into western culture, by giving it a religious dimension (deicide.) And you're right - the character in the New Testament and similar period literature gives every indication of being a pacifist.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
While there have been many anti-semite Christians, it is entirely unfair to link the two. The vast majority of famous (or more likely) infamous anti-semites have been anti-theists. Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Neitzche, Hegel, to most of America's modern Left. Further, it's my understanding that it is more or less accepted as fact that a person loosely fitting the "Historical Jesus" description did in fact exist.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
He has show the world that he is a Communist. 30% Approval rating this guy cant run Country. Only into the Ground.
dmlindley 1 year ago
P.S. ... and btw., SOCIALISM (which is not the welfare state) is essentially worker control over the means of production. Those who do, ought to be decision makers and self managing.
.
Gawd, that sounds awful!
.
So yes, socialism IS the answer to MANY of our problems. I am an anarchist, and hence, a socialist in the purest sense.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical You're a moron in the purest sense. You want to steal from others to advocate a plan that has never worked. Also, you should clearify that you are a left wing anarchist. A right wing anarchist isn't quite as idiotic as you.
opacid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@opacid
You: You want to steal from others to advocate a plan that has never worked.
Me: Actually, WHEN tried (rarely), it has - both collectivized Spain and the Paris Commune were crushed by reactionary forces, not due to an internal failing. Nor do I advocate theft - the defense of such is the job of the apologists of wage slavery and so called "title property."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@opacid
You: Also, you should clearify that you are a left wing anarchist. A right wing anarchist isn't quite as idiotic as you.
Me: There is no such thing as a "right wing anarchist." I know there are people who call themselves such silly things, but this is like being a "Christian Porn Star." People can call themselves anything they want, but such terms as "anarcho capitalism" are incoherent - such persons may be "anti-state", but they are not opposed to exploitation (anarchism.)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical No, you make no sense, a right wing anarchist believes in their individual rights. A left wing anarchist is a communist without government.. Government is replaced by society. When workers seize control after murdering their bosses everything goes to shit, since they have no knowledge of how to do the job of the skilled workers. Yes, take everything and let it all turn to crap.
opacid 1 year ago
@opacid
You: No, you make no sense, a right wing anarchist believes in their individual rights. A left wing anarchist is a communist without government..
Me: If you understood what communism was, you'd realize that wasn't a put down. Yes, the goal is communism - just like you have in your family, unless you're in a household of sociopaths. What you call "individualism" is really just code-speak for "acquisitiveness and greed." Property without possession is the whole reason for state-power.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical You make no sense. Just because someone is successful it does not make them a sociopath. Communism is the politics of envy and greed. It is the transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. It's just a political form of thievery. Families help each other when they need it, but to say that families strive for communism is untrue.
opacid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@opacid
You: You make no sense. Just because someone is successful it does not make them a sociopath.
Me: "Successful"? How do you mean?
You: Communism is the politics of envy and greed.
Me: If you mean actual communism (each according to his ability, each according to his need), I marvel at that appraisal. Sounds mighty greedy. Or how this could be "greedy" as opposed to the limitless acquisitiveness of capitalism - that's equally baffling.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@opacid
You: When workers seize control after murdering their bosses everything goes to shit, since they have no knowledge of how to do the job of the skilled workers. Yes, take everything and let it all turn to crap.
Me: ...and thank-you for this elitist P.R. You're just repeating the same old lie, that the rulers constitute a "league of expertise" - and whatever would we do without them! Nevermind that professionals and experts ARE "workers."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical No, I'm saying it's wrong to steal from others for personal or collectivist gain. Do you support bank robbers, car thieves, and murderers? Do support taking the homes from people who worked all their lives to obtain them? Do you support lowering the quality of life across an entire country just to make it even? A small representative government is ideal, a large overbearing government or no government have proven to never work. My beliefs do not make rulers "experts".
opacid 1 year ago
@opacid
You: No, I'm saying it's wrong to steal from others for personal or collectivist gain.
Me: Before we can even discuss theft, we'd have to be clear on what constitutes "ownership." in this society it's just ASSUMED (quite religiously really) that there is a "right" of people to endless "acquire", and more to the point, the obligation of their fellow men to honor this, even when they are harmed by this (hence why the state was born with the first pretense of "private property.") (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@opacid
You: Do support taking the homes from people who worked all their lives to obtain them?
Me: Someone's home? Of course not. If you mean their palace, gained through systematic fraud, while others are homeless - I consider it a species of self defense on the part of the later to do what they must to survive. You expect them to roll over and die for the fictive property of "the rich." And that is who you, and those like you are apologists for - not the common man, or his limited goods.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
You may want to look up the definition of anarchy. Nowhere does exploitation appear.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Depends on what you mean by "look up" - if you mean a typical desktop dictionary, forget it - it's not the only topic where the reality is muddled (for instance, most definitions of "socialism" in said sources betray an ignorance of anything but so called "state socialism.")
.
Anarchism begins in association with 19th century socialism. Even the slightly later emerging "individualist anarchists" (like Stirner or Tucker) were decisively anti-capitalist. (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd) Actual anarchists are opposed to anything resembling "rulers" - that's not simply a comment on the state, but things as varied as exploitive economics or religious dogma. This is aside from the obvious fact that capitalism relies on state power, or will favor it inevitably. This is even clear in the old works of the classical liberals. So called "right Libertarianism" (another word stolen from the so called "left") is a relatively late development.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
So the meanings of words aren't important? Archos is PRECISELY "simply a comment on the State." Even if it weren't, your assertion that an employer is a "ruler," as opposed to another participant in a contract is nonsense, meaning if you were right, you're still wrong. Finally your claim that laissez-faire economics rely on the state is easily the farthest removed from reality statement that I have ever read, esspecially from one who favors an economy necessitating State command.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: So the meanings of words aren't important? Archos is PRECISELY "simply a comment on the State.
Me: The problem is that "rulers" come in many forms. What is the real difference between a "state", and say, privatized power which supposedly "owns" a given place? if anything, the latter is even more tyrannical - at least the state has the trappings of democracy and some level of public accountability. It all amounts to coercive, unaccountable "authority."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
This is simply untrue. Rulers do not come in many forms. Unless you mean a straight-edge, ruler refers to one who governs. Further, it is ridiculous to claim that ownership makes one a ruler, and I suspect that's why you have not explained this idea, but rather said it and carried on.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtkpf
You: This is simply untrue. Rulers do not come in many forms.
Me: So you don't see any resemblance between landlords and feudalism?
You: Further, it is ridiculous to claim that ownership makes one a ruler, and I suspect that's why you have not explained this idea,
Me: Actually, I thought I did pretty well given the character limits. But you're free to assume the worst about my motives, obviously.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I didn't say that. But I also see similarities between a basketball and the planet. Does not mean they are the same by any stretch of the imagination. I think you see too many (mostly non-existant) similarities.
Fair enough. I myself have run up against the character limit myself more than once. I may have been rash in assuming it was cut and run. But I know personally that I follow up when I run out of room. And despite what you may think, you did'nt do all that great.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtkpf
You: But I also see similarities between a basketball and the planet. Does not mean they are the same by any stretch of the imagination. I think you see too many (mostly non-existant) similarities.
Me: As you've seen by now, I further explain my meaning in another posting. Again, I thought I was being clear.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I did not say here that you failed to back it up, but rather that your attempt to do so was wrong. It's not a lack of clarity but a lack of correctness that I am addressing here. The Fuedal Lord was an arm of the State, who owned the land. That is clearly not the case with a landlord, and capitalism requires that he not be. Further, under Fuedalism the serf had no recourse against his landlord. Under Anarchy, the tennent has methods of recourse against contract infringement.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: This is simply untrue. Rulers do not come in many forms. Unless you mean a straight-edge, ruler refers to one who governs.
Me: If "property" entails the right to dispose of something as one see's fit (and to deny this to others over a given "thing"), how does that NOT involve "governance"? Esp. when we begin touching upon things and resources essential to others' livelihood and sustenance? "Anarcho-capitalism" would amount to neo-feudalism.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Freedom of speech gives me the right to say as I wish, and not to be forced to say what others want me to. The right to property works in the same way. It is actually antithetical to goverance. Governance is telling one what they can or cannot do with their OWN properrty/body/words.
Further, Anarchism (there is no non-caoitalistic anarchy) is not neo-fuedalism. While there are some similarities the gigantic difference is that fuedalism was State backed.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: Even if it weren't, your assertion that an employer is a "ruler," as opposed to another participant in a contract is nonsense, meaning if you were right, you're still wrong.
Me: We're beating around the bush here - the problem we're really dancing around but not addressing directly is that "property" and notions of what constitutes ownership. The culture of acquisitiveness which thinks there is anything natural about "possessions without possession" is the problem.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
The claim that possesion is unnatural is easily in the top five most ludicrous assertions that I have ever read/heard. nearly every animal expresses some form of territoriality. The space they claim as their's is their possesion. It is not a cultural phenomenon, but rather a fact of human nature, which is precisely why the idea of a collectivist anarchist is such an absurd contradiction in terms.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: The claim that possesion is unnatural is easily in the top five most ludicrous assertions that I have ever read/heard
Me: You're misrepresenting what I said - I've continually made a distinction between ACTUAL "possession"/use and "title." The former is unobjectionable, and natural - the latter is a racket, which REQUIRES a concentration of power which monopolizes violence, as "human nature" without this is intolerant of such parasitism in it's midst.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I did not misrepresent what you said. The bird who is out hunting for food does not relinquish its ownership of the nest. There is no difference between this and title. Esspecially with land, not property can be "possessed" 100% of the time. Consequently "possesion without possesion" is a necessary part of possession in general. Clearly this is part of human nature, and animal nature in general.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Further, to see that you are wrong about Capitalism requiring the State, one need only look at the Mafia (or any gang.) The Mafia performs most of its activities outside the scope of the law. The Mafia's property rights are enforced not by the State, but by a private police force of sorts. This is the epitome of how Capitalism is enforced in Anarchy. Even if this Anarcho-Mafia existed Socialistically within its ranks, it would subordinate other communes.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Thank you for the candor (anarcho-capitalism and the "mobster society" it would bring us.) You're being a bit of a "label queen" tho - that you don't see the meaningful similarity between "the gang in Queens" and the "gang in Washington" is probably one of the reasons why this conversation has been so dragged out. Just because it lacks a flag, or a lot of the later trappings of "establishment" does not mean we're not talking about the same beast.
.
Mafia = "state within a state."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I absolutely think Anarcho-Capitalism would lead to a terrible situation. Or Anarcho-Collectivism, were it possible. I have never claimed to be an Anarchist. I like the protection that the State provides, of my life, liberty, and property. I just wish it would do more protecting and less administering... You seem to define "State" as any body that defend property. Under that definition I am a State if I sit on my porch with a shotgun. I hardly think an individual can be a State.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
This is precisely why Collectivist-Anarchy can not exist off paper, and why Anarchy is neccesarily Capitalist. I would think that someone who constantly smears Capitalism as exploitive would realize that unchecked Capitalism would exploit. It would appear you are guilty of doublethink, not something I wouldn't expect from most Socialists that I'ver met.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtkpf
You: Finally your claim that laissez-faire economics rely on the state is easily the farthest removed from reality statement that I have ever read, esspecially from one who favors an economy necessitating State command.
Me: Capitalism REQUIRES state power. Neo-liberal revisionism aside, all of the classical liberals understood this. You've got it completely backward.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Again, it is ironic that you have the idea that Capitalism requires State power, when it is precisely the opposite. It is collectivist ideologies that require State power. Further, your ownideas contradict this. You think Capitalism necessarily oppresses, by it's very nature. Yet you feel that when you take away the force that keeps it from oppressing, that it will dissolve. Capitalism flourishes in the absence of the State, because there is no check on individual power/property.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: Again, it is ironic that you have the idea that Capitalism requires State power, when it is precisely the opposite.
Me: Capitalism requires the state, and the state requires ideology - for the violence of the state, and it's monopoly upon it, cannot last with liberated minds. Hence, why my understanding of this struggle is that it is essentially psychological/cultural, not militant. (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
You: It is collectivist ideologies that require State power.
Me: I'm not sure what you're imagining when I decry capitalism - do you think I have some imagining of the creation of a "welfare state", forced redistribution of goods by centralized power, etc.? This isn't my meaning at all - I'm simply opposed to a series of "golden calves" which go so assumed, that they are taken to be characteristic of the "natural condition" of man and social-economic relations.
(cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
It is precisely property beyond possession, and claiming as one's own which is NOT directly the product one's own work, which I oppose. I am not arguing against "free markets" - that is not capitalism. The idea that one can withhold what he has no need of from another and not be regarded (and treated) as his enemy is absurd. If a society will not be plunged back into "state craft" of one form or another, it will be because society will not tolerate this kind of parasitism.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
The biggest problem with your ideas is that they run in stark contradition to human history. The State is not inherant to humanity. I would assume that as an anarchist you recognize this. And I assume that we can both agree that one (but not the sole) purpose of the State was to protect property not physically held by the owner. But why would the State be formed to protect it if it didn't exist? And if it did exist before the State, then it clearly can exist without th State.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: The State is not inherant to humanity. I would assume that as an anarchist you recognize this.
Me: It's not inherent, but in a sense the world we actually have is very much "built on the shoulders of ignorance" - a static appraisal of humans in history, or the pretense that there is an objective moral standard by which we may judge both OURSELVES and our ancestors is, IMHO, very incorrect. Simply put, the moral horizons of said antique persons were lower and nearer. (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
The biggest problem lies in this disscussion though. Look how off topic we've gotten. In response to a video about Obama's Statist-like tendencies we are arguing about what it means to be a Libertarian/Anarchist. Obama is clearly not a Libertarian of any stripe collectivist, or individualist. The man grow the State by the day. The argument has become whether Socialist is an appropriate label for him. It's idiotic while he infringes more and more on Liberty.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf I was only following the conversation as it evolved. You keep asking questions, making points directed my way, I keep responding. That's how conversations are - they evolve and grow.
.
That said, Obama is not a socialist. I don't see worker control over the means of production or worker self management in his platform. If "bread and circuses" or public charity deserve to be called "socialism", than everyone from monarchs through to state-capitalists are "socialists."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Haha. You misunderstand. That wasn't a criticism of you. If I had wanted to reshape the conversation, I would have done so. That's an idictment of the U.S. people and of the current administration. Obama and his cohorts are master propagandists, and have artfully changed the debate. Not just you and I, but the entire country debates whether list or not. The label is irrelevant. He is doing irreperable damage.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
However, you are way off in your assessment of whether or not Obama is a Socialist. He has started on a path towards Government ownership of the means of production, and has made great strides in that direction. Also, he turned GM over to the labor union. Sounds kind of like worker self-management to me. Further the Welfare State is precisely Socialism. And you say "everyone from monarchs through to state-capitalists" as if there were a big difference. (cont.)
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: He has started on a path towards Government ownership of the means of production, and has made great strides in that direction.
Me: Well, that's my point - it's precisely why I (and Anarchists in general, as well as orthodox Marxists for that matter) do not regard the USSR as having been "socialist" - state ownership with the public as employees is state capitalism. And has GM been "given to the union"? Really? :-) It hasn't man, you know this.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
But the State is made up of the citizens. While you could make the argument that the USSR was not of, for, and by the people (and you'd clearly be right) in the USSR there was clearly COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production. There for it was Communist. Further, absolutely GM has been given to the UAW. Absolutely.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Also, something you've said several times that bothers me. You seem to be under the impression that wage-labor is exploitative. This is not the case, and the perpetuation of this myth suggests an ignorange of economics.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
The fact is, there is little difference. What you have labeled "state-capitalists" (a ridiculous phrase) The political spectrum has come full circle. Classical Conservatives favored religious Statism under the authority of an autocratic King. Modern Liberals favor secular Statism under the authority of an autocratic Glorious Leader, or Fuher, or General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. There's little difference.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
So I agree, the state, religion, etc. are not "inherent" to man. But to have this kind of conversation, to even have these greater possibilities, required all of this "water to pass under the bridge." In this sense, I do agree with Marx, at least on many points of his historical analysis (in which he understood socialism, and later, stateless communism, as a consequence of human progress overcoming crisis.) (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: But why would the State be formed to protect it if it didn't exist? And if it did exist before the State, then it clearly can exist without th State.
Me: The act of asserting one's "ownership" over such property IS the creation of the state - it's state power in genesis. It would be terribly superficial to not observe the commonality between such exercises of coercive authority and later manifestations of more "formal" governance and rule. The latter begins in the former.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
This is simply untrue. It is a ridiculous misrepresentation of "the State" to characterize it as any defence of property, or title, if you will. While this is certainly a function of the State you appear to be claiming it is the sole function of the State. Simply untrue. I currently protect my property both in and out of my possesion. I am hardly a State.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
If you want proof, consider the fact that every (you may be an exception, but than you are the only one) Left-Wing "anarchist" supports the Welfare State. Even if you were correct in theory (you're not) this proves that in practice collectivists support not only a State but a massive and intrusive State.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Which anarchists "support the welfare state"? If you mean pragmatically, that anarchists/libertarians would prefer to see hijacked dollars go to helping the poor than end up say, in weapons of war - of course. But I'm unaware of any anarchist who supports the "welfare state" - quite a few describe such a situation, like wage labor, as inherently degrading.
.
It is conceits of "property" beyond actual possession which requires state power to maintain/enforce.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Chomsky for one. Van Jones, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Jed Bradnt. And that's just off the top of my head. There are dozens of academic pieces by "anarchists" expressing support for the Welfare State.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Noam Chomsky pragmatically supports welfare spending in the sense I qualified before. None of the other people you mentioned are Anarchists. Why bring them up in a discussion of Anarchism? Neither Lenin nor Stalin were even orthodox Marxists/Libertarian-Marxists, let alone Anarchists.
.
Now if you can name some of these "dozens of academic pieces" which do not pragmatically support welfare spending in the way I mentioned, but actually think it's a desirable condition, I'm "all ears."
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Those other individuals are certainly Anarchists. They at the very least pay lip service to Marx, who was allegedly an Anarchist. But you've simply proved my point. The fact is that collectivists are necessarily not Anarchists. Is it a coincidene that every single time Marxism has been tried it is in a Statist form? Everyone who has tried to apply Socialism/Communism/Marxism has been a totalitarian. Collectivism outside of academia is neccesarily Statist. You proved my point.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: Those other individuals are certainly Anarchists.
Me: Then I'm the King of France. Seriously man, come on...
You: They at the very least pay lip service to Marx, who was allegedly an Anarchist.
Me: You are aware that the First Workers International broke up PRECISELY because of the differences between Marxists and Anarchists, right? How does that make Karl Marx an "anarchist"? Never mind that most so called "Marxists" are in fact Bolsheviks (NOT orthodox Marxists.) (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
If you, and everyone who agrees with you calls themselves the King of France, we may change the definition, don't you think? You yourself have said repeatedly that the phrase Libertarian has been hijacked. Why is this any different?
I am told (though I've never seen it in any of his writings) that Marx argued for the abolition of the State. How is that not Anarchy?
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
You: Is it a coincidene that every single time Marxism has been tried it is in a Statist form?
Me: I'm not a Marxist (tho Marx & Engels have some good points.) Being surprised that there are statist elements inherent in Marxism makes me wonder how much you actually understand said theory of revolution. Marx was basically a revolutionary gradualist - he believed the first step toward creating a stateless society was the creation of "dictatorship of the proletariat." (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Firstly, I would like to apologize. I made an assumption. Every other Leftist I have argued has self-identified as a Marxist. Further, they have claimed that Marx was an Anarchist. I was answering their claims, assuming you felt the same way. Again, I apologize for the assumption.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
So of course Marxism always begins "statist." Which is ultimately the source of the schism between Marx and his followers and the Anarchists. To be fair to the orthodox Marxists, history has only known of Bolshevik/Leninist "Marxist" revolutions, or ideological children of said school of thought (Maoism, Hoxaism, etc.) Like the orthodox Marxists, I regard Bolshevism as an essential corruption of Marxism (it replaced "dictatorship of the prols" with vanguardism.)(cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
All of that said, I'm not a Marxist. Marxism is not anarchism, save in that it's long term goals are similar (Marx believed the state could be transformed and devolved; communism being possible not up front, but as a consequence of technological and infrastructure development that would create the necessary surpluses for "each according to his ability, each according to his need.")
.
Anarchists reject "dictatorship of the proletariat." Again, not a small thing.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Again, I apologize. You have to unders've become a bit jaded. Most on your side of the aisle demand that Marx was in fact an Anarchist. I'm so used to arguing that, that I was arguing that point, without you having said it. I apologize.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: veryone who has tried to apply Socialism/Communism/Marxism has been a totalitarian. Collectivism outside of academia is neccesarily Statist. You proved my point.
Me: You obviously have heard nothing of the "Paris Commune" or Anarchist Spain during the Spanish civil war. In truth, one may call themselves whatever they want - this doesn't make it so. A totalitarian "socialist" is a contradiction in terms. The USSR devolved into state-capitalism, esp. Stalin onward.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Now I'm often presented with Spanish "Anarchism" when I make this claim. Now, I'm certainly not on expert in this area, but my understanding is that the farms were collectivized. This collectivization was enforced. How this enforcing power was not the "State" I have never had answered. How is enforcing collectivist ownership of property any different from enforcing individual ownership of property? Further, these groups still identified as Spaniards, meaning the Spain existied.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf You (Y): Now, I'm certainly not on expert in this area, but my understanding is that the farms were collectivized. This collectivization was enforced.
Me (M): Fair question. The answer touches upon why I say anarchism is not simply "anti-state", but is opposed generally to what is essentially problematic about the state - exploitation and unaccountable power. That doesn't just apply to government, but to every sphere of life. Anarchism IS ultimately, an ETHICAL position. (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Firstly, Anarchy is merely anti-state. You can be an Anarchist who hates your boss, but the two are not NECESSARILY related. Further, you seem to have this idea that Capitalism is necessarily exploitative. This is not the case. In fact, in most case it is not even practically exploitative. Further, no power is unaccountable, as history has shown. Even the most Machiavellian Autocrat must practice at least SOME level of restraint, as Machiavelli himself made clear.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: Firstly, Anarchy is merely anti-state.
Me: No, it means "no rulers" - and that has never been simply understood as an attack simply on crowns and nation states. All of that said, these are historical notes - while the first to "raise the black flag" were all socialists of one flavor or another, it is true that now there are others who have taken upon themselves the title and think as you. Honestly, I'm less concerned about the term than the substance of what we each mean. (contd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I know. However that is neither here nor there. The fact is in the absnce of rulers, Capitalism is the default condition. Finally, you seem to be of the impression that I am an Anarchist, Capitalist or otherwise. This is simply not the case. I am what you would call a Clissical Liberal, but what by all rights is today known as a Libertarian.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf You: I'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I knowI'm not sure where you got that translation, but it runs contrary to the limited amount of Greek I know.
Me: "An-Arkhos" (as in "archons" - rulers.) Y'know, I think the simplest thing that could be said is this. "The State" is something we both oppose. HOWEVER, I believe that statism did not come out of a void - it is consequential of other regressive cultural dogmas.(cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
...Further, why is it that I find the state so offensive? If I find privatization of power, kleptocracy, and unaccountability (etc.) THERE to be foul, would it even be coherent to not hold the same standards in all areas of human society? The state is only one (even if the supreme) example of institutional predation.
You: Capitalism is the default condition.
Me: This is incorrect. I think you're confusing commerce/trade of all kinds with "capitalism." (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I am not at all confusing the two. I am associating Capitalism with ownership, possesion, and what you have labeled title. I have shown several time that this is a natural trait of not only humans but animals generally.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
For instance, there are all manner of examples of differing societies having VERY different concepts of what "property" is - how it's acquired, how it's maintained, one's rights of disposition and exclusion over said property, etc. Indeed, in the most primitive societies, scarcely any hard notion of "property" exists at all, with the conceptions that do exist being being along the lines of possession and stewardship - defense of resources is less "dressed up" with such people.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Again, you have falsely accussed me of associating two things that I simply have not tied together. Further, your account of early societies contradicts your earlier idea that it was early man's concept of title that gave birth to the State. You at the same time seem to want to blame early man's innate selfishness for the rise of the State, and deny that inherant selfishness.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf HOWEVER, I will argue that if you simply want to be rid of "state power", you will NOT acquire this for very long accepting the customs and values which gave us "the state" not as some anomaly, but as inevitable consequence. IOW. call yourself what you like, but capitalism (which is not simply trade or EVEN markets) is incompatible with even the anti-statism you solely advocate for. (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
That being said, I will argue the exact opposite. Your ideas work if and only if humans are100% equal and community minded. As far as I can tell, humans are neither, not even close. Again, I do not wish for a State-less society. However a Capitalistic society is the only one that a Stateless society will lead to. It is in human nature to acquire, and your side has never done an adequate job of showing how human nature would be quelched in an Anarchaic society.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf re. "human nature"
I do acknowledge human nature, if we mean descriptive generalities about human beings. However, too much is said of human nature without reference to the environment it responds to. Human avarice is neither unnatural or without cause - it is a survival instinct responding to perceived adversity and scarcity - a reaction which bourgeois culture provokes in people who are not in dire want.
Human nature doesn't need to change - our public discourse does.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
I contend that here you are over estimating just how much influence public discourse has on the individual. While you have correctly identified what you call avarice as a natural human instinct, you seem to think can/would be willing to overcome it. It's a common line amongst collectivists that once people become accquainted with the ideas of collectivism they will be tripping over themselves to achieve it. This contradicts all of human history. Title has always existed.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
You: Further, you seem to have this idea that Capitalism is necessarily exploitative.
Me: It is, by definition. It is much like slavery - there is this idea that the the lot of slaves was undifferentiated throughout history, or even in the American experience. In many periods of history, the slaves of "noble" homes, royals, the rich, etc. enjoyed levels of comfort and influence FAR exceeding that of the commoner.(cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
BUT that's not the problem with slavery, is it? It is the very conception that one may own another, that one may extract the full value of their labor and benefit them as little or as much as they see fit. We are only talking DEGREES when the conversation changes to wage slaves - that we ought to be "employed" and surrender self management, that we don't receive the FULL value of our work - lesser evils, but similar in kind. Some modern "slaves" do better than others - so?
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
We are absolutely agreed on the problems of slavery. However it is not a good analogy. Further my point was that you do in fact recieve the full value of you work. That is why I question your understanding of economics. The reason the laborer does not recieve the full value of the product is because he does not contribute all of the parts that equal the whole. If a laborer uses my capital to produce a car, he is paid proportionately for the ratio that the labor was to the whole.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
In my car analogy, the steel, silicon, leather, plastic, glass, etc. that go into the creation of the product are much, much more valuable than the labor. Therefore the capitalist recieves much, much more wealth (monetary) than the laborer does. There is no difference. The laborer is paid exactly the percentage of the worth of the car that he contributed. Currently, we actually se the laborer recieving a higher percentage. Firms that do so are quickly out of business however.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
You: Further, no power is unaccountable, as history has shown.
Me: You're exactly right. Circumstance and education/awareness will be decisive in the level of said accountability, or whether such institutions will be able to continue to exist. Many say "power to the people" - whereas I think the truth is that the people already have power; they simply lack "consciousness" of any of this, through ignorance and dissipation.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Haha! Finally. An area where we agree 100%.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Further, it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that a belief system that necessitates physical violence is an ethical position.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtkpf
You: Further, it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that a belief system that necessitates physical violence is an ethical position.
Me: Who said violence is "necessary"? However, defending one's life and liberty is entirely natural. That said, what IS "laughable" is the conceit that mutual predation (of which capitalism is a form) is preferable and more constructive than cooperation (socialism, communism, self management, democracy.)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Nearly every Anarchistand every Marxist says that violence is necessary to achieve their desired society. It's interesting that you find what you call " mutual predation," but what actually isn't, is so "laughable." Clearly those who prefer a society with a State and with ownership are in the vast majority. it's a shame that you don't recognize that you are one of the few laughing at the many. Many who find themselves in this condition do so from inside a padded cell.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf
You: Nearly every Anarchistand every Marxist says that violence is necessary to achieve their desired society.
Me: I think violence is not entirely immoral - certainly self defense broadly understood is acceptable. That said, wide spread social change ("revolution") IMHO. can only happen "popularly." How much "violence" such a situation creates would have a lot to do with what the last vestiges of power did in their "last gasp." (cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
Very few people would recognize self-defence as violence. Violence has a connotation linking it to aggresion. Even if it didn't that's what I meant, and it still holds true that nearly every Marxist and Anarchist says that aggression is necessary to achieve thewir desired society.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
You: Clearly those who prefer a society with a State and with ownership are in the vast majority. it's a shame that you don't recognize that you are one of the few laughing at the many.
Me: When has that been a good argument for doing anything? The "majority" and power used to say A LOT of stupid things. Barring shocking cataclysm (the kind that would put us into another "dark age"), we are making social progress, and insofar as we have a future, will so continue.
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
... You're kidding, right? That is your entire argument, and the entire argument behind Democracy. That people should decide how they interact with others, how they interact with the State (if any), and how they interact with capital is the only good argument for acting.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
M: All of that said - most Anarchists are not pacifists. The "enforcement" is resistance, and more importantly, a rejection of the claims of the state's chief beneficiaries to ownership. This is really in the same vain as wondering how it would be consistent with Anarchism for a people to defend themselves against belligerence of any other kind.(cont'd)
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@sgtkpf (cont'd)
Y: How is enforcing collectivist ownership of property any different from enforcing individual ownership of property?
M: Because it is "PRIVATE property", and the notion of "ownership" (where as possession and use are what in fact exist in our relationship to objects) in that way is what is the problem. Those who make capital productive are it's actual possessors (saying "collective OWNERSHIP" is in some wise misleading, insofar as it implies any kind of "title.")
ClosetRadical 1 year ago
@ClosetRadical
The phrase collective ownership is actually pretty accurate, as it is precisely a title. It says that the lnad, property, capital, etc. belongs to the collective and not to any individual who feels he has a right to it. Further, it must be that way because as I have shown here ownership is one of the most natural parts of our animal nature. I refer you back to the bird analogy. The bird who goes out hunting does not physically possess its nest, yet it "owns" it.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
@sgtkpf Hello again,
You: The phrase collective ownership is actually pretty accurate, as it is precisely a title.
Me: The reason I question this, is because more than simply the privatization of ownership, the whole idea of ownership is itself problematic. "Use" -o.k. "Possession" - sure. "Ownership"? What does that even mean? It describes nothing but an assertion. It reeks of theology and kingship.