Political Spectrum
Top Comments
All Comments (64)
-
@newperve it is true that serf has more freedom in choosing their renter. if you like the person renting you, that could be considered stockholm syndrome.
-
@newperve the difference between a slave and a serf is that the owner has more interest in preserving the value/productivity of the slave. a serf is a rented slave. the renter of human labor has no interest in preserving the value/productivity of the serf other than the cost of turnover. the slave owner loses capital if the slave dies. the slave renter loses nothing if the slave dies. if a person is not born with title to land, the person is a serf in a capitalist system.
-
under tribalism, you have another dimension where you have the alpha tribe. feudalism would be considered a sort of consent. tribalism would still have a leader by consent. there is never any guarantee of rights under anarchism because at any time a pack can violate the rights of an individual or another pack. a certain amount of stability will exist out of tradition, being taught things are a certain way and to respect those ways.
-
the weird thing about the brain police diagram is that there is no description for anarchism. that is because it is impossible to have anarchy except when there was only person. once eve was created, there was no longer anarchy in the garden of eden. a social order emerges. i think the best simplication is to say left-wing anarchism is tribalism, or pack dog rule, and right-wing anarchism is feudalism, or alpha dog rule. the center is just a mix of alpha dog and pack dog rule.
-
Politics are polidimensional, we need a polidimensional political spectrum. No linear or planar one will ever represent politics well enought. Nice work tought! Different than the usual...
-
But the State wasn't trying to keep the status quo under Bismarck. In fact it was aggressively changing society with the aim of imperialism.
-
But there clearly was a political revolution and an economic and social one. When was this statement made? Because so far you haven't actually contradicted my claim.
-
Note that none of this contradicts my original point.
-
From "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny," by Alan Bulloch (1962). "It was made perfectly plain to Hitler by the industrialists, on their side, that unless the Party at once repudiated the stand Strasser (Otto Strasser, a Nazi who wanted to stress the "socialism" of Nazism - Hitler had his brother, Gregor, shot) had taken there would be no more subsides." - p. 156. From p. 157: Hitler: "There are no revolutions except racial revolutions; there cannot be political, economic, or social revolutions..."
-
I will quote a few sentences...too long for whole page. Speaking of AH's supporters: "Emil Kirdoff, the union-hating coal baron...Fritz Thyssen, the head of the steel trust, who lived to regret his folly & to write about it in a book called I PAID HITLER, was an even earlier contributor. He met the Nazi leader in '23...made, through Ludendorff, an initial gift of 100,000 gold marks to the then obscure Nazi Party. Joining Thyssen was Albert Voegler, also a power in the United Steel Works.
Why is it that ancaps always ask "will I be coerced?" or some such question when collectivism is mentioned? Anarcho-capitalism has just as much potential to develop into something tyrannical as anarcho-socialism.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago 4
I never understood why time preference was ever considered a strike against LTV.
mutulus 3 years ago